Absolutely correct, for something to constitute bullying or harassment, it has to involved repeated behaviour. If the behaviour is not repeated, it's not bullying or harassment.
If something is a one off, it may well be offensive, insulting or inappropriate, but it's not bullying or harassment.
No doubt some on this thread will term this a mere technicality and continue.
In fact, I strongly doubt that anyone would be sacked on the basis of one inappropriate text message, particularly when they' apologised almost immediately and the recipient of the message had accepted the apology and moved on. In any unionised workplace, the employer would find themselves defending an unfair dismissal case before Fair Work Aust.
QH. Yes, the masses are calling for blood.
But the fact is his defenders are portraying it as, poor old Kurtley being picked on because he's unpopular.
When this is in fact not the case.
People are unhappy because a player with a track record of repeated infringements, who was already supposedly on his last chance, has been yes again slapped on the wrist on the dubious basis that one text was supposedly less offensive than the other.
Kurtley is unpopular with many, not because they just don't like the look of him. He's unpopular because he has a history of poor, disruptive behaviour off the field, and lacking professionalism in his attitude at times.
Many thought he should have been dealt with by the ARU when he failed to adhere to the strict guidelines put in place by the Melbourne rebels after assaulting his captain when intoxicated whilst recovering from injury.
These incidents do not occur in a vacuum. On the basis of the sole text as the only blemish on a career, surely it would be unfair to end a player's career over it if he had been very contrite and there was adequate punishment. This is not the case.
All we know that his behaviour will only be maintained for a short period, much like his form, and his work ethic that ensures his performance. We know this because that's how his whole career has gone.
Then there's the fact that Beale is just not good enough a player to compromise your integrity over. At his best he is a fullback that is weak under the high ball, a 12 that is weak in the tackle and contact, or a 10 that lacks the organisation and vision. And that's at his best.