How do you tell if someone's behaviour has actually crossed a line?

Context is everything. I look at whether the behaviour causes genuine harm or simply makes us uncomfortable. Discomfort is not the same as damage, and disagreement is not the same as abuse. The distinction matters because it shapes whether we respond with boundaries, conversation or something more formal. What kind of situation are you trying to work through?

Why does it matter if behaviour is just annoying versus actually unacceptable?

Because how we respond changes everything. If we treat every difficult interaction as unacceptable, we lose the ability to have hard conversations at all. But if we dismiss genuine harm as mere disagreement, we fail people who need protection. The line between the two is not always obvious, and getting it wrong in either direction has real consequences. Does this distinction feel clear to you, or is there a specific case you are thinking about?

Linehan v Brooks: where does unacceptable conduct begin?

Substack 21 December 2025

Webberley on Linehan v Brooks: beyond the behaviour

The question of where we draw the line between behaviour that is truly unacceptable and behaviour that is merely unattractive, annoying, or irritating is one I am asked about regularly. It matters because the distinction shapes how we respond, both individually and collectively, and in the Linehan v Brooks case that question sits right at the centre.

The question of where we draw the line between behaviour that is truly unacceptable and behaviour that is merely unattractive, annoying or irritating is one I'm asked about regularly. It matters because the distinction shapes how we respond, both individually and collectively.

In looking at the Linehan v Brooks case, I've considered what actually constitutes unacceptable conduct in professional and public contexts, and where discomfort or disagreement sits in relation to genuine harm. The answer is not always straightforward, and context matters enormously.

Read the full piece to explore my thoughts on this distinction and what it means for how we engage with difficult conversations.

In response to: Dr Webberley Responds: Linehan v Brooks 📲 (Substack)