Gay marriage thread

[scottycelt]

Sorry scotty, I just don't buy this 'easy with hindsight' stuff. He could have tried not lying to the media for a start. Even in the absence of a formal complaint it is possible to have a very serious meeting with your CEO and to make very clear your feelings about these allegations, give him a verbal warning, produce a minute and file it. The great dollop does not appear even to have done that. Is he a bad man? I don't know but I do know that he's way out of his depth and shouldn't be trusted with responsibility for an empty brown paper bag ever again.

As for your cheap shot about women and lying, as a mere male I'd advise you, on the basis of recent evidence, to join me in keeping our respective gobs firmly shut on such matters

Oh, amsey, you are a card. You'll be calling Mr Clegg 'evil' shortly.

Shirley Williams of the female gender, I believe, thinks much the same as I do, according to the news this morning, and she might just know a bit more about the matter than most here.

What do you mean a verbal warning? Rennard has been accused of 'inappropriate behaviour' the details of which are somewhat obscure to say the least. Williams refers herself to possible 'exaggeration'. If she is wrong and Rennard is suspected of any real criminal offence then that should be investigated by the police.

Whatever Clegg said about the matter it would have been twisted by the very same media. He knew that only too well but sadly only succeeded in tying himself in knots by constantly changing the official story. Much worse things happen at sea. Clegg's a politician not a saint.

His obvious reluctance to go blabbing to our gleefully mischievous media about such a personal and sensitive matter is perfectly understandable, imv.

[Julien Sorel]

Shirley Williams of the female gender, I believe, thinks much the same as I do, according to the news this morning, and she might just know a bit more about the matter than most here.

Chris Rennard, in my view, is a very fine man, and I think the whole this has been hopelessly exaggerated. Let’s be frank, the bad stuff is basically what’s happened to Savile. It's abusing children, it's abusing very young innocent women, it's using the temptations of celebrity.

"And all that, I completely understand that this is terrible, simply terrible. I don’t think anything that’s been said about our chap is in the same category at all." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-fine-man.html (Has the DTs scrambled what Williams said, or did it come pre-scrambled?)

How does that suggest she knows anything specific about what you call "the matter"? It relates to what has "been said about our chap." Is she saying they were grown up women and should have been able to look after themselves? Why should they have to, in the context of sexual advances, pressure?

[amateur51]

Oh, amsey, you are a card. You'll be calling Mr Clegg 'evil' shortly.

Shirley Williams of the female gender, I believe, thinks much the same as I do, according to the news this morning, and she might just know a bit more about the matter than most here.

What do you mean a verbal warning? Rennard has been accused of 'inappropriate behaviour' the details of which are somewhat obscure to say the least. Williams refers herself to possible 'exaggeration'. If she is wrong and Rennard is suspected of any real criminal offence then that should be investigated by the police.

Whatever Clegg said about the matter it would have been twisted by the very same media. He knew that only too well but sadly only succeeded in tying himself in knots by constantly changing the official story. Much worse things happen at sea. Clegg's a politician not a saint.

His obvious reluctance to go blabbing to our gleefully mischievous media about such a personal and sensitive matter is perfectly understandable, imv.

Is it three times that he's changed his story? The man is a serial blabber and pathetically bad at it cos he's sure each time he's got away with it.

[amateur51]

Chris Rennard, in my view, is a very fine man, and I think the whole this has been hopelessly exaggerated. Let’s be frank, the bad stuff is basically what’s happened to Savile. It's abusing children, it's abusing very young innocent women, it's using the temptations of celebrity.

"And all that, I completely understand that this is terrible, simply terrible. I don’t think anything that’s been said about our chap is in the same category at all." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-fine-man.html (Has the DTs scrambled what Williams said, or did it come pre-scrambled?)

How does that suggest she knows anything specific about what you call "the matter"? It relates to what has "been said about our chap." Is she saying they were grown up women and should have been able to look after themselves? Why should they have to, in the context of sexual advances, pressure?

From what I've read at least one of these women is screwing up her courage to go public in detail very soon. It's the aame thing as the prists who spoke out about O'Brien. They all knew that Rennard and O'brien had the power either to advance their prospects or scupper them and therefore the 'inapparporiate advances' carried a terrible additonal weight.

I think Williams was ill-advised to make the comments she has because although she wanted to distance Rennard from Savile I'd be surprised if she does think that allegedly oppressive sexual advances from a powerful man are small beer.

[Julien Sorel]

From what I've read at least one of these women is screwing up her courage to go public in detail very soon. It's the aame thing as the prists who spoke out about O'Brien. They all knew that Rennard and O'brien had the power either to advance their prospects or scupper them and therefore the 'inapparporiate advances' carried a terrible additonal weight.

I think Williams was ill-advised to make the comments she has because although she wanted to distance Rennard from Savile I'd be surprised if she does think that allegedly oppressive sexual advances from a powerful man are small beer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/27/abuse-only-happen-covered-up

[amateur51]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...pen-covered-up

Many thanks

[Ferretfancy]

I notice that the Pope Emeritus ( ???) has said that the Church has been through "choppy waters " How's that for minimising an enormity ? A little local difficulty no doubt.

[amateur51]

I notice that the Pope Emeritus ( ???) has said that the Church has been through "choppy waters " How's that for minimising an enormity ? A little local difficulty no doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAhDow8GpTA

[Richard Tarleton]

I notice that the Pope Emeritus ( ???) has said that the Church has been through "choppy waters " How's that for minimising an enormity ? A little local difficulty no doubt.

I found the remark that "God was asleep" a most revealing piece of solipsism.

[ahinton]

I found the remark that "God was asleep" a most revealing piece of solipsism.

Yes, but didn't He have an alarm clock?

[ahinton]

I notice that the Pope Emeritus ( ???) has said that the Church has been through "choppy waters " How's that for minimising an enormity ? A little local difficulty no doubt.

Rather as scotty seems to regard it, it seems to me - and along the lines of "much worse things happen at sea" (which he's recently suggested above)...

[ahinton]

Easier said than done, amsey. In any case I'm not exactly sure what Rennard is supposed to have done which might involve the police. It's so easy for some of us spouting-off on a forum about what Clegg should have done or not have done, in glorious hindsight. Such matters are very sensitive and one must tread carefully. Some women do make false/exaggerated accusations. It has been known.

I'm not Clegg's greatest fan, but anyone trying to deal with such a tricky situation has my utmost sympathy.

I might share your sympathy for him had he handled the matter promptly and determinedly in the kind of professional manner that the taxpaying electorate has a right to expect of a party leader and deputy prime minister, which is patently not the case. He is surely not unaware of the Savile cases, the Andrade case and the host of new allegations arising in the wake of it, the O'Brien case to be and no end of other examples, so one would have expected considerably greater vigilance and action from him in such a climate but, instead, all that he's provided is a series of varying sets of weasel words that suggests that he might be prepared to be as economical with the truth as some of those women who "make false/exaggerated allegations" that you've had the unhelpfulness and poor taste to mention above.

[scottycelt]

I notice that the Pope Emeritus ( ???) has said that the Church has been through "choppy waters " How's that for minimising an enormity ? A little local difficulty no doubt.

In the great scheme of things it undoubtedly is, however shameful the 'choppy waters' episode.

If the Catholic Church not only survived but grew strongly following the Reformation and a host of secular revolutions it is hard to see what will actually destroy it.

The oft-predicted imminent Death of Catholicism has always been greatly exaggerated, I'm afraid, Ferret.

[ahinton]

In the great scheme of things it undoubtedly is, however shameful the 'choppy waters' episode.

If the Catholic Church not only survived but grew strongly following the Reformation and a host of secular revolutions it is hard to see what will actually destroy it.

The oft-predicted imminent Death of Catholicism has always been greatly exaggerated, I'm afraid, Ferret.

Whilst I do not predict the "imminent Death of Catholicism", as I made clear earlier, the Church will undoubtedly risk weakening itself immeasurably and irrevocably if it does not have a long, hard, public look at itself in the public gaze with a view to implementing a fundamental overhaul of some of the ways in which it conducts itself; its transgressions, both known and as yet unknown and/or unproven, are of a kind and a gravity that warrants such infrastructural and policy changes which, if they are not seen to occur soon, will risk deterring new members and discouraging increasing numbers of current Catholics, some of whom are already beginning to question the extent of compatibility of certain aspects of their Church's conduct with their own Christian faith.

[Deckerd]

In the great scheme of things it undoubtedly is, however shameful the 'choppy waters' episode.

If the Catholic Church not only survived but grew strongly following the Reformation and a host of secular revolutions it is hard to see what will actually destroy it.

The oft-predicted imminent Death of Catholicism has always been greatly exaggerated, I'm afraid, Ferret.

The person you quoted said nothing about the destruction, or imminent death of Catholicism but was commenting on the astonishingly anodyne language the church officials are using. Why do you quote people without actually addressing what they say?