Lord Rennard

[jean]

The Lib Dems' QC seemed to me to have it right: Rennard should recognise that the evidence points to the fact that, intentionally or unintentionally (it doesn't matter which) he gave/might have given offence to a number of women and to have considerably upset them. For that, he should apologise -unless he is able to prove that he has never met any of the women accusing him. If he had done that, and considered his position from there, he would have saved a lot of women, and his party, a lot of public discomfort.

I think every woman knows that she may experience as sexual harassment what the man concerned thinks of as harmless banter.

Even the mealy-mouthed sorry if you were offended would have been better than nothing.

[ahinton]

If the accusations were 'credible', and I assume they were, it leaves us between a rock and a hard place.

Assuming "us" not to include victims or alleged victims of Rennard's alleged wrongdoing, I don't really see how it leaves "us" anywhere, since it is not up to "us" either to prosecute him or to have him removed from the position that he held in his party until suspended from it yesterday; frankly, much the same would apply if the accusations were not credible, at least to the extent that any outcome would still be the responsibility of the judiciary in deciding Rennard's fate under the law and of the Liberal Democrat party for deciding on his future position within it - in other words, not "ours".

[ahinton]

I think every woman knows that she may experience as sexual harassment what the man concerned thinks of as harmless banter.

That much is certainly true - or at least there are ample illustrations to demonstrate that it can be and often is the case.

Even the mealy-mouthed sorry if you were offended would have been better than nothing.

It might indeed, yet - as I have suggested above - it might just as easily risk being taken as inflammatory and/or patronising on the grounds of its evident insincerity; furthermore, an apology given by someone of his/her own volition and one given on the recommendation of his party for the sake of political expediency are hardly synonymous!

[Beef Oven!]

Why? Or at least why here? I mentioned it en passant in the context of damage being done, or perceived as being done, to political parties on the grounds that there are ample examples of events recent and not so recent wherein all parties have been subject to some damage or other; UKIP is therefore an object in that context, not the subject (at least until and unless Rennarad either damages or removes damage from his current party by defecting thereto!)...

When now? Where now? You seem to have a proclivity for a touch of the en passants. But I must have said this before, since I say it now...keep on, keep going.

[Beef Oven!]

Assuming "us" not to include victims or alleged victims of Rennard's alleged wrongdoing, I don't really see how it leaves "us" anywhere, since it is not up to "us" either to prosecute him or to have him removed from the position that he held in his party until suspended from it yesterday; frankly, much the same would apply if the accusations were not credible, at least to the extent that any outcome would still be the responsibility of the judiciary in deciding Rennard's fate under the law and of the Liberal Democrat party for deciding on his future position within it - in other words, not "ours".

Between a 'no smoke without fire' and a prosecution in a court of law. Neither of which will do, if one uses ff's excellent summary as the basis. Geddit?

[ahinton]

Between a 'no smoke without fire' and a prosecution in a court of law. Neither of which will do, if one uses ff's excellent summary as the basis. Geddit?

I "got" that in the first place; my point, however, is that it doesn't actually "leave" me anywhere because I had and have no control over it or its outcomes and I am neither Lord Rennard nor one of his alleged victims, if any (as would the judiciary were a case brought to Court and the party if it chose to act as it did in suspending Rennard yesterday). The party has to act if it deems it wise to do so - and it has; a Court can do nothing unless charges are pressed and it agrees to try a case based upon them. I can, of course, have and express opinions on it if so I choose, as can anyone else if so they choose, but I can't affect any outcomes of it nor be affected by any such alleged actions.

[Beef Oven!]

I "got" that in the first place; my point, however, is that it doesn't actually "leave" me anywhere because I had and have no control over it or its outcomes and I am neither Lord Rennard nor one of his alleged victims, if any (as would the judiciary were a case brought to Court and the party if it chose to act as it did in suspending Rennard yesterday). The party has to act if it deems it wise to do so - and it has; a Court can do nothing unless charges are pressed and it agrees to try a case based upon them. I can, of course, have and express opinions on it if so I choose, as can anyone else if so they choose, but I can't affect any outcomes of it nor be affected by any such alleged actions.

Do you get problems when you go shopping?

[ahinton]

You seem to have a proclivity for a touch of the en passants

Not especially, no; I cited that organisation and its recent affaire Silvester as an illustration of a party official damaging his party or wilfully taking the risk of exposing it to actual or potential damage - no more, no less.

But I must have said this before, since I say it now...keep on, keep going.

"Where now"? - to quote your post above? Since there's no more for me to say in the present context on the matter of party officials damaging their parties' reputations, I cannot see that there's anywhere to go or on which to keep going!

[ahinton]

Do you get problems when you go shopping?

Since you ask, no, except when, as yesterday and today, technical problems arise with Waitrose's groceries website, although I cannot for the life of me imagine quite what the act of shopping, whether online or otherwise, has to do with Lord Rennard, what he may or may not have done to whom, whether he might be charged and prosecuted for anything that he may be alleged to have done, what damage his conduct may or may not have done to his party or what I think about any of thos things.

[french frank]

It might indeed, yet - as I have suggested above - it might just as easily risk being taken as inflammatory and/or patronising on the grounds of its evident insincerity; furthermore, an apology given by someone of his/her own volition and one given on the recommendation of his party for the sake of political expediency are hardly synonymous!

The ideal would have been the behind-the-scenes organisation of an apology (recognising that the publicity was in the first place necessary to bring the accusations to light). Above all, it would have - and does - need the recognition by Rennard that, factually, he did cause offence, inadvertently or not. Even a private apology would have been humiliating, but in the circumstances, it was the least he could do. He wasn't up to it.

Unfortunately his behaviour, and the party's less than efficient way of dealing with it, provide a couple of sticks with which to beat the party politically ('That Nick Clegg ...&c', 'Those Lib Dems...') which some can't resist using.

[ahinton]

The ideal would have been the behind-the-scenes organisation of an apology (recognising that the publicity was in the first place necessary to bring the accusations to light). Above all, it would have - and does - need the recognition by Rennard that, factually, he did cause offence, inadvertently or not. Even a private apology would have been humiliating, but in the circumstances, it was the least he could do. He wasn't up to it.

Unfortunately his behaviour, and the party's less than efficient way of dealing with it, provide a couple of sticks with which to beat the party politically ('That Nick Clegg ...&c', 'Those Lib Dems...') which some can't resist using.

I agree that this is not ultimately a party political affair, even if only to the extent that there's almost always someone within any political party that is damaging or risks damaging their party; it will, however, be intersting to see what happens if indeed any cases are brought successfully to Court.

[french frank]

Joan Bakewell on the historical perspective on male sexism.

[jean]

And she should know!

[ahinton]

And she should know!

Perhaps she should - and indeed no doubt she does - but although "Lord Rennard scandal: It was 'just what men did' in my day – but that's not the case these days" is all very well, Joan Bakewell is now aged 80 whereas Lord Rennard is but 53, so oughtn't it to be a reasonable assumption that the latter's grown up and lived almost entirely in the "not the case these days" environment? You wouldn't think so from certain assumptions about aspects of his alleged behaviour towards women!

[french frank]

It does seem like the whole running coalition argument, writ lurid. Knives are being sharpened by both sides and Cleggy gets it in the ribs whatever he does (or doesn't do).