Lord Rennard

[ahinton]

He may find his ribs sliced, along with those of his party, if this proceeds - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25820928

That said, if Bridget Harris decides to instigate separate legal action against Lord Rennard, yet more rib slicing might be on the cards, especially if her doing so encourages other alleged victims also to come forward and litigate.

It'll be good business for knife salespeople as well as lawyers, methinks (mid you, it's almost always good business for lawyers)...

[french frank]

There has, of course, already been a police investigation which was dropped 'for lack of evidence'. So the litigants better have a bit of money stashed away ... I'm sure Mr Carlile's fees are quite pricey.

[MrGongGong]

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).

Pardon me but it (the whole coalition thing not Lord R) really IS his fault.
I know you Lib Dems think some things are old arguments and we should "move on"
BUT he betrayed his promises and can't be trusted
He formed an alliance with those who will damage the most vulnerable
And his pathetic "sorry" really wont do

Its all a bit of a mess that will play into the hands of some rather unsavoury characters indeed.

[french frank]

"So wise, so young ..."

[MrGongGong]

"So wise, so young ..."

If only I was either ;-)

A man says to the genie with a wish that he has always wanted his dog to win Crufts. The genie takes a look at the dog and responds but the dog has a limp, it's hair is falling out, it has fleas and it's eyes are closing over. So he says to the man that even he could not get this dog to win at Crufts. Could the man be reasonable and ask for another wish?

The man thinks for a moment then says o.k. I have another another wish. He wanted to meet a Lib/Dem MP who had a spine, stood by their principles, was honest and would crawl to no one no matter their status.

The genie immediately responds by asking the man to have another look at his dog.

[ahinton]

There has, of course, already been a police investigation which was dropped 'for lack of evidence'. So the litigants better have a bit of money stashed away ... I'm sure Mr Carlile's fees are quite pricey.

Indeed - but crowd funding's not just for concerts, recordings and the like! This 'lack of evidence' might in any case be down in part to the lack of alleged victims having come forward and some of them just might do just that now that the débâcle has progressed to its current stage; after all, a raft of alleged and actual victims have come forward following the exposure of alleged and actual conduct over many years at certain specialist music education institutions and, as a consequence, a campaign has now been up and running for some months for a full public inquiry into this and, whilst the two situations are far from identical, the common factor between them has been the reluctance of alleged witnesses and victims to come forward with their experiences for perhaps not entirely dissimilar reasons.

[french frank]

Plenty of flak, but no one has yet come up with a suggestion of what should have been done which did not violate natural justice for those on either side.

Victims should, if they feel some illegal activity has occurred, properly go to the police who have the expertise to investigate properly (they did - they found no grounds for continuing). That does not preclude them 'going public' to bring any similar cases to light.

As far as the party is concerned, Rennard was tackled about the complaints at the time, and denied them. An internal investigation found the accusations 'credible' but (as with the police investigation) not strong enough to support a case against him. He has had the Whip taken from him in the Lords; his membership has now been suspended. Both sides are threatening legal action, with the party in the middle.

Mr GongGong may be hugly enjoying it for political reasons, but perhaps he would explain what should have been done.

[ahinton]

Plenty of flak, but no one has yet come up with a suggestion of what should have been done which did not violate natural justice for those on either side.

I do not presume to speak for anyone else, but as to what "should have been done", all that could have been and may yet be done in terms of people who might believe themselves to be victims of Rennard's misconduct or questionable conduct is that they come forward with their allegations and, so far, I don't think that many of them have; whether any more will now think to try this remains to be seen.

Victims should, if they feel some illegal activity has occurred, properly go to the police who have the expertise to investigate properly (they did - they found no grounds for continuing). That does not preclude them 'going public' to bring any similar cases to light.

All true -and, as I wrote, perhaps such 'going public' might indeed lead to such a result or, indeed, others might come forward of their own volition regardlss of any such 'going public'.

As far as the party is concerned, Rennard was tackled about the complaints at the time, and denied them. An internal investigation found the accusations 'credible' but (as with the police investigation) not strong enough to support a case against him.

I think that this is in all probability why - wiesly or otherwise - he was asked to apologise even though no litigation was thought to have prospects of success.

He has had the Whip taken from him in the Lords; his membership has now been suspended. Both sides are threatening legal action, with the party in the middle.

Indeed - we ain't heard the last of this one yet, that's for sure.

Mr GongGong may be hugly enjoying it for political reasons, but perhaps he would explain what should have been done.

Well, I'm not enjoying it at all (despite being neither a LibDem or a friend of Rennard) and, rather than "explain" what I think should have been done, I'm content to await what will yet be done, whatever it may be...

[french frank]

Well, I'm not enjoying it at all (despite being neither a LibDem or a friend of Rennard) and, rather than "explain" what I think should have been done, I'm content to await what will yet be done, whatever it may be...

Then - not addressing you - those who feel that the party has reacted inadequately, or 'let women down', should suggest what else should have been done.

It's a genuine query - I honestly can't see what could be done.

[ahinton]

Then - not addressing you - those who feel that the party has reacted inadequately, or 'let women down', should suggest what else should have been done.

It's a genuine query - I honestly can't see what could be done.

I'm not so sure what could have been done other than what has so far been done unless, of course, there is any cause for suspicion that the party might have leant on the police to find no legal case to answer, which I am not for one moment suggesting (since I am unqualified to do so) but which, in theory at least, is not entirely impossible, especially given that the stakes for the party would have been high then and might get higher still now if Rennard does indeed sue; as to the women themselves, I cannot see that the party itself has specifically let any of them down per se, given that it has publicly recommended that Rennard provide an apology to them and, in the absence of one, suspended him - unless, of course, it has indeed been guilty of corrupt practice in leaning on the police.

[amateur51]

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.

He wasn't up to it? Or he knows that he doesn't have to? It does feel to me like bullying behaviour on Rennard's part, with the carefully laid 'self-harm' defence lying in wait should his strategy go wrong.

Clegg's position as leader is such that he must be vulnerable before the Summer arrives, a year before the next General Election. Rennard has experience as a kingmaker for the LibDems and perhaps he's trying to lever Clegg out in favour of a less damaged leader?

[aeolium]

Then - not addressing you - those who feel that the party has reacted inadequately, or 'let women down', should suggest what else should have been done.

Surely the claims should have been properly investigated at the time they were first made. An independent report by Helena Morrissey concluded in June 2013 that Clegg should have acted to instigate an independent inquiry into the Rennard allegations in 2008*. Wouldn't that have at least provided an opportunity for an early resolution? Part of the sense of grievance of the four women involved must lie in frustration at the delay in action being taken by the party.

It doesn't help that the Liberal Democrat party - or more accurately its predecessor party the Liberals - has previous form in respect of inaction (and possibly outright concealment) over sexual abuse allegations.

I agree that the situation now has become one which is disastrous for the Libdems whatever action is taken by the leadership, which is now reliant on the willingness of the various parties to compromise. But it is at least possible that had prompt action been taken much earlier the current debacle may not have arisen.

*Here is an article commenting on the Morrissey report.

[amateur51]

He wasn't up to it? Or he knows that he doesn't have to? It does feel to me like bullying behaviour on Rennard's part, with the carefully laid 'self-harm' defence lying in wait should his strategy go wrong.

Clegg's position as leader is such that he must be vulnerable before the Summer arrives, a year before the next General Election. Rennard has experience as a kingmaker for the LibDems and perhaps he's trying to lever Clegg out in favour of a less damaged leader?

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).

I'd not read this when I wrote - I agree with this assessment as above.

[french frank]

Surely the claims should have been properly investigated at the time they were first made. An independent report by Helena Morrissey concluded in June 2013 that Clegg should have acted to instigate an independent inquiry into the Rennard allegations in 2008*. Wouldn't that have at least provided an opportunity for an early resolution?

Yes, no doubt. But that would only have been, I think, better for the party. It would still have ended with the accused denying everything and the various investigations saying stronger evidence was needed to pursue the matter. And Rennard ceased to be Chief Executive in 2009, which suggests that sufficient pressure was put on him. If he had subsequently been nominated for a peerage, that would have been questionable, but he'd been a peer for ten years by then.

But yes, the whole matter might have blown over by now - but not necessarily more satisfactorily.

[jean]

Here's Polly Toynbee in yesterday's Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/21/lord-rennard-why-sexual-harassment-matters

There were letters today, but I can't find them online.