Lord Rennard

[Serial_Apologist]

The ramifications are multifarious; what do people think? Time to diss a peer?

[MrGongGong]

The ramifications are multifarious; what do people think? Time to diss a peer?

Surely he can do a pathetic sorry song like Cleggers and it will all be ok ?
(Apart from the people he has offended that is !)

House of Lords Peer in Sexism shock ?

No shit Sherlock IMV

[french frank]

Surely he can do a pathetic sorry song like Cleggers and it will all be ok ?

I suspect the reason why the 'discussion' has fallen off here is that people just want to joke or point score, no matter what the topic. It's like trying to discuss while people are blowing kazoos and slide whistles in your face all the time.

[Ferretfancy]

Channel 4 News have been making such a meal out of this story for the last few days that I have felt like hurling things at the set. They did the same thing with the plebgate furore. Both news stories originated with Michael Crick for Channel 4, so they worried it for weeks like a dog with a bone.

I have every sympathy for Rennard's victims, of course he should have apologised, but there has been too much media assumption of moral indignation about the affair.

[MrGongGong]

I suspect the reason why the 'discussion' has fallen off here is that people just want to joke or point score, no matter what the topic. It's like trying to discuss while people are blowing kazoos and slide whistles in your face all the time.

I was referring to Clegg on the Today programme
the LibDems are struggling to try and retain any credibility or sense of ethics and having got into bed with Cameron can't really be trusted at all (neither can any of the others either) ........... Maybe Russell Brand was right? (BLIMEY !!!!!!)
it's sad to see the Liberal Party reduced to this sideshow IMV

[ahinton]

Well, he's now been suspended, like Mr Silvester, albeit for rather different reasons (apart from the party political expediency, that is)...

[french frank]

Channel 4 News have been making such a meal out of this story for the last few days that I have felt like hurling things at the set. They did the same thing with the plebgate furore. Both news stories originated with Michael Crick for Channel 4, so they worried it for weeks like a dog with a bone.

I have every sympathy for Rennard's victims, of course he should have apologised, but there has been too much media assumption of moral indignation about the affair.

Nick Robinson sums it up quite well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25808399

[amateur51]

Oh dear, not that Huhne bloke again?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25814537

NB: I am quite aware that the content of this post is per se strictly off-topic but I think it relates to a wider topic about the Lib-Dems and personal sexuality.

[MrGongGong]

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9070677.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/daily-cartoon20140120.jpg

[Beef Oven!]

I suspect the reason why the 'discussion' has fallen off here is that people just want to joke or point score, no matter what the topic. It's like trying to discuss while people are blowing kazoos and slide whistles in your face all the time.

Indeed.

What is it that has he done? What is the nature of the allegations that have been substantiated against him?

The Liberal Democrats, since 2010, may have behaved in a way that has lost them any credibility, but this man should be judged on what he has done and not his unpopular circumstances (being a peer and a Liberal Democrat).

[ahinton]

Indeed.

What is it that has he done? What is the nature of the allegations that have been substantiated against him?

The Liberal Democrats, since 2010, may have behaved in a way that has lost them any credibility, but this man should be judged on what he has done and not his unpopular circumstances (being a peer and a Liberal Democrat).

I think that, for once, Nick Clegg may have a point (although I'm certainly no fan of his!). What he tried, albeit rather lamely, to put forward yestgerday was that Lord Rennard has no obligation to offer an apology for any civil or criminal offence for which he has not been charged and convicted by a Court but that this fact alone was no reason for him to refuse to apologise to complainants who had accused him of acts whose legality or otherwise had not been put to the test in a Court.

The problem with this is that, were he to have deicded to apologise at all, he should be doing so only to those complainants against which he has actually committed an offence of which they have accused him. At present, he is entitled to be believed if, as he does, he claims to have committed no such offences and, until and unless he is brought to Court by a complainant or complainants and convicted of one or more such offences, any apology that he might nevertheless offer to complainants in the meantime could risk be construed by them as a supercilious gesture towards them on the grounds of its carrying with it the implication "I did it and got away with it, so purely for political expediency's sake I'll offer an apology for it, whether I did it or not" - and I cannot imagine that this would do other than rile the complainants even more than they're riled now.

That said, at least one such complainant appears still to be contemplating legal action against him and, if she decides to proceed and Rennard is accordingly charged and a Court accepts and tries the case and finds him guilty as charged, his brazen arrogance in having refused to apologise to anyone in the meantime will duly be revealed for what it is.

Whatever does or does not happen from here on, however, there can be no question that the entire saga has damaged his political party, although it doesn't seem to me that the damage done to UKIP by the recent Silvester et al débâcle is necessarily of any less import (beyond the obvious fact that, currently, Rennard's party is part of a coalition government whereas Silvester's doesn't even have so much as a single MP in HoC); in any case, as there have been and no doubt will continue to be plenty more cynical smears and genuine accusations of MPs, Lords and others in the Tory and Labour parties, the overall effect is likely to be that the damage limitation exercise becomes self-propelling as a consequence of damage to any one party being largely cancelled out by damage to any other. This will inevitably contribute to the enhancement - or more properly exacerbation - of the already burgeoning public distrust of people in political office, espacially among the younger sector of the electorate.

[Beef Oven!]

I think that, for once, Nick Clegg may have a point (although I'm certainly no fan of his!). What he tried, albeit rather lamely, to put forward yestgerday was that Lord Rennard has no obligation to offer an apology for any civil or criminal offence for which he has not been charged and convicted by a Court but that this fact alone was no reason for him to refuse to apologise to complainants who had accused him of acts whose legality or otherwise had not been put to the test in a Court.

The problem with this is that, were he to have deicded to apologise at all, he should be doing so only to those complainants against which he has actually committed an offence of which they have accused him. At present, he is entitled to be believed if, as he does, he claims to have committed no such offences and, until and unless he is brought to Court by a complainant or complainants and convicted of one or more such offences, any apology that he might nevertheless offer to complainants in the meantime could risk be construed by them as a supercilious gesture towards them on the grounds of its carrying with it the implication "I did it and got away with it, so purely for political expediency's sake I'll offer an apology for it, whether I did it or not" - and I cannot imagine that this would do other than rile the complainants even more than they're riled now.

That said, at least one such complainant appears still to be contemplating legal action against him and, if she decides to proceed and Rennard is accordingly charged and a Court accepts and tries the case and finds him guilty as charged, his brazen arrogance in having refused to apologise to anyone in the meantime will duly be revealed for what it is.

Whatever does or does not happen from here on, however, there can be no question that the entire saga has damaged his political party, although it doesn't seem to me that the damage done to UKIP by the recent Silvester et al débâcle is necessarily of any less import (beyond the obvious fact that, currently, Rennard's party is part of a coalition government whereas Silvester's doesn't even have so much as a single MP in HoC); in any case, as there have been and no doubt will continue to be plenty more cynical smears and genuine accusations of MPs, Lords and others in the Tory and Labour parties, the overall effect is likely to be that the damage limitation exercise becomes self-propelling as a consequence of damage to any one party being largely cancelled out by damage to any other. This will inevitably contribute to the enhancement - or more properly exacerbation - of the already burgeoning public distrust of people in political office, espacially among the younger sector of the electorate.

Let's keep talking about UKIP!!!!!

[french frank]

What is the nature of the allegations that have been substantiated against him?

Certainly, nothing has been substantiated, and the legal advice was that it was unlikely that anything could be substantiated: the allegations were 'credible' which falls short of the strength of evidence needed to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' or even, on the balance of probability, completely true. And that is surely where the difficulty lies when the accused denies any such offence.

All the party can do is say, 'Well, we believe them, so apologise or step down.'

I can't remember the very earliest allegations, when the matter first surfaced, but the only offence that seems to be mentioned now is 'sexual harassment' which has an importance in employment terms, and by the fact of the powerful position the accused held vis-à-vis his accusers. But, according to Wikipedia, this has only been taken seriously in the UK over the past two decades. There was a time when men/bosses felt that they didn't have to keep their hands to themselves when it came to women employees. And they would probably still think that, if legislation had not been introduced.

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.

[Beef Oven!]

Certainly, nothing has been substantiated, and the legal advice was that it was unlikely that anything could be substantiated: the allegations were 'credible' which falls short of the strength of evidence needed to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' or even, on the balance of probability, completely true. And that is surely where the difficulty lies when the accused denies any such offence.

All the party can do is say, 'Well, we believe them, so apologise or step down.'

I can't remember the very earliest allegations, when the matter first surfaced, but the only offence that seems to be mentioned now is 'sexual harassment' which has an importance in employment terms, and by the fact of the powerful position the accused held vis-à-vis his accusers. But, according to Wikipedia, this has only been taken seriously in the UK over the past two decades. There was a time when men/bosses felt that they didn't have to keep their hands to themselves when it came to women employees. And they would probably still think that, if legislation had not been introduced.

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.

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

[ahinton]

Let's keep talking about UKIP!!!!!

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!)...