Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be really pissed off at the Lib Dem party re sexual abuse?

136 replies

Scarletohello · 15/01/2014 20:03

So Lord Carlisle was being interviewed on C 4 news tonight about the other guy ( can't remember his name) who was accused if sexually assaulting 4 women and not only is he being allowed back in the party, he doesn't even have to apologise to the women he allegedly sexually assaulted. And why should he? Said Lord Carlisle. It's just one fuckwit entitled male standing up for another one! He gave me the creeps, couldn't even look at the camera! Did anyone else see this?? Am just so angry! The news is full of sexual abuse cases today, and most of them get away with it ( unless they are an ethnic minority, in a gang etc)

Sorry for the rant but just pissed off...!!

OP posts:
SuzanneUK · 15/01/2014 20:21

I think Lord Rennard is the guy you're talking about.

He was accused of sexually harassing a number of women but has been cleared on all charges.

It's so annoying, isn't it, when people are found not guilty of offences we have a sneaky feeling they might actually be guilty of?

The message from the independent review to the women complainants appears to be a resounding 'We don't believe you'.

Annoying indeed, but what can you do?

caroldecker · 15/01/2014 20:42

Maybe he is innocent?

SuzanneUK · 15/01/2014 20:56

Maybe he is innocent?

You're not going to make many friends here with suggestions like that. ;)

Pleasetryan0ther · 15/01/2014 20:58

So the police and and an internal party find no case to answer, but hey, you've got "a sneaky feeling" he's guilty? For fucks sake.

magoria · 15/01/2014 21:01

Not a lot anyone can do if he is found not guilty. Unless there is a chance of protesting the decision and forcing a retrial for some reason as far as anyone is concerned he has been cleared.

Of course he may well be. There have been plenty of cases of guilty people being found not guilty and innocent people being found guilty.

It is wrong to treat someone as guilty and ban them from doing things or making them apologise when they have been found not guilty though.

lollerskates · 15/01/2014 21:04

I agree with you OP.

Pleasetryan0ther · 15/01/2014 21:07

Why shouldn't an innocent man be allowed to get on with his life?

Sixweekstowait · 15/01/2014 21:12

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Sixweekstowait · 15/01/2014 21:13

And on the balance of probabilities there is every reason why he would

Pleasetryan0ther · 15/01/2014 21:18

Chris Rennard is a good man and a good friend of mine. There are lots of reasons why a handful of women might hold a grudge against him, it's the nature of politics, unfortunately.

Lioninthesun · 15/01/2014 21:18

I think the whole party seems decidedly dodgey. Ever since being tuned into JH on another thread, everything I read and see about them tells me they are a nasty bunch. I voted for them last time too Sad. I emailed Farron about JH and heard nothing. They are doing nothing about him still.
They obviously think he is a fine figurehead to be in the media, which is very worrying indeed.
It sadly therefore doesn't surprise me that others in the party get no reproach for being nasty human beings and making it very public.

Sixweekstowait · 15/01/2014 21:23

Please - please explain why

MinesAPintOfTea · 15/01/2014 21:24

The thing is that if we accept rule of law and formal trials, we can't go on treating someone as guilty when they are found not guilty. Even when the accusations are abhorrent its necessary if we are to not live with anyone ever accused of a crime being utterly cast out of society.

Lioninthesun · 15/01/2014 21:28

Can we at least put JH in Court then, for breaking the Court Order on here?

Sixweekstowait · 15/01/2014 21:30

He wasn't found not guilty - my point is that the stupid lds use a standard if proof that applies in the criminal not civil world

Sixweekstowait · 15/01/2014 21:31

It wasn't the rule of law or a formal trial ffs

Lioninthesun · 15/01/2014 21:34

So the police and and an internal party find no case to answer
Agree with Bourdic here - this is yet another example of MP's not having to face the music as us mere mortals would.

FudgefaceMcZ · 15/01/2014 21:34

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/15/lord-rennard-lib-dems-no-action-sex-pest-complaints

^"It is my view that Lord Rennard ought to reflect upon the effect that his behaviour has had and the distress which it caused and that an apology would be appropriate, as would a commitment to change his behaviour in future," he added.

The lawyer stressed that he was not finding that the evidence of the complainants was unreliable, and said the evidence suggested Rennard's behaviour had caused distress to a number of women. He also discounted suggestions made during the investigation that the incidents had been invented as part of a political campaign against Rennard.^

Is what the QC investigating actually said. He's not been found 'not guilty'- it hasn't been to an actual court. Rennard is a slimy bastard, and the lib dems are on a handcart to hell as well as out of power next election anyway so who cares about their pathetic little party, really.

FudgefaceMcZ · 15/01/2014 21:35

Fucks sake mumsnet, my italics.

Lioninthesun · 15/01/2014 21:41

Yup. They have lost all credibility amongst everyone I know. To think I tried to defend them re the uni fees fiasco and said the Tories had made them do it at the off to garner public opinion. That is all small potatoes now with all of the ongoing revelations and lack of anyone being justly punished or held accountable. Disgusting.

Jux · 15/01/2014 21:43

I used to work with several LD party members, some quite high profile and also quite high up in the party - this was in the Ashdown, and then Kennedy, days. I knew a lot of party workers, MPs and wannabe-MPs. They were, for the most part, far more honest and trustworthy than their equivalents in other parties. The Labour lot were particularly hypocritical and dishonest I'm afraid. Not that the Tories were much better.

I am sad that LD party seems to have lost so much of its principle. As they say, power corrupts. Also, no matter who you vote for, the Government gets in.

Lioninthesun · 15/01/2014 21:45

I don't think it is just power though Jux. These two men have been acting terribly for decades and haven't been asked to leave. No hair turned. Makes you see what is at the heart of a party when they ignore it time and time again. All I would say is that it has highlighted it further now they are in power and still refuse to chuck the rotten apples.

SuzanneUK · 15/01/2014 21:46

As ever, it's the rich what gets the pleasure: it's the poor what gets the blame.

Lioninthesun · 15/01/2014 21:52

How, erm, inspiring Hmm

ProfPlumSpeaking · 15/01/2014 21:54

The LibDems will have to deal with this better or they will lose at least half their voters and half their party members. Rennard has not been "declared innocent" by any means. It's all very well giving the benefit of all other than unreasonable doubt to him, but what about according that same privilege to the 4 complainants? They have been judged "credible" by an independent top QC after all, and yet they have had no justice.

Bridget Harris was brilliant on Ch4 news, pointing out that the LibDems can make up their own rules and they can, in a heartbeat, kick Rennard out if they decide to. If they don't , she said she has no tribal loyalty to the LibDems and will vote with her feet. All women (and men) should do the same if they believe the victims (as did the QC). I doubt Rennard will last in the party beyond tomorrow lunchtime.

As Bridget Harris also said: "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is a good test if you are taking away someone's liberty, but is ridiculous when you are talking about merely taking away someone's party membership.