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

[Scarletohello]

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...!!

Because sexual harassment is excused and minimised by society, workplaces and organisations? And brushed under the carpet because it's 'awkward' for a political party to deal with.

Wouldn't be the first time. SWP?

Plus, is there any proven reason they would have to discredit him?

SuzanneUK Have you not read the new Defamation Act that came into force a couple of weeks ago?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted

Honest opinion is now a complete defence to defamation. As is the publication being in the public interest. Also, the complainant has to show serious financial harm in order to sue.

It is now almost impossible for the wealthy and powerful to stifle honest criticism and fair comment by hiding behind libel laws. Also, the secondary publisher (MN) is not liable for what is said on its website forum any more (section 5) so you can stop worrying about Justine < shy wave to Justine :-) >

We've had two posts at least saying the women would make it up to discredit him - I wish the posters would explain why they would want to do this? On the balance of probabilities ( at least) and given the way women who make allegations like this are treated, the best explanation is that they said it because it happened. I watched C4 news last night as well and found the two women very credible but as for Carlisle.....

And gosh I'm really really scared about being sued by that pathetic excuse for a man

Of course couldn't judge Rennard's credibility because he wouldn't appear on the programme - says it all

I

I

Not sure what happened there!

I will never vote lib dem again after this. I see no reason why this group of women would risk their credibity and careers to conspire to ruin this man. The lib dems have fine nothing to shire they abhor these allegations and take them seriously - Nick Clegg even said he'd heard rumours but dudn't seek to act on them. I'm disgusted.

ProfPlum Thank you for that. Hopefully now we can stop these idle threats that get bandied about on so many particular threads. Threats that do nothing to help anyone who is using this site with the correct intention.

Have you not read the new Defamation Act that came into force a couple of weeks ago?

Oh, the irony!

Yes, I've read it and my advice still stands: despite the new act's giving us all greater freedom to defame each other free of charge, both Mumsnetters in general and Justine in particular (I assume she's the website operator) remain in significant danger of attracting a very costly legal action if defamatory material is published here.

Let me make it clear that I haven't jumped in here to protect Lord Rennard: I've jumped in to protect Mumsnetters and Justine.

Well, if an MP can out posters publicly on here as well as the names of children protected by a Court Order without even getting a rap on the knuckles, I don't think saying someone is a nasty man is going to do much.

If it were the case Suzanne, do you not think all of the celebs who get a bashing would be trawling MN and other similar sites to get some extra dosh?

Let be be clear: it is not libelous to say someone is a nasty man. Indeed, it's not libelous to hurl any amount of common abuse at someone.

The danger lies in damaging somebody's reputation.

If I say John Smith is a complete and utter effing bastard and the most loathsome creature God ever created, that's not libelous.

However, if I say he's a thief (and I can't prove it's true), that's libelous.

The fact of the matter is that most people (celebs included) will not sue for libel because it's an expensive and time-consuming business and being 'slagged off' on the Internet is all part and parcel of being a celeb.

In 999 cases out of 1000, you'll get way with it.

The real danger arises when you saying something highly damaging about someone who has both the funds and the will to pursue you and, in the current social and legal climates, sexual misconduct is (almost) the worst thing you can accuse anybody of.

A number of people defamed Lord McAlpine and lived to regret it.

The good thing about politicians is that they are all obsessed by votes. If enough people contact them and say they won't vote for them while he is in the party then they'll kick him out in minutes.

And I agree with Suzanne. We do need to be careful here.

(Quite happy to discuss my voting background with anyone who is interested. My husband hates politics so it would be nice to have an audience who actually listens.)

I think tweeting that Lord McAlpine was a paedophile is slightly different from ruminating on the Internet the rights and wrongs of what is effectively a 'not proven' result in what was a work tribunal rather than a criminal trial.

I also disagree that sexual misconduct is currently the worst thing you can accuse anyone of. That again is being a paedophile.
I think the current climate remind remarkably [meh] about men making unwanted advances at women.

Mumoftwoyoungkids Thank you for cheering me up - certainly laughed here at your post. I think you must know that hundreds of people have contacted Lib Dem leaders to complain about JH, and it has been very clear nothing is going to be done about him.
Either you are very naive or were being sarcastic. I hope the latter.

The only reason we 'need to be careful' is because of someones (apparently fragile) ego on a site that is meant to be about open discussion.

What made me most angry about Lord Carlisle this morning on the Today programme was his total, chosen, blindness to the idea that the women who made the allegations against Rennard did so with complete honesty and with a different, less distorted, conception than Rennard's of what counts as unwanted and harassing attention. He was determinedly, proudly unwilling to adopt any kind of critical attitude to conceptions of appropriate and inappropriate behaviour which have been written up by privileged men, for women to accept or get the fuck out of the corridors of power (or the small cloakroom just off the corridors of power that the LibDems occupy).

He couldn't have been more unappealing to women, more destructive of any shred of hope that his party might participate in any project of making politics more fairly accessible to women.

Hey, they can even sue us mere women here for daring to say we think there may be more to the story because they have managed to avoid a full trial...

Victim-blaming attitude in police constabulary is rampant

My heart goes to all those women who were sexually harassed by that twat and their peers don't even think it would be right to apologise.

What to say? I am glad that a few posters here showed there was reasonable doubt this guy could be guilty but..guess what.. He is now free.

No surprise there. Rapists and molesters are not guilty in the 85% of cases. SHAME ON THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT to allow this! Then they speak about India.. Please

I'd love to know, if the women are simply out to discredit him, how they managed to get the evidence (that Carlisle acknowledges does existthere just isnt enough of it)?

Do you have any thoughts on that, suzanne?

Pagwatch is right on this. This situation has almost nothing in common with the McAlpine situation.

In the words of the QC, Alistair Webster, who carried out the investigation:

Let me be clear from the outset that the evidence suggests that Lord Rennard’s behaviour has caused distress to a number of women, so much so that they came forward several years after the events in question.

I stress that I am not finding that the evidence of the complainants was unreliable. I have specifically discounted suggestions made during the investigation that the incidents had been invented as part of a political campaign against Lord Rennard.

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.

I am nothing, no LibDem, no Tory or Labour or UKIP... but be sure that once I will get to the ballot box, LibDem vote will never be there..

First Hemming who's an abuse apologist, then Rennard who's been excused for sexual harrassment... Woah LibDem has more scum inside the party then the whole Parliament put together. Congrats!