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...!!

Why are you willing to assume Rennard is telling the truth unless proved otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, but not prepared to believe the women on the same basis?

The question assumes that I am willing to assume Rennard is telling the truth unless proved otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, but that I'm not prepared to believe the women on the same basis.

Your interpretation of my previous postings therefore seems more than a little skewed.

Please refer me (and others) to a posting in which I have suggested the women's testimonies are less reliable than Rennard's

It's 1 pm and I'll now be away for an hour or so.

Please don't interpret my absence as anything other than a lunch break.

P.S. And no, I'm not having lunch with Lord Rennard.

Have I given the impression that I support Lord Rennard and/or do not support the women who complained of harassment? If anybody thinks so, I'd be obliged if they'd refer me to the relevant postings.

I'm waiting but nobody has referred me to any such postings.

Please refer me (and others) to a posting in which I have suggested the women's testimonies are less reliable than Rennard's

I'm waiting but nobody has referred me to any such postings.

How about your comments:

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

Some would answer 'They wouldn't" while others would answer "In order to discredit Lord Rennard".

versus the statement of Alistair Webster QC’s conclusions:

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.

If you decide to hide behind your mealy-mouthed "Some would answer", go for your life.

I'd hoped I was coming off as a seeker of justice for all but, sadly, there are always people who think sexual assault cases should proceed directly from accusation to punishment without troubling a judge and a jury.
No, I think we are all agreed that we would really LIKE Lord R to have gone to Court and had a proper trial. That is the real point here. If you were accused of the same, you wouldn't be afforded the same privileges. Unless you are an MP, of course...

Solo

I still have to see rapists convicted out of sneaky feeling.

The problem is not the victims and the accused. It is society and what they believe in. I actually have come across about a couple of false allegations (online...) and one of them told me:
I gave the judge and police what they were looking for.

Honestly, I went through the painful process or releasing a 11-page statement full of horrid details and I nearly got prosecuted for that. The detective officer came back with: "well it doesn't correspond to the view we have of rape victims, therefore you could be lying"

WHAT?!?!?! So see that woman who had lied actually knew what details and story the detectives looked for. Maybe a reform of the whole justice system concerning rape/abuse cases would be appropriate, don't you think so? And let's stop to put raped and assaulted women in a box, please. A rape is a rape, regardless of where, why and with whom that happened.

Loki there are many things within the Justice system that need changing. That's what I think. Don't know how or when that might happen though.

Nauticant objects for some reason to my responding to the question "Why would the women lie?" by stating the absolute and utter fact that some people would answer 'They wouldn't" while others would answer "In order to discredit Lord Rennard".

It is a fact that some people would say the women wouldn't lie, and it is also a fact that some people would say they'd lie in order that Rennard be discredited.

How can such an even-handed statement of fact be taken to indicate support or non-support for either Rennard or the complainants?

Moving along . . .

The women complained that they had been sexually harassed: fact!

The enquiry did not believe they'd been sexually harassed: fact!

Nauticant has thus failed utterly to produce any quote in which I show bias either to the women or to Rennard.

If you don't mind, I'd like to detain you briefly before you swiftly move on. How about your comment:

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

It's untrue isn't it?

Do you not understand why it would have been better all around to go to trial? If he is innocent it clears is name and if not then we get the truth.
All of the hiding/brushing things under the carpet and not being held accountable is unfair and a disgusting abuse of power.

If you don't mind, I'd like to detain you briefly before you swiftly move on. How about your comment:

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

It's untrue isn't it?

No, it's the Gospel truth and I've covered it in my previous posting.

The women complained that they had been sexually harassed: fact!

The enquiry DID NOT BELIEVE they'd been sexually harassed: fact!

Dear oh dear.

"The enquiry did not believe they'd been sexually harassed: fact!"

No, it is not true that the enquiry did not believe them. The QC suggested Rennard apologise. Although he found that the complainants had not proved their case beyond reasonable doubt, he specifically said he found their complaints to be credible.

No, it is not true that the enquiry did not believe them.

I have never said the enquiry didn't believe the women's stories.

I said the message from the enquiry appears to be a resounding 'We don't believe you' and so it does, the enquiry having dismissed the women's claims that they'd been sexually harassed.

I do wish some people would would read more carefully before jumping at other people's throats.

I think the truth of the matter is that some people are hopping mad because I haven't said what they'd dearly love me to have said.

I think we'd all agree that attacking the innocent and then trying to blame your victim is not a very nice thing to do.

So why are so many people here doing it?

When Alistair Webster has gone on record as stating "I stress that I am not finding that the evidence of the complainants was unreliable" I don't think you can claim that the message from the inquiry even appears to be a resounding "We don't believe you."

Suzanne

Because you're defending someone who is not a victim?
It is called rape/abuse apologism. Don't worry, half the nationa has the same disease. That is why you don't get the criticism on here.

When Alistair Webster has gone on record as stating "I stress that I am not finding that the evidence of the complainants was unreliable" I don't think you can claim that the message from the inquiry even appears to be a resounding "We don't believe you."

A reasonable point, nennypops - and thank you for presenting it in such a civilised manner.

To the people who have read about the case in some detail, it should be clear that the enquiry did not find the women's testimonies to be unreliable.

However, the women said they'd been sexually harassed and the enquiry did not believe they had been sexually harassed so it will surely appear to some that the enquiry is saying 'We don't believe you'.

That was my point. no more, no less.

Because you're defending someone who is not a victim?

Who am I defending?

I'm not aware of having defended anybody.

Quotes would help me (and others) understand better.

But saying the enquiry did not believe they were harassed is not true, the enquiry did not believe there was enough evidence that they were harassed.

Oh and fwiw, you are writing large paragraphs of crap without actually answering what people are asking you, it makes you sound like a politician and I imagine has something to do with how people are responding to you. So perhaps if you thought about how to carefully word your responses a little less, you would come across better? Hth :)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

How's that for a not-very-well-thought-out but nevertheless heartfelt response you to you? :)

Just for everyone's information, the enquiry report has not been made public but Nick Clegg says this about what the QC found:

"[Alistair Webster QC] said there, in his view, wasn't enough evidence to clear the threshold of what is, in effect, the criminal burden of proof in order for him to recommend action, but he felt there was clear evidence the women were speaking with credibility, that they should be believed, that they were subject to behaviour which was distressing, that Chris Rennard should reflect on his behaviour and he should apologise."

Clegg then added:

"I think it is a matter of very great regret, to put it mildly, that so far at least [Lord Rennard] hasn't chosen to apologise. I've apologised on behalf of the party."

and that the women who had made the complaints against Lord Rennard were "not being given the apology that they rightly deserve".

This was a thorough enquiry. Posters can decide for themselves whether they agree with Suzanne that the enquiry could in any way appear to have said "we don't believe you" to the complainant women. I can't see it, personally, but accept that Suzanne reads it that way.

Thats brilliant, thank you suzanne.

Lord Rennard could have resigned from the party saying he did not want to cause them a distraction from campaigning.

Beyond

I guess that JH supporters make any thread become a snorefest.
Debate, I salute you....