Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Lord rennard and his apology

66 replies

miasdaddy · 22/01/2014 06:53

If nothing has been proved against him why apologise ? Surely that would be an admission of guilt and would be a meaningless gesture

OP posts:

LindyHemming · 22/01/2014 06:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea · 22/01/2014 07:00

How do you prove something that happened in private? It's one persons word against another's.

He can and should apologise without admitting guilt.

Jaynebxl · 22/01/2014 07:04

I've been wondering the same thing. It doesn't seem to fit with our innocent until proven guilty policy.

DuckworthLewis · 22/01/2014 07:04

A person is innocent until proven guilty.

He was not proven guilty.

Therefore he is innocent.

Therefore he has nothing to apologise for.

Our legal system often produces outcomes we don't like, but it is a mark of a civilised society that we stand by the outcomes we dislike as much as the ones we do.

Manipulating the legal system on a case-by-case basis, to produce popular outcomes, is a very dangerous game to play and will very quickly lead us to a place we do not wish to go.

DuckworthLewis · 22/01/2014 07:05

X post jayne

Jaynebxl · 22/01/2014 07:09

[Smile] great minds think alike.

Original poster

miasdaddy · 22/01/2014 07:26

But how do you apologise with out saying you did anything wrong, that to me is the whole point of an apology

OP posts:

Jaynebxl · 22/01/2014 07:31

Unexpected how can he do that? Should we make everyone who is accused of something then not found guilty go and apologise? If there wasn't enough evidence to prove him guilty we have to consider him innocent, whatever we may think.

WitchWay · 22/01/2014 07:33

He could say something like "I'm sorry if my actions caused offence" which is an apology without admitting blame.

Jaynebxl · 22/01/2014 07:35

Except he is saying he didn't do anything wrong and nothing has been pinned on him. How about if I accused you of nicking my lunch. Nobody knows if you did or not and there is no evidence but we all decide you should apologise. You would protest that you never took my lunch and you wouldn't want to apologise as it would lool like you were admitting guilt.

YouTheCat · 22/01/2014 07:38

He hasn't been found innocent. I believe the evidence was inconclusive.

He could say what WitchWay said

Jaynebxl · 22/01/2014 07:41

YouTheCat in the UK the person is innocent until proven guilty. Inconclusive evidence means he couldn't be proven guilty so we are supposed to consider him innocent, whatever we think. This is what I don't understand about the call for an apology.

Theknacktoflying · 22/01/2014 07:41

Just because there isn't enough evidence to prosecute or get a verdict doesn't mean that it was nothing.

His job depends on him being honest, upfront and trustworthy - and if he can't be seen to be that there is no point in him being there.

Funny that he works in the same place where people felt there was no wrong doing taking cash they weren't entitled to.

bodygoingsouth · 22/01/2014 07:48

don't know who are the daftest to be honest.

the bumbling LibDems and poor old Clegg who makes every situation worse and thinks an 'I'm sorry' makes us all forgive the tosser over tuition fees, or the ridiculous UKIP blaming flooding on gay marriage.

sadly they make the Tories look more and more credible as Milliband too is a twat. what a crew.

bodygoingsouth · 22/01/2014 07:49

DuckworthLewis yes excellent points.

Foosyerdoos · 22/01/2014 07:51

My understanding is that whilst there was not sufficient evidence for him to be charged with a criminal offence, there was evidence that his actions 'caused distress'. If this had been a work place disciplinary procedure there may have been enough evidence to justify action being taken against him.

Jaynebxl · 22/01/2014 07:55

Footy now that makes sense. Do you know where you read about that?

Minnieisthedevilmouse · 22/01/2014 07:55

I don't think he should apologise either. I would hope someone sending him on some hr training though about what constitutes sexual harassment and equality in the workplace. He can't apologise because even if there was evidence he doesn't think that his behaviour caused the situation in the first place. So, either he really doesn't know what his left hand is doing or he doesn't know what behaviour is getting him in hot water.

Whole story is weird. There's always one bloke in an office with a bit of a 'rep'. If as a bloke you think there isn't IMO it's probably you. ;) (hee hee)

coffeeinbed · 22/01/2014 07:56

What is the point of an apology anyway?
If he's found guilty he suffers they consequences, if he hasn't been for whatever reason then he's not.
So where does an apology come into this?

What is politics these days, a children's playground?

YouTheCat · 22/01/2014 07:57

The fact that the LibDems have turned on him over this says bucket loads.

coco44 · 22/01/2014 08:14

I don't think the disciplinary hearing hasn't been held yet, has it? So why on earth do they think he should apologise now?

UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea · 22/01/2014 08:21

Yes, what Witch said. You don't have to be found guilty of a criminal action to apologise. People without convictions apologise all the time for all sorts of things.

He could also do something to demonstrate that he understood the issues and supported victims in cases of sexual abuse or harassment. Instead he's behaving like a stubborn git.

cory · 22/01/2014 08:23

Jaynebxl Wed 22-Jan-14 07:41:13
"YouTheCat in the UK the person is innocent until proven guilty. Inconclusive evidence means he couldn't be proven guilty so we are supposed to consider him innocent, whatever we think"

The question here is whether the LibDems should stick to the kind of conclusive evidence that is needed to send somebody to prison or simply the kind of evidence that is needed for a workplace disciplinary and/or dismissal.

A nearby school has just got rid of a teacher for making inappropriate remarks to the female pupils. They did not require the full works of a criminal trial with sworn evidence and a defence barrister. Once the complaints had been made, they spoke to a number of pupils who confirmed the story and then they let him go. He hasn't been found guilty in law, so technically he is still innocent in the eyes of the law- but he didn't get to keep that job either. If he really believed himself totally innocent he could sue for unfair dismissal, but until that happens (and I rather doubt that it will) the school is not required to go through a court procedure to get rid.

I think what a lot of people are asking themselves is why being a LibDem politician is some kind of charmed position that keeps you far more protected than most of us would be in our workplaces.

Jaynebxl · 22/01/2014 08:26

Cory that school must have had enough evidence of the misconduct to get rid of the teacher though or they would have got them for unfair dismissal.

gordyslovesheep · 22/01/2014 08:31

Because they believe the many female MPs who have complained and he is probably a well know letch

Flip

1 2 3