Lord rennard and his apology

[miasdaddy]

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

Yes, of course the school had evidence but the evidence does not have to go through a court of law. The evidence consisted of a number of students confirming that yes, the teacher had made these remarks in their hearing.

But then that is precisely the type of evidence there is against Lord Rennard. A number of women have made formal complaints that he made inappropriate remarks and touched them inappropriately.

That is precisely the kind of evidence that would give me the sack too. The clue is not to get into compromising situations.

Jayne only the dismissed can decided whether they want to take the company up court for unfair dismissal. Many people don't, particularly if they were doing what they were accused of (ie fairly dismissed) also from the schools pov paying him off in court what is likely to only be a few grand is preferable to keeping him employed.

I don't understand this innocent to proven guilty or constant threat of "them" doing someone for x. This isn't a criminal case and the rules of it don't apply. As others have said, in an employment situation this is def enough for suspension (as he has been) and more than likely dismissal

To court, not up court

The difference, it seems to me, is not in the evidence but in how the people in charge feel about the nature of the accusations.

Schools and universities tend to feel that it is unacceptable that students should be made to feel uncomfortable around their teachers, even if the students are adults.

Older politicians otoh do not always feel very worried by the thought that young female aspirants may be pressurised into submitting to the sexual advances of senior and powerful men rather like themselves. If they want to get on, they'll just have to suck it up- they should be grateful that they're allowed to play at all.
(a similar attitude has also prevailed in television where again the oldfashioned attitude has been that you should just be so grateful to be able to get a foot in the door in the first place).

Clegg's problem is that he is not of this generation, but he is still surrounded by people who are.

Why all this talk of guilt and the law. There has beet a LibDem investigation but not a legal one.

They have found there have been a number of complaints over a number of years.

MEP Chris Davis has said, "This isn't Jimmy Savile, it is touching someone's leg six years ago, at a meeting, through clothing. This is the equivalent of, a few years ago, an Italian man pinching a woman's bottom."

He (Davis) has since appologised to Italian men.

Whether it's an admission of guilt in the legal sense is irrelevant, is should either be "I didn't do anything wrong so am not apologising" or "I did it, so I apologise (and face any legal consequences)". On the plus side this pushes the lib dems further into political oblivion.

cory is correct. This is much more akin to a workplace disciplinary rather than a court of law. The lib dem leadership could, I imagine, expel him from the party but choose not to.

When people say that in this country someone is innocent until proven guilty, that is not strictly true. They are "presumed innocent" - the presumption of innocence is a legal principle to ensure people are tried fairly. It doesn't mean that we all have to go round pretending that someone is actually innocent when we all know full well that they aren't.

If we only waited until we had committed illegal acts before we apologised, then it would be a pretty unpleasant society. Offensive behaviour and illegal behaviour are not necessarily the same thing. Rennard has missed the chance to apologise, unfortunately. Even if his accusers accepted it, his detractors would use it as an admission.

If it were me I'd find witchways apology incredibly insulting. I wouldn't want any apology except one that was heartfelt and full of intention that the crime wouldn't be repeated again. As this would be an admission of guilt, unless Lord Rennard is prepared to admit guilt any apology wouldn't be sincere and real.

If one is a private individual, and there had been no police investigation into the allegations, I would be more inclined to agree.

The fact is, this is a very public matter, the police are involved and you cannot compare this situation to one in which the facts are different.

When people say that in this country someone is innocent until proven guilty, that is not strictly true. They are "presumed innocent" - the presumption of innocence is a legal principle to ensure people are tried fairly. It doesn't mean that we all have to go round pretending that someone is actually innocent when we all know full well that they aren't.

Good grief, do people really think like this? No, no and thrice no.

A person is absolutely innocent until proved otherwise, and the only body with the authority to prove somebody guilty is a criminal court.

Who are we to decide?
Judge or jury?

Cogito, if course we should apologise for unpleasant behaviour. No question about it.
The case here seems different though.

No, DuckworthLewis, it is correct that the maxim is that a person is presumed innocent. But you can't say that someone is inevitably "absolutely innocent" unless and until proved otherwise in a criminal court. For example, no-one seriously thinks that the Moors murderers were innocent of the murders of Pauline Reade and Keith Bennett, but they have never been convicted of those murders.

Again he doesn't think his behaviour constitutes either an issue or a discipline situation. Therefore how does he apologise? For what? Breathing? He views himself innocent. Therefore he won't apologise.

In a work situation people usually leave. Can't say I've ever seen a disciplinary result in an apology written or spoken to the other party.

nennypops You may be correct that 'everybody believes' that the Moors murderers killed Pauline Reade and Keith Bennet. However, legally, they have not been found guilty of those crimes, so are technically innocent of them. There is a difference.

I know I am being pedantic, but this is one of the underpinnings of our legal system and we can't make exceptions in one or two cases (much as we would like to - I agree with you on that one)

If we do, we move away from the 'Rule of Law' into the 'Rule of Man' which raises a whole pile of very difficult questions: Who gets to decide? How is that person chosen? etc...

Please don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Lord Rennard, and certainly no apologist for sexual harassment, but twisting our legal system is not the right way to go about tackling this.

We opened a whole can of worms with the JS debacle IMO and this is part of the fall out.

DuckworthLewis, that is more or less the point I was making. In law the Moors murderer are presumed innocent of the Reade and Bennett murderers, but they are not "absolutely innocent", which is the term you used. Come what may, it is entirely possible for there to be a difference between innocence in law and innocence in fact.

I think the issue in this case is in part that the LibDems chose to use the criminal standard of proof for something which, in virtually all other similar contexts, would simply require the civil standard, i.e. balance of probabilities. I haven't read about this saga in detail, but certainly some of those speaking on Rennard's behalf seem to be approaching this from the standpoint of belittling what he has alleged to be done rather than denying it - for example the quotes about "only" touching a woman's leg through clothes. None of that helps his case at all.

Agh, alleged to have done, not alleged to be done.

I don't think anyone has mentioned that he has been advised that if he apologised he could lay himself open to a civil claim from one/all of the women.

Can't stand him either, but I agree he shouldn't apologise, under these circumstances. What a mess though!

Actually sashh that is incorrect. The met did look into the complaints and decided not to make a case. Also it was not a lib dem investigation, but an independent one, and the Lib dems have refused to accept the findings.

There have been 5 official complaints in the time allowed, and these were all looked into, and they found no case to answer, pretty much the same statement as the police.

I don't know if he did it or not, but surely if there's not enough evidence to warrant a criminal investigation/trial, and the independent committee agrees (who require less evidence) then the Lib dem's will have trouble if they carry on trying to force him to apologise, and suspending him in the mean time.

Can't stand him either, but I agree he shouldn't apologise, under these circumstances.

Even if he did what was alleged?

I thought they had basically concluded that he genuinely did upset several women, and make them very uncomfortable by his actions. But that they could not be sure that it was a deliberate attempt to harass?

So while he may not have set out to cause distress, he really should accept that he did so none the less, and apologise for that.

It's like if I hit a car while parking. I couldn't get away with saying "oh, but I didn't intend to do that, so have nothing to apologise for".

Agree with cogito and this statement: "If we only waited until we had committed illegal acts before we apologised, then it would be a pretty unpleasant society. Offensive behaviour and illegal behaviour are not necessarily the same thing."

Surely even in his position he could still apologise that he didn't fully consider how those (innocent in his view) actions would appear to those women as he was in a position of power over them through the selection process that he was influential over. And that after careful consideration, although he continues to believe those actions were in no way illegal or constitute sexual assault/harassment he can see how they may have been interpreted differently by women seeking support to further their political career, who should have not been put in a position were they felt there was any ambiguity at all - and that he is sincerely sorry for any discomfort caused by those (innocently intended) actions.

In one report it did say that he had bought up past relationships of one if the women, in a hope to discredit her.

Which is taking the hearings of sexual offences back many years.
Many of his supporters seem to think that the women should of just "told him to move his hands" and "not make a fuss".

He was happy to reel them out, the outdated attitudes displayed, need apologising for.