I am very confused - Lord Rennard

[Domus]

here

If he did what he's accused of, far more action than making him apologise is required.

If he didn't, why on earth does he need to apologise?

The current stance by Clegg and others is ridiculous? Or is it me? I'm not surprised he won't apologise as (legally) he's not guilty of anything. Surely if he makes any kind of meaningful apology that would really implicate him. (i.e. would be an admission of guilt) I'm sure no-one's going to be happy with an I'm sorry if I was misunderstood type of apology.

If "they" think he's guilty of something he needs to apologise for why are they entertaining having back at all?

Apologies if there are other threads-I did look!

The party has been supporting its own, with no concern for "doing the right thing". A good thing that all this has now come to light.

Stikes me that there's a huge difference between vulnerable youngsters falling prey to the likes of Savile and wannabe mp types 'approached' inappropriately (possibly) by some Billy Bunter type character.

These are women that are well educated with political ambitions and yet they are not capable of asserting themselves and dealing effectively with Billy Bunter Lord Rennard.

Nobody should have to "deal" with sexual harrassment, HoGo1, any more than they should have to "deal" with burglars. It's against the law.

You also entirely misunderstand the nature of vulnerability - it is never absolute, it is about relative power. In the situations these women were in, Rennard wielded enormous power over them.

Plus, I'd be amazed if the anonymous victims didn't include some pretty vulnerable people, one way or another. Politics is beset with people with various mental health problems for a start, no matter how many qualifications they have. It's pretty logical that the women who have come forward and named themselves would be among the strongest.

Sorry, "strongest" is the wrong word there. Not meaning to imply the anonymous victims are weak, there can be many reasons for wishing to remain anonymous. Just that the victims we know about are unlikely to represent any sort of full spectrum of types.

Billy Bunter?
And early on in the thread it was suggested that Rennard would not be a problem for long as, looking at him, he was liable to drop dead soon.

So - sexual harassment bad, fat people bashing to be indulged in at every opportunity?

So if he has broken the law why hasn't he been arrested? Plenty of others have eg Dave Lee Travis, Max Clifford, Freddie Starr etc.

As far as I am aware he hasn't even been questioned by the police?

Oh apologies was Billy Bunter overweight? Bit before my time. I thought he was just an obnoxious toff who was clumsy with his social interactions but sounds like that might be me

Police said there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute, AFAIR. In sexual harrassment/assault cases, that can mean a range of things.

'I thought he was just an obnoxious toff who was clumsy with his social interactions'

No, that's the Bullingdon Club

Hohoho

"No, that's the Bullingdon Club".

Nice one. Back of the net

No he's not Bullingdon, he went to Liverpool University; but he seems to have Bullingdon aspirations!

May be a Peer but he's not a toff - working class Liverpuddlian.

The women never wanted to launch a civil case - they're not interested in damages or anything like that. Only two of them had ever met before appearing on C4 and quite a number of the anonymous other victims are not known to each other either. It took a long time for people to realise it wasn't just them and come out of the woodwork.

The only desire was to prevent harassment of other younger and new women in the Party.

The women who have come forward are those who no longer have political ambitions. That is why they feel they can come forward - after all, who wants to be the candidate who rocked the boat, or cast aspersions on a 'god', or if they had complained and something had been done - a vicious cow who had destroyed the Party. Bang goes everything you have spent years working towards.

None of these girls are wallflowers or incapable of dealing with it. Indeed one of them reacted very strongly at the time especially when he prevented her from leaving.

"Police said there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute, AFAIR. In sexual harrassment/assault cases, that can mean a range of things."

Met Police found he hadn't broken any laws, but are throwing the book at others, so IMO are clearly willing to prosecute if there is something there to go after.

I like Polly Toynbee's article. And it's a striking point - wtf is happening when one man's denial means more than the evidence of four women?

Depressing how many people are still trying to minimise it and pretend that it's just silly girls making a silly fuss about nothing. 'Shouldn't they know they have to put up with being groped?' Or even imprisoned - when Rennard apparently locked the door on at least one woman to stop her leaving. Although I imagine he denies it and what with being so powerful and all I'm sure there are plenty of Lib Dems (and other politicians) who can manage to justify it.

Not surprising, though. Colleague of mine was assaulted on a work trip (lobbying politicians in Brussels, as it happens). Same sleazebucket saddo man assaulted two other (more junior) women in the group that same night.

He got away with it, while my colleague came under huge pressure to shut up and write it off as 'just one of those things'. She tried to do the right thing, but eventually it was made clear that she had no future there, and she had to leave. At least her refusal to back down meant sleazebucket got eased out as well - but he left with a fat contract as a consultant, earning even more money from the same company. And top references and no stain on his character, which allowed him to take up a trustee position in a related charity.

Oh, and my former colleague did consider going to the police. But sleazebucket guy threatened her. She checked out the threats and they were credible. So, not unreasonably, she decided against risking her physical safety as well as her career.

Actually there is a broader point here. Which is that senior staff with good strategic skills, who are valued by companies, can get away with far more than they should- probably in most places. Morals seem to go out of the door if someone is smart or successful enough.

How many organisations put doing the right thing before profit and reputation? So victims are hushed up, paid off or smeared. Change only happens when not changing risks serious reputational damage, as is happening here.

"wtf is happening when one man's denial means more than the evidence of four women?"

It means that basic principles of British law, that accusations are not proof, and that a person is innocent until proven guilty, are in place.

It always will give the benefit of doubt to tbe accused in a he said/ she said situation, but the alternative, to have a system where an accusation is treated as valid proof leads to kangaroo courts and mob justice.

Accusations can be proof though. And they are always evidence. 'Evidence' does not = truth, it just means relevant information from which one could infer or decide the truth.

After all, if at a criminal trial 4 complainants gave evidence and were cross-examined, then the defendant gave evidence and was cross-examined, and the jury found the defendant guilty, the jury would have judged the complainants worthy of belief and found the charges proved on the basis of their accusations/evidence.

Many, many trials of alleged sexual offences are he said/she said contests were there is very little to go on other than the conflicting accounts of the protagonists. We don't know why, in this case, neither the police nor the Lib Dems considered that the case should go forward on that basis.

If this guy was rude and inappropriate and offended these women why can't he say sorry for that?

Does he have to be convicted of a crime first?

How much of it is down to the fact that he's middle-aged, never been married, overweight, sweaty and not much of a looker ie in short looks desperate? Had it have been say Nick Clegg would the women have perceived the behaviour as worse, acceptable (as in harmless banter/flirting) or the same?

Why can't the women say exactly what he did or what he attempted to do?

What about men who are intimidated sexually or in some other way by women? It does happens and its more difficult for a man to come forward in such circumstances.

Had it have been me I would have told the guy in no uncertain terms to do one and reported it had I have felt intimidated. Why didn't they confront him with a hidden tape recorder after the event? I don't buy into all this he had power over them and they were fearful of the outcome.

He is married.

And the women have given very detailed accounts of what he did in lengthy non-anonymous interviews with C4 news.

In court witnesses testimonies aren't the only evidence presented. It might also make a huge difference what kind of disclosures about the defendant's previous behaviour are allowed by the judge. It's entirely possible that on the whole the jury finds the defendant guilty because its members don't like him very much (The higher the profile the greater this risk.) Although he might try the judge might not be able to keep all disclosures from them.

Judges talk about not researching, etc. etc. But, if a person's character is trashed regularly enough it's impossible not to pick things up.

Is he married? It doesn't say so on his wiki page? Wonder what his wife thinks if he's married then?