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!

Personally, I'm furious at the mealy mouthed atttempts to minimise the crime. It's referred to in the media and by the lib dems as 'inappropriate touching' and 'invading personal space'. No it's not it is Sexual Assault as defined in UK law

If a complaint was made about you at work by several people - the boss would have you in the office and tear a strip off you. It would be managed at work and you'd be expected to apologise to the people you'd offended and not do it again. So it's the least he could do - apologise.

If it's taken further to a grievance at work or a prosecution fair enough, - but I don't see what's so unusual with the boss asking him to apologise.

I looked him up in Wikipedia. It said he was married to a nursery-school teacher.

I must confess I know so little about it I really shouldn't be commenting.

Are the women who are claiming wrongdoing wannabe MP's or support staff or both?

AFAIR they were variously SpAds, researchers and candidates - but there isn't really a fine line between wannabe MPs and support staff in any case. Most people who work in Westminster, in whatever capacity, want a career in politics in some sense, there isn't really any such thing as being "just" an administrator.

The other important point about the case is of course that they did complain at the time, and that is not disputed, but the outcome was inadequate. That's why a lot of people are pissed off with the party and not just Rennard - they had a chance to sort this and didn't.

I've Just looked him up again and there's no mention of a wife, but she was definitely there yesterday. She's been exterminated!!

Clegg is now obfuscating about how much he knew about the allegations against Cllr Mike Hancock MP.

Well, Clegg knew enough to get shot of him as a Lib Dem in Westminster. But strangely not in Portsmouth.

The Leader of the Council in Portsmouth is apparently a Rennard protege.

Murky indeed.

There was also some speculation about Mike Hancock's behaviour with a young Russian researcher who worked for him.

liberalmess can correct me on this but I don't believe Clegg has the power to compel local parties to do things like remove the whip from a councillor. The internal structure is much less command-and-control than in the other parties.

Weird about Rennard's wiki.

CR is married - his wife is a lot older than him but no idea what her job was/is.

Clegg has very little authority to do anything in the Party. The structures are so convoluted that only uber-anoraks amongst the anoraks can work out who is in charge of what and where in the Party.

Clegg's only real power is over who gets what post. Even policy positions are decided by members voting at Party Conference.

The system is supposed to ensure that no-one can have too much power, least of all the Leader.

Unfortunately CR had an awful lot of major roles all at the same time and gave him more clout than anyone else in the Party.

Dealing with an issue in a local Party comes down to both the local Party, the regional Party and the English Party and various subcommittees within that.

Oh, his wife is apparently 100% behind him and doesn't believe the allegations. Seems rather naïve to me if she really doesn't believe it, but perhaps she's just playing the dutiful wife.

Rennard's or Hancock's? Both?

"No it's not it is Sexual Assault as defined in UK law"

In which case the police or Webster could have had him, or the women could easily sue in the civil courts. We still haven't seen what he's actually accused of, and the reluctance to make it public after all this time and hoo ha is quite telling, and gives more credence to the view there was a measure of stitch up involved.

Be interesting to see how this is resolved, I suspect they don't have enough on him, but have now set an expectation that he will pay in some way.

Yes, it is sexual assault given that this is defined as unwanted touching of a sexual nature. However, as there is no video evidence or independent witnesses, it's as about liable to get a conviction as your average rape accusation. Meanwhile the Lib Dems and the media continue to minimise by calling it inappropriate touching.

Yes, it is sexual assault given that this is defined as unwanted touching of a sexual nature. However, as there is no video evidence or independent witnesses, it's as about liable to get a conviction as your average rape accusation. Meanwhile the Lib Dems and the media continue to minimise by calling it inappropriate touching.

Whoops. So angry I posted twice.

Yeah well there's plenty to get angry about, slug. Not only that horrible creep Rennard but everyone who stands with him and thinks men have a God-given right to molest women and women should just keep quiet.

Oh, and not only molest them but lock the door to stop them escaping, FFS.

Yeah well there's plenty to get angry about, slug. Not only that horrible creep Rennard but everyone who stands with him and thinks men have a God-given right to molest women and women should just keep quiet.

Yes, a lot to get angry about.

Oh, his wife is apparently 100% behind him and doesn't believe the allegations.

None of them do. My rapist's parents didn't either. Would you believe them if you were in her shoes?

If you had lived together with a pervert who was molesting/sexually assaulting colleagues at work? I don't think so. Denial, in these cases, is the easiest way to deal with it, a lot easier than facing an appalling truth.

agreed, anywhere.

I do wonder whether it is at all possible that his wife can have been entirely ignorant of his reputation. Maybe she didn't know the extent of it, but really, no idea he was what my Great Aunt would have called NSIT (Not Safe In Taxis)?

"Not only that horrible creep Rennard but everyone who stands with him and thinks men have a God-given right to molest women and women should just keep quiet"

This is a load of crap.

UK justice assumes people are innocent until proven guilty, and innocent after being found not guilty.

On MN, justice seems to work on the idea that you are guilty until being found innocent, and guilty anyway even if found innocent.

If there is really a case, let's see the LibDems having the balls to publish their evidence, or see a lawsuit being brought by these women. Put up or shut up IMO.

UK justice assumes people are innocent until proven guilty

It has been said before but what the law does is presume innocence unless and until there is a verdict of guilty. It is a legal rule followed within the court system, not a requirement of all discourse.

I do think it is dangerous if people create a climate where all due process is ignored in favour of assumptions of guilt, but it is equally dangerous if we treat lack of a criminal conviction as meaning that people cannot or should not debate the evidence.

I think the demand for an apology is an acknowledgement that the law has been constructed by men, to enable them to get away with sexual harassment of women without usually being found guilty of it.

Much with every other law that involves men using violence, sexual or otherwise, against women. That's why the rape conviction rate is 6%. Men made the laws and they made damned sure they would very rarely be convicted of any crimes against women.

The demand for an apology takes place within that context, without actually openly stating that that is the context.

Criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction which results in sever state action against the person accused (a prison sentence or a fine). This is essential to our justice system and most people believe in this. However is is utter nonsense to believe that the justice system is perfect and that, if there is no conviction, an allegation didn't happen. Attitudes like this contribute to a culture of silence that prevents victims coming forward - unless they can secure a criminal conviction (incredibly difficult, most of the time), people will call them liars and attention-seekers. This allows men (who as Basil said constructed the laws) to get away with sexual harassment.

A "not guilty" verdict or failure to prosecute is not an exculpation in most cases. It would be more accurate to call it "not proven" which is a separate potential outcome in Scotland.

The law looks beautifully gender neutral in the abstract but the appalling rates of conviction for rape cases shows that it is not. This also indicates the false nature of gender neutral in a society where laws are still made predominantly by men who view life through a male lens and usually through a rich, white, male lens.

Good posts, AskBasil and FloraFox!

Btw, in Scotland the general opinion is that if a rape case has a verdict of 'not proven' or 'not guilty', well the rape victim is a liar. Scotland, thanks to the corroborative requirement, has the worst rape laws of all the planet. The conviction rate in rape cases is 3%, with serial rapists in court more than once and no conviction..... Of course, rape reports are decreasing and not because there are less sexual assaults but because getting a conviction is nearly impossible. Laws done by men to protect men.