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!

.

My personal take on it is that Alistair Webster made the points he did to rather ram home the fact that had the bar been the civil test of 'balance of probabilities' (as it should have been - disrepute is not a criminal offence) rather than the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' test that the rules forced them to use.

I know who I believe in all of this - and I know most of the parties concerned on both sides pretty well and some extremely well.

Back in 2004 I was warned to keep an eye out for CR by more than one person in the Party - including an MP and a couple of Peers. It was no big secret, it just stayed under wraps because people involved didn't want to be seen to rock the boat or else they tried to complain and got fobbed off.

It was only when a few of the women got talking to each other and found out that it wasn't 'just them' that it was felt that something had to be done. It was all dropped back in 2009 when CR 'left' the CEO role and took a very back seat and people felt that young women where no longer at any risk. Then he came back in 2012 and a number of women were fuming and decided that enough was enough.

Civil cases, compensation etc are not something anyone has even thought of - now he's threatening legal action some of the girls are reserving the right to consider a civil case but I will be very surprised if it ever happens. Not a penny has exchanged hands in terms of what has been given to the media. It's about something fundamentally more important than money.

When you have given years of your life to a political party - and still share their aims and values - it's very hard to do something that hurts the Party as much as this has. A lot of bridges are burnt, long-standing friends are no longer friends and a lot of guilt over the damage that has been done. This wasn't something dreamt up in an afternoon for the fun of it.

My own hope is that this has rocked the core of Westminster and sent a huge message about what is unacceptable and that such behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

Amen to that, Liberalmess.

You can see the other parties are being very careful to steer clear of slinging any mud at the LibDems over this. No doubt in the full knowledge that sexual harassment is not confined to one party.

"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."

That's rubbish, it's the opposite - a human rights construct based on bitter experience over centuries. The patriarchy would far rather have a system where you have to prove innocence (the clue is the regimes where this is the case) so any trumped up accusation they make would get get their enemies locked up.

Anyone seen the Ryan Hope case? Bloody hell - took them four months apparently to suspend despite the charges (which include allegations of child rape and rape).

Well I killed the thread, I guess. RIP.