Yes and somewhere on this thread, I said I knew how these things worked. Well according to what I read, this one has worked exactly as I'd have expected. Denials, inactivity and downright dishonesty, yet the woman has correspondence with the accused, phone records of calls, contact with LibDem hierarchy and a local council who discussed the alleged misdemeanors and decided to take no action.
The case currently making the headlines is just the tip of the iceberg. Politicians of all main parties are currently biting their fingernails, hoping and praying that no others come to light and preparing excuses in case they do.
Young female staff in Westminster have had long lists of politicians to avoid because of the likelihood of undue attention. Party headquarters have been very aware of some of the worst offenders. But what does the worst constitute? It remains subjective, but because of this all the more pernicious.
I have seen young women in a terrible state because of the attentions of older male politicians. I would like to name and shame them. But then I also invade the rights and privacy of the people I believe to be victims
Which brings up the modus operandi of whips (House of cards) were the whips are paid to know these things, but uses information to discipline MPs or provide a back scratching service.
Don't forget that lawmakers tend to view themselves immune from even their own laws.
Max Gifford functioned by knowing everybodies crap, so do the whips.
His reason for not apologising is legal advice that to do so would be an admission of guilt and presumably leave him open to a civil action which he would probably lose and so finish his career in the Lib Dems.
I'm not sure that is the best advice though, maybe he could have reached some out of court settlement with the women involved (not that they were looking for one) and then apologise for causing any 'upset'.
That way at least the women would get some compensation for their stress, he would be reinstated and 6 months down the line all would be forgotten.
His reason for not apologising is legal advice that to do so would be an admission of guilt and presumably leave him open to a civil action which he would probably lose and so finish his career in the Lib Dems.
I'm not sure that is the best advice though, maybe he could have reached some out of court settlement with the women involved (not that they were looking for one) and then apologise for causing any 'upset'.
That way at least the women would get some compensation for their stress, he would be reinstated and 6 months down the line all would be forgotten.
Wouldn't this be giving in to blackmail and inviting others to play the same game with some other poor sod ?
His reason for not apologising is legal advice that to do so would be an admission of guilt and presumably leave him open to a civil action which he would probably lose and so finish his career in the Lib Dems.
I'm not sure that is the best advice though, maybe he could have reached some out of court settlement with the women involved (not that they were looking for one) and then apologise for causing any 'upset'.
That way at least the women would get some compensation for their stress, he would be reinstated and 6 months down the line all would be forgotten.
I get the impression from watching Ms Harris being interviewed that she is looking for exactly that.
She point blank refused to rule out legal action if LR apologised.
I get the impression from watching Ms Harris being interviewed that she is looking for exactly that.
She point blank refused to rule out legal action if LR apologised.
which is interesting because it's what the party needs to move on.
so what happens. the party think she is not a team player, or that she could have handled it better. they don't like her. and she gets to sue them too.
But for 'duty of care' reasons, so should the LibDem party be sued because they were notified, and failed to remedy the situation.
The Beeb is different (JS) because at the moment they deny knowledge.
As usual, people are adding in their own facts and then giving their opinions on their own imagined happenings.
The fact is that Lord Rennard has not denied the allegations. What he has said is that he does not accept that he did anything wrong.
The allegations are not serious enough to bring a court case over, because the allegations are in the nature of him and a woman being alone and he made unwanted sexual advances including putting his hands on her. He did not force his attentions on her and they are the sort of events which probably quite a few young women have had if they are daft enough to be alone with a boss at a hotel.
But he is a Lord and they are the sort of women to whom that means something, and it is up to bosses to ensure that they do not put women workers in situations where they feel discomforted.
One of the women says that she wants 'redress'. That presumably is why he thinks he had better not admit fault. I reckon her is badly advised. He could easily say that he is sorry that his actions made the women feel uncomfortable and he regrets it.
He looks, as it is, like an arrogant Lord who thinks he can have his way.
The fact is that Lord Rennard has not denied the allegations. What he has said is that he does not accept that he did anything wrong.
He hasn't actually been told the allegations, so how can he deny them? All he can do is say he has done nothing wrong. I don't think it's correct to infer he accepts what he is accused of, because if he did that then he would have no choice but to apologise. You're making the assumption that he's so deluded that he thinks touching up party activists is OK.
Comments
They will need someone skilled who can maintain a yarn under pressure, or pick someone you will imply 'sub-judice' or other device.
Much prefer Charles Kennedy appeared, because it was on his watch and responsibility, even if he was under a table in the bar at the time.
Yes and somewhere on this thread, I said I knew how these things worked. Well according to what I read, this one has worked exactly as I'd have expected. Denials, inactivity and downright dishonesty, yet the woman has correspondence with the accused, phone records of calls, contact with LibDem hierarchy and a local council who discussed the alleged misdemeanors and decided to take no action.
(That's what this MP means, reading between the lines)
Don't forget that lawmakers tend to view themselves immune from even their own laws.
Max Gifford functioned by knowing everybodies crap, so do the whips.
Can't you hear the limbs cracking in the distance, to try and sanitise the LibDems position.
I'm not sure that is the best advice though, maybe he could have reached some out of court settlement with the women involved (not that they were looking for one) and then apologise for causing any 'upset'.
That way at least the women would get some compensation for their stress, he would be reinstated and 6 months down the line all would be forgotten.
Wouldn't this be giving in to blackmail and inviting others to play the same game with some other poor sod ?
I get the impression from watching Ms Harris being interviewed that she is looking for exactly that.
She point blank refused to rule out legal action if LR apologised.
which is interesting because it's what the party needs to move on.
so what happens. the party think she is not a team player, or that she could have handled it better. they don't like her. and she gets to sue them too.
But for 'duty of care' reasons, so should the LibDem party be sued because they were notified, and failed to remedy the situation.
The Beeb is different (JS) because at the moment they deny knowledge.
The fact is that Lord Rennard has not denied the allegations. What he has said is that he does not accept that he did anything wrong.
The allegations are not serious enough to bring a court case over, because the allegations are in the nature of him and a woman being alone and he made unwanted sexual advances including putting his hands on her. He did not force his attentions on her and they are the sort of events which probably quite a few young women have had if they are daft enough to be alone with a boss at a hotel.
But he is a Lord and they are the sort of women to whom that means something, and it is up to bosses to ensure that they do not put women workers in situations where they feel discomforted.
One of the women says that she wants 'redress'. That presumably is why he thinks he had better not admit fault. I reckon her is badly advised. He could easily say that he is sorry that his actions made the women feel uncomfortable and he regrets it.
He looks, as it is, like an arrogant Lord who thinks he can have his way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-25897872
Absinthe? Good grief one of the strongest alcoholic drinks there it. It used to kill people in Paris in particular.
Don't be overdramatic. Absinthe is strong, but there's no evidence it 'killed people' any more than any other alcohol could if drunk to excess.