Options
Should Lord Reynard apologise ?
Amidst demands from Lib Dem colleagues and others should Lord Reynard apologise for sexual harrassment in spite of an inquiry finding insufficient evidence to condemn him ?
There was an interesting exchange on the Today programme this morning between John Humphreys and a party worker.
Party worker "Lord Reynard has failed to show that he is innocent"
JH "The trouble is, in this country it's up to someone else to show that you are guilty"
Party worker "That's where the whole thing goes pear shaped ....."
In the words of that esteemed journalist Richard Littlejohn "you couldn't make it up"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25747951
There was an interesting exchange on the Today programme this morning between John Humphreys and a party worker.
Party worker "Lord Reynard has failed to show that he is innocent"
JH "The trouble is, in this country it's up to someone else to show that you are guilty"
Party worker "That's where the whole thing goes pear shaped ....."
In the words of that esteemed journalist Richard Littlejohn "you couldn't make it up"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25747951
0
Comments
Liberals take a far more laid back approach in such matters. Clegg did nothing about it when the allegations first circulated and he is in a mire of his own making.
At least one of the females involved has vowed to leave the Party (presumably with as much publicity as possible) if Reynard is allowed to carry on in his present position.
Not everything can be judged in court case terms. When several women complained over a period of time that Reynard is a sex pest then the matter should have become a matter of internal Party disciplinary proceedings then and there.
Perhaps Clegg is just thankful that no dogs or an attempted murder were involved.
The independent inquiry concluded that there is insufficient evidence against Lord Reynard to satisfy even the standard of a civil action let alone a criminal prosecution. It should be the end of the story as far as I can see, unless further hard evidence emerges.
why the **** should he apologise.
Other people, say he is guilty.
Why doesn't he apologise.
Would you apologise for something you haven't done?
I have just said that not everything can be judged in court case terms. Within a group, the group itself determines what is acceptable and what is unacceptable ( e.g. the Brownies, a golf club, a political party) If within the group a person behaves unacceptably then they should be warned and if necessary thrown out.
Reynard's behaviour over a period of time was unacceptable to members of the party, they complained and their complaints at the time were either ignored or not taken seriously. The fact that these unacceptable behaviours happened over a long period of time shows either that he thinks it is appropriate to touch women or that the LibDem does not value what its female members are saying.
There will be resignations and more bad publicity.
Reynard does not think that his behaviour towards women is unacceptable and consequently he does not think that he has done anything wrong. That is the dilemma. The women whom he offended do think that he has something wrong which is why they complained in the first place.
Don't have a view on whether he should apologise as haven't read the report.
Oops! Apologies.
Why doesn't he just ... "Prove it!"
I agree. But if you are an individual but also a member of a group e.g. a political party then how you behave also has wider implications and if it contravenes the party's rules then it is more serious. The dilemma seems to be that some women in the party find his behaviour unacceptable and he doesn't.
Clegg is now on the horns of the dilemma.
I can't help but be struck by the parallels between these allegations and those being faced in Court by Dave Lee Travis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10579983/Lord-Rennard-Even-podgy-Liberal-Democrat-peers-deserve-justice-Nick-Clegg.html
Is tantamount to making a confession for something you didn't do.
What is better placed to judge than a court of law, or failing that an independent inquiry ?
The women from the Take A Break advert perhaps ?
Similar but essentially different.
Most of the Travis complainants were very young girls at the time. Young naive girls were unlikely to get far with complaints of that nature.
The Rennard complainants are all mature women and supposedly intelligent with some status in the Party. The question is why didn't they feel their complaints would be believed. Or did they hold back for fear of jeopardising their political career?
You have missed my point entirely.
What he has done is an internal matter for his Party to deal with. That is because the women concerned took their complaints to the Party.
The fall out is going to be very damaging for all those who did not act when the complaints were first raised.
But they did complain at the time and were not taken seriously, possibly because Rennard was so good at helping the LibDems win seats.
Fair comment. Many LibDems still feel aggrieved although I can't help but admire them for making sure that the tax allowance has been raised putting money into people's pockets which the otherwise would not have received.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has said Lord Rennard should not rejoin the party's group in the House of Lords unless he apologises to female activists over allegations of sexual harassment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25788034
if they should apologise for anything i would rather it were campaigning to have someone elected as PM when they knew he was an alcoholic.
which i view as disgraceful.