Am I the only one not understanding this???

cambsno

cambsno

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,999
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Firstly, while this involves a politician, it is not a political debate!!!

Lord Rennard is under pressure to apologise for sexual harassment and as he is not willing to do so has been suspended from his party. Something I find completely baffling!

The allegations have been investigated and cannot be proven without reasonable doubt (although the evidence was broadly credible).

So, if he is not proven to have acted in that way, why the hell should he apologise? Surely if he does that would be an admission of guilt, I mean, you don't apologise unless you have something to apologise about (aside from to the wife as sometimes its just easier to apologise!!!).
 
Yep, that's correct.
Seems like guilty until proven innocent. I think it's meant to be the other way around.
 
This seems like the Lib Dems are caving into ill-founded pressure to take rash actions.

It's worth noting he has been suspended pending an investigation, not dismissed. If these allegations are proven (through proper procedures) to be true, then absolutely remove him from the party and politics as a whole.

I think it's a bit flaky that this investigation revolves around Alistair Webster QC's 'recommendation' that Rennard apologies. There is a definite sense of a smear campaign about the whole scenario. Dismissing someone for not apologising for something they were never have proved to have done?

If they do remove Denning after their internal investigation, I would not at all be surprised if he successfully challenges it in the courts, resulting in the Lib Dems having more egg on their faces.

Lord Denning said:
‘Before I could make a press statement, the party issued their own saying that their internal investigation into whether I should be expelled would now resume. The party had issued a series of e-mails to all party members saying that I was accused of 'serious allegations of sexual assault'.’
Click to expand...
^ Imagine you was accused of something at work, and an email was sent round to all employees informing them of such. Many will (stupidly) presume it is true without stopping to consider the fact it is only an allegation. Disgusting behaviour.
 
Last edited:
Did Lord Rennard go into The House Of Commons this afternoon? This would have been the flashpoint regarding Clegg.

Newsnight is on BBC2 in 10 minutes.....
 
kendo1 said:
Yep, that's correct.
Seems like guilty until proven innocent. I think it's meant to be the other way around.
Click to expand...

Classic trial by media fuelled by the anti-Denning brigade.
 
RedRobin said:
Did Lord Rennard go into The House Of Commons this afternoon? This would have been the flashpoint regarding Clegg.

Newsnight is on BBC2 in 10 minutes.....
Click to expand...

He was absent in the House of Lords as the Peers took their seats.

Why would he have gone into the House of Commons?
 
crofter said:
Quite so,Don't know much about the bloke, probably a bit of a twonk but I can't see he has anything to appologise for if nothing has been proven.
Click to expand...

....Why do you suggest he's "probably a bit of a twonk"? Surely not just because he's a Lord? I understand that he has done a lot for The Liberal Party over a period of many years but I don't follow politics in any detail.

This whole affair smells of political posturing with underlying agendas - A power struggle.
 
ACW said:
He was absent in the House of Lords as the Peers took their seats.

Why would he have gone into the House of Commons?
Click to expand...

....Ooops! My mistake, I meant to write House of Lords.
 
Never apologise it#s a sign of weakness. The end:)
 
BRASH said:
Never apologise it#s a sign of weakness. The end:)
Click to expand...

....:D

Why do you think I never apologise in my Birds threads?
 
RedRobin said:
....Why do you suggest he's "probably a bit of a twonk"? Surely not just because he's a Lord? I understand that he has done a lot for The Liberal Party over a period of many years but I don't follow politics in any detail.

This whole affair smells of political posturing with underlying agendas - A power struggle.
Click to expand...
Well if he looks like a twonk and sounds like a twonk he's very probably a twonk.
 
crofter said:
Well if he looks like a twonk and sounds like a twonk he's very probably a twonk.
Click to expand...

....In truth he may be a twonk but you aren't you making pre judgements based on the way he speaks and dresses (or his facial features)? He can't help his background or what features he was born with any more than any of us can, unless you have extensive plastic surgery and a Kwok(?) makeover.
 
Aha, thanks Andy. So I am a species of worzel. In Brash's book that's probably better than being a Robin :D
 
RedRobin said:
....In truth he may be a twonk but you aren't you making pre judgements based on the way he speaks and dresses (or his facial features)? He can't help his background or what features he was born with any more than any of us can, unless you have extensive plastic surgery and a Kwok(?) makeover.
Click to expand...
I don't care about the gentleman in question, what he is or does is no concern of mine, I made a passing comment and you are making an issue of it for some reason, enough.
 
crofter said:
I don't care about the gentleman in question, what he is or does is no concern of mine, I made a passing comment and you are making an issue of it for some reason, enough.
Click to expand...

....My apologies. I shouldn't have bothered to challenge what appeared (I may have misinterpreted your words) to be your prejudices and you have every right to have them anyway.

Peace :)
 
Because the whole situation is in the public eye, the Lib Dems have to be seen to do 'right' by popular opinion. The popular opinion is that he is a sexual deviant, so the party have to give him the boot!
 
Haa neeps go with ya tatties your all a bit tic the lot er yer......arnt ya.
 
Eddzz!! said:
Because the whole situation is in the public eye, the Lib Dems have to be seen to do 'right' by popular opinion. The popular opinion is that he is a sexual deviant, so the party have to give him the boot!
Click to expand...

....But is he a sexual deviant? He may be but it's not up to popular opinion, nor those with poltical agendas to pass final judgement. Otherwise it's trial and execution by the mob.

Seen objectively from the outside, all this is ridiculous, although not a joke for Lord Rennard.
 
The LibDems seem to have gotten themselves 'between a rock and a hard place'. If Lord Rennard does not apologise AND they do not suspend/sack him they will lose their female votes. If he does apologise it will be tantamount to him admitting that he did what he is accused of doing and he will be punished for the offences. If they suspend/sack him without an apology he will sue for everything possible.
My feeling is that Clegg will not survive this crisis and it looks like a nice payday for the lawyers with great financial loss to the LibDem party
(Scotland used to have the legal right to pass a verdict of 'Not Proven', resulting in some awful repercussions for the accused).
 
Mag1cp2x said:
The LibDems seem to have gotten themselves 'between a rock and a hard place'. If Lord Rennard does not apologise AND they do not suspend/sack him they will lose their female votes. If he does apologise it will be tantamount to him admitting that he did what he is accused of doing and he will be punished for the offences. If they suspend/sack him without an apology he will sue for everything possible.
My feeling is that Clegg will not survive this crisis and it looks like a nice payday for the lawyers with great financial loss to the LibDem party
(Scotland used to have the legal right to pass a verdict of 'Not Proven', resulting in some awful repercussions for the accused).
Click to expand...

I wouldn't rule Clegg's leadership out at this point. Despite a lot of what people say, Clegg has kept a fairly firm grip on his party and he still has many supporters in the ranks below him. Those who want Rennard out will keep him out and if all goes to plan this will do nothing but reaffirm Clegg's leadership and give him a nice popularity boost with voters in the running for the next GE.
 
Mag1cp2x said:
(Scotland used to have the legal right to pass a verdict of 'Not Proven', resulting in some awful repercussions for the accused).
Click to expand...

The verdict of Not Proven is still available in Scottish courts.
 
Legal action started by Rennard (where's the popcorn smiley?)
 
In any commercial organisation he'd have been out on his ear by now. I think the problem the LibDems have is that their internal rules demanded a level of proof on a par with a criminal trial i.e. beyond reasonable doubt. If the level of proof had been lower e.g. on the balance of probabilities then they wouldn't be in this situation. I think as Graeme mentioned, this is now just going to be a payday for the lawyers. Rennard could quite easily have structured an apology without admitting anything but would rather go down the route which could seriously damage the party.

Just need one of the women concerned now to make an official complaint to the police and get a proper criminal trial.
 
Last edited:
It does sound like a witch-hunt and I only know what I have seen on the news but the gist of what I figure is that he harassed some female colleagues and there is some proof of this but it cant be proven 100%
surely if he did cause some distress he should apologise?
 
Mag1cp2x said:
Yes, but the 'b*stard law' as it's called is still a dog's breakfast of a verdict and has caused immeasurable heartache throughout the centuries -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-383597/Victims-carry-proven-verdicts-grave.html

(Had to edit here *)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, but Not Proven was never intended to be an alternative, "we know you did it but can't prove it, so go away and don't do it again" verdict. Scots Law originally recognised two verdicts, Proven and Not Proven. Some jurists felt that this was unsatisfactory, and could leave a shadow of doubt hanging over defendants even if the court was satisfied that they were completely innocent of the charge(s). Not Guilty was introduced in the C18th to cover these circumstances. There have been a few initiatives to abolish Not Proven, but I'm not sure about this. It works both ways. It can leave a residual doubt, but it can also serve some purpose.

I'm far more concerned by Lord Carloway's proposals to abolish the need for corroboration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top