[Closed] Lord Rennard appology

you dont need to have been found guilty in law for an apology to be appropriate.

The internal inquiry by a QC [i]"found that ‘the evidence suggest that Lord Rennard’s behaviour has caused distress to a number of women,’ and described the evidence given by witnesses as ‘broadly credible’."[/i]

That's not enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he did it, but most people would agree that its enough to warrant some contrition from the man.

Life is slightly more nuanced than 'have we got enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt?' though. Thankfully. Though looking at the behaviour of our elected representatives, you do wonder….

I do find it hilarious that the Lib Dems, who have simpered along for the past 3 years abandoning every single liberal principle they ever had, have suddenly come over all moral and righteous defending the 'rights' of their sleaze-ball Billy-Bunter-a-like to carry on like a low rent Dave Lee Travis, without any punishment

Still… this nonsense should ensure they're already almost guaranteed electoral annihilation. Every cloud eh?

Hmmm based on [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/20/lord-rennard-sexual-harassment-allegations ]the sexual harassment allegations he faces[/url], no.

"Guilty" of no more than a few clumsy passes.

In fact I'd be a bit wary of people seeking (high) office who can't deal/handle situations like this.

Surely he just needs to make the usual mealy-mouthed politicians apology - 'I haven't done anything wrong but I'm sorry if people feel that I have'.

Will it be anything like this?

Hmmm based on the sexual harassment allegations he faces, no.
"Guilty" of no more than a few clumsy passes.

Reading that article - you have to wonder if the whole thing might have been received in an entirely different light were he not quite fat and not very attractive.

but most people would agree that its enough to warrant some contrition from the man.

I am sorry if some of my actions were misconstrued this was never my intention and if this caused upset or distress I am sorry for this. I never meant to [s]upset the uptight frigid lesbians [/s] do this
, I dont think I did but i am sorry for the whole episode and the damage it has done me and my party whom I love

Something like that would do surely?

"Guilty" of no more than a few clumsy passes.

or abusing a position of trust, and (no pun intended) lording your power within the party over perspective candidates etc, by being a completely slimy sleaze bag ? Depending on your point of view, of course…..

lord your power within the party over perspective candidates

none of this is evidenced in the quotes though,

When are you going to apologise to me about that night in Manchester binbins? You weren't the only one to buy me a drink. Hora did too and that was such a momentous occasion that I felt he was more deserving of my [s]looseness[/s] affections.

If he were a radio one DJ, would people be saying that he was:

"Guilty" of no more than a few clumsy passes.

?

Bimbler - Member

lord your power within the party over perspective candidates

none of this is evidenced in the quotes though,

Well perish the thought we may look a bit deeper into things than some quotes eh?

I don't normally find myself agreeing with Ms Toynbee, but she's on the money with this

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/21/lord-rennard-why-sexual-harassment-matters ]Sexual harassment is all about who has the power. And what women hear from the Lib Dems – yet again – is ‘not you’[/url]

Its a difficult one no doubt people in power do abuse it but once they objected he seems to have done little to make them stay or force himself upon them. It was clumsy, it was unrequited but was it actually harassment rather than just a crap pass?
None of them claim he said it would help or hinder their career so it seems a leap to say he was doing this - he may have though but it has not been claimed from that link

If every time you get blown out you have harassed someone then we are all guilty of that offence- NOT DD as that has never happened to him

ninfan - Member

If he were a radio one DJ, would people be saying that he was:

"Guilty" of no more than a few clumsy passes.

[img] [/img]

You love it Bravissimo!!!

[img] [/img]

None of them claim he said it would help or hinder their career so it seems a leap to say he was doing this - he may have though but it has not been claimed from that link

Some things don't really need overtly stating, when the implication seems so blindingly obvious though

You're a good lucking lad JY! Surely when you've been doing your L'oreal photoshoots, you've had to fend off the unwanted advances of Shaz, the 20 stone lass, with dubious bodily hygiene and halitosis, who's saying she can get you that next contract. If you just play the game 😀

his mate didnt help in his defence

BBC interview in which one of his supporters, Chris Davies MEP, said: "This is not Jimmy Savile. This is touching someone's leg six years ago at a meeting through clothing. This is the equivalent a few years ago of an Italian man pinching a woman's bottom. "

without knowing the details (and the report is not being released?) speculation fed by comments like those above only make it seem worse

The thing that pisses me off about this is if he was good looking they would have slept with him.
The guardian talks about him being out of their league which is the most condescending insulting crap .so only men of a specific look can try chatting them up even in his pathetic attempts.
This is just a pointless waste of media time with women claiming harassment bolx

If you had caused enough upset to another person through your behaviour, whilst not actually doing anything illegal, would you not just say "sorry" out of compassion.
Crikey! people bump into you in the street and say sorry nevermind making unwanted sexual advances.
If he had had the good grace to say sorry right at the beginning this would never have come to the public attention.

I say burn him!

Surely the real story is that the Lib Dems have actually dug their heels in.

The thing that pisses me off about this is if he was good looking they would have slept with him.

Wow! I'm loving all these [s]sweeping misogynistic statements and casual sexism [/s] devastating intuitive insights into the female pyche. 😯

Some things don't really need overtly stating, when the implication seems so blindingly obvious though

we cannot all have my [s]looks[/s] locks - very funny binners 😀

EDIT: Whilst I am no expert on women I think he would have more luck had he looked liked Brad Pitt and i dont think it is misogynistic to suggest that women prefer attractive men to fat ugly men. It was not said well though I grant you.

The thing that pisses me off about this is if he was good looking they would have slept with him.

Wow that's a bit of a stretch!

I do think it's conceivable some of them might have been flattered rather than distressed if it had been Clooney or Brad Pitt doing it though.

Certainly not at all appropriate behaviour when he's in work situations.

Some things don't really need overtly stating, when the implication seems so blindingly obvious

Oh the implication was obvious, loving the all seeing eye you have.

To be fair to the OP, fatty Rennard's behaviour does pale into insignificance when compared to that of Pompey Hancock:

http://order-order.com/2014/01/22/the-mike-hancock-report-that-the-libdems-hid/

EDIT: Whilst I am no expert on women I think he would have more luck had he looked liked Brad Pitt and i dont think it is misogynistic to suggest that women prefer attractive men to fat ugly men. It was not said well though I grant you.

Tell me about it...

Just look at some of the women politicians have slept with. There is definitely something about power that attracts women.
Look at monsieur hollande
But it's this belief that you have to be in someones league.
I thought women liked men with a sense of humour.
And we all know fat people are jolly
So rennard should be a prize xatch

Oh the implication was obvious, loving the all seeing eye you have.

Fanks. Its a gift! 😀

[img] [/img]

I think as a nation we need to get over this desire for apologies for everything.

I see it on here too - "bike shop x got something wrong, fixed it FOC and even gave me an upgrade, but I didn't get an apology". So what? The situation is fixed. Move on.

Lord Rennard has been found not guilty, he has nothing to apologise for.

Lord Rennard has been found not guilty

he certainly has not.

You're obviously a sensitive soul, full of empathy, but there's probably a slight difference between a faulty gear cable, and being touched up, repeatedly by an old letch.

And if you have to be found guilty in a court of law, beyond all reasonable doubt, before you need to apologise, or indeed feel a shred of remorse or contrition….. what a wonderful place the world would be if we all carried on like that.

As above, Rennard's hardly the big story here - Hancock's a vile creature.

If the allegations are true, and it must have taken something for the women to be willing to be named, he is at the very least a sleazy fat git who should not be in a position of power in a progressive party. And they probably wouldn't be the only 4 he has tried it on with.

[b]Sancho[/b] ?? really. So the women would have automatically slept with him if he was good looking ??

sounds like neither you or he belong in the 21st century.

We have probably all done things which aren't illegal, or may not be provable, but which are worthy of an apology. In this case he needs to do it to prove he understands what he got wrong.

Lord Rennard has been found not guilty, he has nothing to apologise for.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

😉

Were the alleged actions not so deeply unpleasant, this whole thing would be quite funny. Old Cleggy really has got himself into a pickle and it's looks like a no-win situation for all concerned. How long before it all blows over or is obscured by a different story?

As above, Rennard's hardly the big story here - Hancock's a vile creature.

Indeed. Which makes the Lib Dems position even more questionable. Why hide the loathsome Hancock away? Oust all of these valueless Neanderthals.

If this had happened in any workplace in the country he would have been fired. A boss should never touch anyone and his 2400 word statement....come on....how is this different to the Dave Lee Travis case?

Why should he?

1. He agreed to an independent investigation
2. He agreed to abide by its outcome
2. The investigation concluded that he should apologise

Indeed thm. They all come out of this looking like either a vile, lecherous old goat, or someone looking to cover up the actions of a vile, lecherous old goat, for reasons of political expediency

Their behaviour now reminds me of……

[img] [/img]

Only with the Lib Dems, they'd be water pistols, obviously. Mind you, with their electoral prospects looking so rosy, they can afford to take a hit

😆

(Ignoring the fact that MET found insufficient evidence for a moment) was the internal report designed to find out whether he should apologise or whether he was guilty of sexual harassment?

Was the report itself a bit of a whitewash? Things are not completely clear when you clear someone of wrongdoing but still say that they should apologise? Looks all very odd....

I am sure that Cleggy will clear it all up soon......

The thing is that a number of women went to the party hierarchy over the years to report the same behaviour. And the party hierarchy did precisely eff all about him.

Blind eyes being turned all over the place. A bit like the BBC with their busy-handed DJ's

Smoke and fire Binners? The trouble with cover ups (if that is the case) is that it all gets so much messier when he truth inevitably surfaces.

Back in the real world:

If three employees all claimed some chap at work touched them up he would be fired. End of the story.

Simply 3 against 1 and irrecoverable breakdown of trust.

If he was some lowly paid nobody he would have been shown the door ages ago.

From my reading it was 4 women who agreed to go public with the allegations, but there were others who didn't wish to go public. So it seems that the 4 were not alone.

None of us were present at any of these alleged incidents, but.....

From what I've seen of the allegations, he was a clumsy, leceherous fool. The women all declined his advances and no one appears to be saying that their refusal has held them back in their careers, so it should have ended there.

Maybe a proper "I'm sorry for any upset I have caused" would have been a good idea, in which case, there are a few women I need to apologise to as well.

It does seem that the parliamentary lib dems, the lib dems in the Lords and the women concerned all seem to want to self destruct for no good reason?

there are a few women I need to apologise to as well.

Why is that the way you behave in the work place?

Isn't it pretty obvious that in the work place you just do not get touchy feely. If you're attracted to someone, then ask them out politely, don't start stroking their legs or sitting them on your knee.

And frankly a bit of understanding and empathy to the positions of other people in life should be an essential job requirement for politics. If he doesn't understand what he has done then he has failed as a politician and a person.

He sounds like a sleezy old duffer who just played the percentages. For every 100 women he groped he might have got 1 lay. Lets just hope he got 10 knees in the groin.

But on the douchometer (0 being Jesus and 11 being Robin Thicke) he is only really about a 7. He should just apologise then go away somewhere and drink away his retirement.

Lord Rennard has been found not guilty, he has nothing to apologise for.

Some interesting suggestions from Sancho and Junkyard that some actions done to other people without their consent are less serious because you don't agree with the reasons that person didn't give their consent. Hmmm...

not sure that is what I am saying tbh
The accounts from the guardian [ and tbh i have not followed the story at all] seem to suggest he made some clumsy passes and failed to read signs and tried again. Its not like he grabbed their breasts or forced himself on them though it does seem like he had over stepped the mark for the workplace.
The workplace angle does alter it though as it was not the place to do this and he would likely be sacked for this in most professions whether criminal or not. like i said it was clumsy but it was still the workplace so that does it change my view of it somewhat