Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Lord Rennard: Hero or Villian?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 126 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 20 Jan 2014 16:09:40 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2014 17:09:23 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 17:13:01 GMT
Spin says:
The easiest, laziest way to bring a person to his/her knees is to accuse them of sexual abuse of some sort. And, strangely, it makes no difference if one is innocent; the accusation itself is enough to destroy lives and careers. In a society were sexual freedom is valued, where sex sells, it is odd that sex is still considered to be something dirty and taboo...Odd...

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 17:51:54 GMT
David Groom says:
As I see it this is a complete disaster for the Lib-dems. It appears they failed to properly investigate and take any action when the allegations first surfaced and were forced to do so only later when all the other recent allegations came to light. Their own process for investigating and taking action seems to require a high criminal standard of evidence for a guilty verdict, and the barrister who was appointed to investigate this matter has concluded that such a standard couldn't be met.

The result is that Lord Rennard has not been found guilty or even been charged with anything, nor it seems can the party do anything about that because of the high threshold of proof they require to do so. That means the women have made allegations which must be damaging to both him and the party, but the party is now unable to do anything directly about them. Asking him to apologise suggests that the leadership believes he is guilty of something, but they can't prove it, but if he were to do so he would be effectively admitting that guilt. As he has denied the allegations, it seems a ridiculously stupid thing for the Lib-dem leadership to expect him to do.

Now they are trying for this disrepute argument, but that is so obviously a wheeze to get him on something and to be seen to do something, that I can see it backfiring spectacularly. He can easily argue that he did nothing, was not shown to have done anything and, therefore, he has done nothing to bring the party into disrepute, all based on the party's own rules. As I see it there is no argument against that case, and his lawyers would have a field day in court if he sued the party, as he well might. At the end of the day, whether he is guilty or not, and I have a personal view on that, he isn't punishable until found guilty and the party has woefully failed to do this, and is now desperately looking for a fig leaf for itself. I predict tears and angst for Nick Clegg on this, unless something drastic happens in the meantime.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 17:56:13 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2014 18:07:16 GMT
Spin says:
David; As I understand it, Rennard is quite influential and powerful within the Lib Dems. So is this not a case of "power-mongering" using unproven accusations as a means of ousting someone with "too much influence"? Remember Thatcher and Tarzan? Mandelson and Blair? =)

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 18:38:47 GMT
David Groom says:
Spin,

'As I understand it, Rennard is quite influential and powerful within the Lob Dems. So is this not a case of "power-mongering" using unproven accusations as a means of ousting someone with "too much influence"? Remember Thatcher and Tarzan? Mandelson and Blair? =) '

I wouldn't know whether there is any underhandedness going on here. All I will say is that if there is some kind of conspiracy it seems to be backfiring in spectacular fashion. I see from the BBC news that Lord Rennard appears to be intending to go to the courts presumbly to challenge the party's right to suspend him. That will keep this subject firmly in the news for the forseeable and that's the last thing that the Lib-Dems will want.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 18:46:05 GMT
Spin says:
David: I am a great cynic when it comes to the politics presented to us voters. There is ALWAYS some underlying, and probably underhand, reason for political disputes within parties. I await Rennards attempt to clog up London traffic...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 18:58:41 GMT
David Groom says:
Spin,

'I am a great cynic when it comes to the politics presented to us voters. There is ALWAYS some underlying, and probably underhand, reason for political disputes within parties. I await Rennards attempt to clog up London traffic...=) '

But if you assume that to be so in this case, you credit the Lib-Dem party with not the slightest smidgeon of political nouse. Why? Because it's all going spectacularly wrong for them, so whoever thought it was a good idea to 'get' Lord Rennard is clearly a politically naive idiot. No matter what I think of the Lib-Dems and my opinion isn't high, they don't generally come across as ridiculously idiotic when it comes to politics.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 19:07:36 GMT
Spin says:
David: it has "gone wrong" for every political party in the past and present. This "coalition", a misnomer in my opinion, has put the Lib Dems in the spotlight and the faults of their "Liberal" and "Democratic" beliefs are becoming apparent; a fact Clegg and his fellow oiks are starting to realise. The Lib Dems have been silent for so long, they no longer have anything to say...If the only attention a political party gets is caused by internal conflict, then it is not a party worth considering...The Lib Dems are currently no better than UKIP; an oddball party fighting amongst its own members...

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 20:08:49 GMT
Spin says:
Why are there no woman accused of sexual abuse? Is the possession of a penis instant proof that one is a sexist, abusing perv? What happened to the concepts of "Equality", especially "Sexual equality", and "Justice"?

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 20:15:42 GMT
Spin says:
Any woman who demands the right to think and act like a man, and demands that men think and act like women, does not represent anyone or anything but their own materialistic greed.

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 20:49:07 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2014 20:50:37 GMT
Spin says:
The Homo Sapien male is becoming extinct... Simply look at a woman the wrong way and you'll find yourself in court...=)

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 20:52:26 GMT
easytiger says:
Burkas for the lot of them.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 20:56:00 GMT
Spin says:
Easy; A case for foot-binding and female circumcision, no doubt?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:01:19 GMT
easytiger says:
No, just burkas will do.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:03:39 GMT
Spin says:
easy: Why?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:07:01 GMT
Now then you'll upset Mr G holier-than-thou Liath.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:13:37 GMT
gille liath says:
Well he certainly ain't a hero is he?

My understanding is that, whilst there wasn't the standard of evidence required for a criminal investigation (which bizarrely, would also be the standard required for an internal LibDem investigation), nobody really doubts that he's guilty. MPs have been jailed for far less.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:23:12 GMT
Spin says:
Gille: I thought you guys were in favour of "evidence" and "proof"? You argue for these concepts when disputing theology...Are evidence and proof relative to your beliefs?

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 21:27:35 GMT
Spin says:
There is no evidence or proof that Rennard sexually accosted the women who are making claims against him. Even Clegg admits this and is demanding an apology not for a crime but to satisfy the few who vote for him. "sorry for causing an upset"...Jesus wept...So much for the scientific outlook on reality..."Evidence" is not as valuable as some on these threads try to make out...

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:33:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2014 21:38:04 GMT
gille liath says:
Eh? I don't remember saying that. ;)

I recognise, as the legal system does, that different standards of proof are appropriate in different situations. It's absurd to demand a criminal standard of proof in a situation like this (ie for an internal investigation). It's in the nature of these cases that they're difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. If it was a 'balance of probabilities' - as in a civil case - they would probably find against him. That ought to be quite enough when it's a question of probity in public life.

And what does it say about the LibDems that this guy can safely disregard the party leader?

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 21:36:18 GMT
easytiger says:
Tarts squeal therefore he's guilty. That's it: Burkas and nose rings for the lot of them. Even DLT gets a trial for grabbing someone's bits 40 yrs ago.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:38:30 GMT
gille liath says:
Oh dear, ET - wondering who's going to be next...?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:40:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2014 21:42:26 GMT
Spin says:
Gile: It depends on who you consider to be your party's leader...And your legal system changes according to society's morality, not some absolute eternal law...To say the "law" obeys the law is like saying Time flows according to Time...Nonsense...

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:42:31 GMT
gille liath says:
Well...it may not be eternal, but it is the law. Civil and criminal: there's always been a difference in the standard of evidence required.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:44:09 GMT
Spin says:
Gille; So why do you demand strict, irrefutable evidence in some arguments but require less evidence in other arguments?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  126
Initial post:  20 Jan 2014
Latest post:  9 Feb 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions