Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Quite entertaining watching this guy try and tear his party apart. Really don't understand what his game is.
approach to things from Clegg too.
I think the world would be a much nicer place if all those found not guilty of anything are still forced to say sorry for it anyway.
but to not even make a qualified apology ("Sorry if you misinterpreted my behaviour") is a bit pig-headedly weird.
I don't know anything about Rennard (I'm just going to assume he did it and he's an unrepentant arsehole as well as has a decent lawyer) but for Clegg to try to take the moral high ground now after senior Lib Dems ignored or dismissed whatever happened when it happened is pretty audacious.
Rennard is weird though, he immediately started hooting about conspiracies and stitch-ups when with a bit of diplomacy he could have defused the situation somewhat.
so he's just standing by that really.
Thing is, he's in a situation where he could have just said, Sorry, no offence or discomfort was meant, and I will try to be more mindful of the impact of my actions upon others in future' not necessarily admitting guilt, but apologising for distress. All over, move on.
If anything it's making him look more like a tit and harming his party that he so claims to love like family.
read Royter's post
The judge recommended he apologise so there must have been something there, plus he'd made a lot of women feel uncomfortable enough to report him for his actions. So whether it was 'technically' sexual harassment or not, surely he should at the very least apologise for being inappropriate and over-stepping acceptable boundaries?
Pretty heated response here, anyway, saying he was a groper and stuff:
But if you set up a quasi-court of law to establish whether he's guilty and it can't find enough evidence to say he's guilty then he doesn't just become a bit guilty and have to be a bit sorry.
I'm not defending him, it's just the Lib Dems have made a huge fucking mess of this from the start and they're now making it worse.
Could they prove he is guilty of anything beyond reasonable doubt? no
Are they sure his behaviour caused distress and discomfort? yes
advised result? Apology
it's not how a normal organisation would deal with sexual harassment. bunch of fucking liberals.
so they have to go through with it in that way.
I think the way these things are handled is a bit ridiculous, but I can't profess to know a better solution
Again, I'm not defending him, but why would anyone in his position do anything that might equate to even the tiniest admission of guilt?
It's remarkably naive to just ask him to say sorry and everything will be okay again anyway.
alright William Golding
I see your point, but like I said, the advice to apologise came from the committee and has been reinforced by Clegg, it's not some arbitrary action he's come up with.
They seem to have some kind of internal fuck up every few years, although they've probably not had a massive one since the Charles Kennedy alcoholism saga.
'democratically' run party where the leader is a figurehead and all of the power comes from committees.
they treated Kennedy's battles with alcoholism with too little humanity and they're treating Rennard's indiscretions with way too much. Of course the `they` has shifted in the last 6 or so years but... still.
on twitter. Plenty of female journalists and MPs responding most unfavourably to Michael White’s piece in the Guardian yesterday:
I normally hold White’s considered and eloquent readings of political goings on in about as high esteem as possible, but he’s misjudged this one very badly and seems incredibly out of both touch and depth in his response to it. Disappointing stuff all round.
and hunted by the aristocracy with only his cunning to protect him.
Literally had this in my head since I saw the thread title.
all the apologist, equivocating shit about this thing kinda just demonstrates what a bunch of cunts most people in power are.
I thought that's always pretty evident
if it's so evident to people why do they still vote for these liberal cunts?
then you'd go the way of Russell Brand tbf.
RB's comments would have done more to encourage voter turnout than anything in recorded history. The knob.
and should stick to using loquacious language and a quick wit to make jokes, rather than essentially do the tories a massive favour, if anything at all.
My point was more - they're all cunts.
and calling rape crisis centres for a laugh, etc
plenty of labour MPs aren't absolute cunts. get more of those guys elected and we're doing alright. Russell brand is great too so shut up.
(I should point out I'm not Lib Dem as well despite how it may come across in this particular thread.)
let me guess, you think people shouldn't have political affinities but should just be self-satisfied, sneering cunts speaking from a position of not actually having much to lose/gain from the outcome of a general election?
brusma comes very much across as one of those cunts who thinks they're morally above party politics. russel brand hates the party political system for anti-capitalist reasons not out of sheer smugness.
from thinking you're morally above party politics
and re-evaluate it at each election
Labour are the only political vehicle that can do good. All others are invalid. Even when Labour are a shower of tory wastrels. You stick with 'em. Cause they're gonna change. We can make it happen. Labor-led socialism is just around the corner.
PS: Westminster rules OK. Holyrood suxxxxx.
Get more of those guys elected and we'd be doing well. And that's from someone who detests what a large part of the Tory party stands for.
Same could be said for any of the other parties, including the Lib Dems. You do yourself a disservice by bringing party politics into this sub-thread.
post-political-beyond-left-and-right absolute crap.
i'll bring party politics in whenever the fuck I think its appropriate.
as much as I've got the right to suggest that in my view it detract from the point in hand.
by trying to take control of how I frame and express my political views. you cheapened the thread.
This is possibly my favouite post of the last couple of years. Good work :)
that can't always be nicely organized into two neat little categories
That's what this country needs more of!
action/consequence interface, isn't it
by a immigrant homosexual meteorologist.
Has marckee apologised yet?
Surely those who were groped 'honestly believed' they were being sexually assaulted ?
or does that only work for the defence and in cases of death by shooting?
Britain is confusing
but you knew that
as in both cases the perpetrators are using their power and influence - and their victims relative lack of power and influence - to prejudice proceedings
it may seem tenuous but they're both clear examples of the same type of power-play
I just don't really see that there's anything illuminating in the anaolgy
and missing the wood of the structural bias of society
You wouldn't want to change that.
and yes I would
"of course this is a different generation and in those days there were different values"
Can I just say this is absolute bollocks, I am the same age as this Rennard creature, and I have never behaved like this, I have witnessed, such slimey ugly attitudes, but I never percieved them to be acceptable.
In fact one of the reasons that I was glad to work for IBM (when I did) was because this sort of behaviour would be totally unacceptable and that anyone could call out any level of manager on this sort of ism, basically you felt confident you could report any abuse or inappropriate behaviour without fear of repercussions for yourself.
THIS is the atmosphere political parties THAT MAKE POLICY AND LAWS FOR EVERYONE ELSE.........MUST engender.
There is no excuse for the libdems to not send firm clear messages that this sort of thing is NOT acceptable or professional.
PS the apologists who like to emphasise all the tallents he has as a campaigner, might like to reflect that far more extreme monsters also have had remarkable talents in particular areas, doesnt mean you accept the unacceptable.
Clegg is weak.....why didnt he use his.......powerful charisma and powers of persuasion, combined with his personal and positional authority and persistance, to make Rennard turn around? (One assumes that political party leaders have such personal attribute, otherwise what the hell have they been elected as the leaders for?)
Said that the allegations of sexual harrassment were "credible". However on the "balance of probabilities" they were not proved. That is what the report actually found.
In light of this, what does Rennard actually have to answer here?
Finally, DD, people might have more respect for your opinions if you'd stop lashing out at people.
It’s ok everyone, the Lib Dems have taken a long, hard look in the mirror, decided no-one has done anything wrong, one man should apologise (but won’t), and everyone can carry on as they were before:
Look in the mirror long enough and it will all go away, Nick.