Should Lord Rennard Apologise For Something He Has Been Found Not Guilty Of?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542527/Rennard-sue-Clegg-tries-kick-Lib-Dems.html

[emmie]

any of those women i wonder?

[emmie]

one who probably didn't.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-19/lib-dem-peer-rennard-should-not-sit-in-house-of-lords/

[LazyGun]

"The LibDem peers gave Rennard a rousing cheer when he returned."

You mean today, Gromit? I am confused now, then ,because he elected not to attend the Lords today,citing ill health, as I understand it.

[Hopkirk]

Another nail in the coffin of the Lib Dems at the next election.

[emmie]

he didn't, if you read his statement on the right of the piece

http://news.sky.com/story/1198000/liberal-democrats-suspend-lord-rennard

[Gromit]

The Lords cheered last Friday. From Saturdays Guardian...

// the party's reputation was in tatters. "They didn't have a vote on Wednesday over Rennard's reinstatement; they had a unilateral announcement by the chief whip that Rennard was being brought back, and those peers cheered.

"The women and men who cheered in that group have no concept of how that looks to the outside world, in ordinary workplaces. Nick Clegg had a duty to show moral leadership. He hasn't." //

[LazyGun]

@Gromit - Ahh, thanks for the clarification.

[Gromit]

Sorry, Wednesday not Friday.

[anotheoldgit]

/// The LibDem peers gave Rennard a rousing cheer when he
returned. ///

I don't think so he has been suspended from the party Shortly after the announcement was made, Lord Rennard confirmed he would not be appearing in the Lords as had been expected.

*** His legal adviser, Lord Carlile, has warned that the peer will consider legal action against the party if the whip is not reinstated. ***

I suspect that this affair is going to get even more interesting in the very near future.

[emmie]

i hope it goes away - like the man himself, apologise or not.

[bentaxle]

Another reason why I will not be turning out on election day to vote for any of them ,two things that happen in the real world like plebgate three men having a couple of words at a gate and something like this,something that should have been sorted on the day makes me wonder what sort of people are in parliament

[emmie]

actually bentaxle, the problem with plebgate is that the police lied, and it cost a man his job, and sexual harassment of girls, women, is not to be taken lightly, if he doesn't apologise, then so be it.

[CokeTulip]

My opinion.
Yes - he should apologise quickly considering the broadly credibile outcome -
you're wording is all wrong AOG - we're not fools you know. He knows he is in the wrong and he is being given the easiest of routes out - what a fool, what a complete fool.

He himself is the one complicating matters and it is completely unnecessary and he has seen all the witness statements (he said he hadn't seen them - wrong).

As I think Andy-H covered, it is very easy to have an apology letter drafted by his legal advisor worded in such a way that it does not leave him open to civil action. What is the problem. He managed a 2,600 word document this week! and turned up to the Lords so he wouldn't miss his £300 fee! but was actually suspended at the time.

Just think that whatever about this "career luncher" , Mr Clegg could have been clearer and brought this to a clean and quick conclusion for all involved.

We'll have to wait and see what happens.

[FredPuli43]

Launching a legal action; The Times talks of his getting an injunction to prevent the proposed inquiry; is quite the stupidest thing he could do. He plainly has no self-perception. His alleged behaviour is that of a man who thinks he can do what he likes, the supposed victims being highly unlikely to risk complaining at the time. He was a very important figure. They were not. In short, he appears as something of a bully, who abused his position.

Now how does that fit with threatening legal action, not against the women (he could take his chance in defamation proceedings; one wonders, but not for long, why he hasn't) but against the Party ? Sounds like the action of a bully. Robert Maxwell comes to mind, and that is not an image which he should be associating himself with.

Plus, he is set fair to lose if the Party calls his bluff, but he is banking on scaring them by the cost.

[CokeTulip]

Thats interesting Fred..
So much for the Lib Dems being his second family! and I suppose when its being described as grenade chucking - they have a point. Its all potentially destructive unless the grenades are fake.

Lord R has a huge stake in the Lib Dems and he could try to bring it down though just to prove some point and if he has the profile of a psychopath. He knows where they are vulnerable. I'm sure there are examples in history of where you get this. (You see it in divorces! all the time)