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

[237SJ]

I think he should. If he was sexually harassing colleagues in the private sector, he could/would be sacked. There doesn`t have to be a court case to prove it. I don`t see why it should be any different in his line of work.

[lynbrown]

Wasn't he found NOT guilty of harassment? Do the women who claim to have been harassed have any witnesses who saw it happening?

[Sqad]

What does he have to apologise for?
He hasn't been found guilty of committing ANY crime.

[2sp_]

I thought that they couldn't prove he did it due to lack of evidence? Not the same as being found Not Guilty.

Maybe he should just apologise for any behaviour that may have upset anyone. The sort of non-committal apology that so many politicians trot out when they've been up to no good.

[Sqad]

\\\Maybe he should just apologise for any behaviour that may have upset anyone. The sort of non-committal apology that so many politicians trot out when they've been up to no good.\\\\

LOL.

[jim360]

My understanding from listening to the Today Programme was that there was not enough evidence to press for charges, but that the QC agreed that "some distress" was caused to the women who raised the complaints. So he should apologise for causing "distress", if not for the more serious charges. But "not enough evidence" doesn't mean "not guilty", and it's not totally unbelievable that he did in fact harass some women. Wouldn't be the first -- nor the last -- case of a man who had "wandering hands", as I believe the phrase is.

[joggerjayne]

even if he didn't sexually harass anyone, he looks like the sort of person who would.

[Sqad]

JJ^^^^

Yes, i thought that too....;-)

[mikey4444]

Cleggie has found himself up a creek without a paddle on this one. If Renard continues to protest his innocence, then he can hardly be expected to apologise....after all, why would anyone say that they are sorry for something that they didn't do !

I heard Cleggie being interviewed on The Today program this morning and he made a brave face of it. But its his Parties rules that have landed him where he is today.

[jake-the-peg]

Clegg has been bamboozled by a couple of lawyers here.

They convened this enquiry and set the terms of reference as criminal - requiring a 'beyond reasonable doubt' level of proof.

It could just as easily have been under civil terms which might have had a very different outcome!

However that's water under the bridge now

I'm wondering if Rennard is concerned about the prospect of a civil case and thinks an appology might prejudice it.

If that is not the intent of the women involved and they're happy to make that assertation then yes he should apologise

If however they are considering civil action it would be completely wrong for anyone to pressurise Rennard into making a statement that might prejudice his defence

[anotheoldgit]

joggerjayne

/// even if he didn't sexually harass anyone, he looks like the sort of person who would. ///

I can't believe that anyone could make such a ludicrous statement as this.

[joggerjayne]

// I can't believe that anyone could make such a ludicrous statement as this //

Oh, AOG, stop being politically correct. The bloke looks like a perv.

[mikey4444]

aog...I agree, although he does look a bit creepy !

[Sqad]

I agree with JJ...in fact i will go further....I think that he looks ***.
There now, I've said it.

[anotheoldgit]

237SJ

/// I think he should. If he was sexually harassing colleagues in the private sector, he could/would be sacked. There doesn`t have to be a court case to prove it. I don`t see why it should be any different in his line of work. ///

And there wasn't a court case in this affair it was a party disciplinary proceedings.

Would you wish to be sacked just because o fellow colleague accused you of something untoward, I think not, neither do I think you would apologise for something that a disciplinary proceedings could not prove something that you were accused of committing.

[anotheoldgit]

joggerjayne

/// Oh, AOG, stop being politically correct. The bloke looks like
a perv. ///

I fail to see how I am being political correct simply because I am seen to be defending a person who is being accused of looking like a perv just because of the looks that nature has bestowed on him.

Had he been tall dark and handsome, I suppose you would also be saying that he couldn't have possibly done it, simply because he didn't look like a 'perv'?

[joggerjayne]

yes, of course

[sandyRoe]

Wouldn't an apology be an admission of wrongdoing?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - I think he could frame his apology along the lines of - "Although there is no evidence to support any claims that I acted in an illegal fashion towards any of the ladies involved, if i have caused any distress, up to and including their requirement to give evidence to the Disciplinary Panel, then i would like to apologise unreseredly for any part I may have played in creating that scenario."

That doesn't admit to any guilt, but it does chime with the concensus that there has been inappropriate behaviour, but not enough to secure a criminal convction.

Saying sorry doesn't take ten years off someone's life - it would be a more dignified end than the political (ly correct?) corner that Nick Clegg has painted himself into - unseemly squabbling about being asked to apologise, and being told no, helps no-one.

[zebo]

JJ, would you allow someone to say that "she looks like a bit of a sl@pper" so she must have loose morals?
As far as this question is concerned, he's not being charged with anything, so why should he apologise for something that someone else thinks he might have done? Remember the old song "You can't go to jail for what you're thinking"?