Nick Clegg. Witchfinder General.

[Audley Strange]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-257

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has said Lord Rennard should not rejoin the party's group in the House of Lords unless he apologises to female activists over allegations of sexual harassment.

An internal investigation found the claims were "broadly credible" but could be not proved beyond doubt.

Anyone else find it questionable to force someone to apologise for something they've been accused of without proof? Anyone think that Clegg's lack of understanding of the basic fucking rule of law should discount him from being in Parliament at all?

I know people will think this is me ranting about feminists, but honestly it's not, well not directly.

[Rum]

They had their 'PC Thought police boss' in the radio 4 this morning going on about how it could all be dealt with by an apology. Humphreys challenged the drone rather well but her answer appeared to be that where sex crimes are concerned a different standard of evidence and justice was required - i.e. none at all.

I do worry about the hysteria which seems to be being whipped up here concerning the sex crimes of some members of our privileged classes.

[cronus]

They had their 'PC Thought police boss' in the radio 4 this morning going on about how it could all be dealt with by an apology. Humphreys challenged the drone rather well but her answer appeared to be that where sex crimes are concerned a different standard of evidence and justice was required - i.e. none at all.

I do worry about the hysteria which seems to be being whipped up here concerning the sex crimes of some members of our privileged classes.

Always goes like this when there isn't a war brewing.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-257

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has said Lord Rennard should not rejoin the party's group in the House of Lords unless he apologises to female activists over allegations of sexual harassment.

An internal investigation found the claims were "broadly credible" but could be not proved beyond doubt.

Anyone else find it questionable to force someone to apologise for something they've been accused of without proof? Anyone think that Clegg's lack of understanding of the basic fucking rule of law should discount him from being in Parliament at all?

I know people will think this is me ranting about feminists, but honestly it's not, well not directly.

There have been multiple accusations from several women. How many are needed before it is considered proof? Should women set up CCTV surveillance on their bums in case someone pinches them?

[cronus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-257

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has said Lord Rennard should not rejoin the party's group in the House of Lords unless he apologises to female activists over allegations of sexual harassment.

An internal investigation found the claims were "broadly credible" but could be not proved beyond doubt.

Anyone else find it questionable to force someone to apologise for something they've been accused of without proof? Anyone think that Clegg's lack of understanding of the basic fucking rule of law should discount him from being in Parliament at all?

I know people will think this is me ranting about feminists, but honestly it's not, well not directly.

There have been multiple accusations from several women. How many are needed before it is considered proof? Should women set up CCTV surveillance on their bums in case someone pinches them?

Maybe they should.

[Rum]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-257

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has said Lord Rennard should not rejoin the party's group in the House of Lords unless he apologises to female activists over allegations of sexual harassment.

An internal investigation found the claims were "broadly credible" but could be not proved beyond doubt.

Anyone else find it questionable to force someone to apologise for something they've been accused of without proof? Anyone think that Clegg's lack of understanding of the basic fucking rule of law should discount him from being in Parliament at all?

I know people will think this is me ranting about feminists, but honestly it's not, well not directly.

There have been multiple accusations from several women. How many are needed before it is considered proof? Should women set up CCTV surveillance on their bums in case someone pinches them?

I don't agree, not of course that I condone sexual harassment. What you are suggesting leads to witch hunts and smear campaigns and the risk of someone like this guy being done over because he gives women the creeps (which he probably does whatever else he has done).

[Audley Strange]

There have been multiple accusations from several women. How many are needed before it is considered proof? Should women set up CCTV surveillance on their bums in case someone pinches them?

I'm quite sure there were multiple accusations during most of the original witch trials and most of the Satanic child abuse scares. I'm sure multiple accusations are common, but they are not always true. Hence Witchfinder General. A politician who demands a person be considered guilty and excluded until that person admits they are guilty of actions that are not proven is in my opinion not someone who should ever be let anywhere near power, let alone be the deputy prime minister.

[mistermack]

Clegg is a moron. He hasn't thought this through at all.

Is he saying that the guy should apologise, even if he didn't do anything? Because if he's not saying that, then by saying he should apologise, then he is obviously saying that the guy is guilty as charged.

Any unproveable accusation should be met with an apology, using that logic.

Or is he saying that more than one accusation means automatic guilt?
So if you want to fuck someone up, all you have to do is to get a number of women to say that the person made them feel uncomfortable.

It's a can of worms that will rebound on Clegg. Or it ought to. He should have kept his trap shut.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

If Clegg reckons Rennard is guilty; then he shouldn't be letting him back into the party - apology or not.

If Clegg doesn't reckon Rennard is guilty; then he shouldn't be asking him to apologise.

Clegg once more in the hunt for middle ground has found himself unable to stick to any one consistent principle.


"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run down." - Aneurin Bevan

[Warren Dew]

Anyone else find it questionable to force someone to apologise for something they've been accused of without proof? Anyone think that Clegg's lack of understanding of the basic fucking rule of law should discount him from being in Parliament at all?

Avoiding negative controversy is part of the job of being a politician in a democratic country, whether or not the controversy is justified. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the party leader to expect the politicians in the part to do that part of their job.

[JimC]

Anyone else find it questionable to force someone to apologise for something they've been accused of without proof? Anyone think that Clegg's lack of understanding of the basic fucking rule of law should discount him from being in Parliament at all?

Avoiding negative controversy is part of the job of being a politician in a democratic country, whether or not the controversy is justified. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the party leader to expect the politicians in the part to do that part of their job.

Acting on that principle to a full extent could be quite dangerous. It's easy enough for political enemies to create a hint of suspicion; if they know that party leaders will automatically dismiss people at the first hint of scandal it becomes a useful weapon...

[Audley Strange]

Anyone else find it questionable to force someone to apologise for something they've been accused of without proof? Anyone think that Clegg's lack of understanding of the basic fucking rule of law should discount him from being in Parliament at all?

Avoiding negative controversy is part of the job of being a politician in a democratic country, whether or not the controversy is justified. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the party leader to expect the politicians in the part to do that part of their job.

Acting on that principle to a full extent could be quite dangerous. It's easy enough for political enemies to create a hint of suspicion; if they know that party leaders will automatically dismiss people at the first hint of scandal it becomes a useful weapon...

Exactly my point, a bunch of activists on a power grab could easily rid themselves of those in their path by claiming "he touched me arse?" Which to be fair , especially in politics, seems equally as likely as the sexual harassment. Don't get me wrong, good luck to them if it works.

[Warren Dew]

Anyone else find it questionable to force someone to apologise for something they've been accused of without proof? Anyone think that Clegg's lack of understanding of the basic fucking rule of law should discount him from being in Parliament at all?

Avoiding negative controversy is part of the job of being a politician in a democratic country, whether or not the controversy is justified. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the party leader to expect the politicians in the part to do that part of their job.

Acting on that principle to a full extent could be quite dangerous. It's easy enough for political enemies to create a hint of suspicion; if they know that party leaders will automatically dismiss people at the first hint of scandal it becomes a useful weapon...

He was just being asked for an apology. Even if he didn't do anything wrong, apologizing for things that are not your fault is a skill everyone should have, not just politicians.

[MrJonno]

He was just being asked for an apology. Even if he didn't do anything wrong, apologizing for things that are not your fault is a skill everyone should have, not just politicians

But in this instance if I does so he will get sued, unfortunately in the real world when people say they want an 'apology' what they really mean is 'I want money'.

The British government shouldn't have been involved in the slave trade but when people say that want an apology (for what long dead people did) it sure isnt kind words they want

[mistermack]

The Lib Dems have just about committed electoral suicide with this one.

If they can't handle this, who's going to put them in charge of a nuclear button?

This sort of thing happens at Tesco's, or Ford's, or British Gas every day. The handle it.
If there is no proof, they issue a stern warning that if you DID grab her ass, you'd better not do it again.
And the complainant gets told that you can't do anything without proof, but that she was right to complain, and it will certainly not be held against her.

But most important, it's dealt with quickly and not allowed to fester.
If they don't complain straight away, then that's their own fault, and I would tell them so straight away.
If he denies it, and there's no corroboration, after months or a few years, then they should have been told that it's too late.

There's no perfect system for dealing with things that you can't prove. You have to play it by ear, use your management skills, and nip it in the bud as best you can.
The Liberals failed in all of that.