Vocal Voices

What a farce, this individual is screaming like an alley cat following being exposed by the women he allegedly groped he will of course not be forced to give up his seat in the Lords, like the other groper Prescott "now a Lord" these individuals
know too much of what goes on behind the scenes and the supposed respectability of Westminster, they know of the wheeling and dealing,. "What's the betting he remains draped in his Ermine?

I haven't really followed this but my understanding is he is being slated for refusing to apologise for sexually harrassing four women.

Surely if it hasn't been proven he did and he is saying he didn't then he shouldn't have to apologise. Apologising would've admitting guilt surely? That would be like me apologising for for breaking a vase that I hadn't broken. Why would you apologise for something you hadn't done.

I'm not saying he did or didn't do it but he shouldn't be made to apologise for something he says he didn't do. Nor should he be punished for something he says he didn't do unless it is proved otherwise.

I agree with Debih! If he is guilty then he should be prosecuted, and if he isn't why should he apologise? It's a really strange situation

I await the outcome with interest. Four women? I would hardly think that they have deliberately formed a gang to accuse this man of something he supposedly didn't do. If their accusations are false it shows the quality of women we have in Westminster,
Me? I back the women. If this so called Lord takes the route he is threatening to take, Clegg will be (thankfully ) done for.

The main issue here is the threat to Clegg's leadership and the danger of splitting the party in two.

Does anyone know what "sexual harassment" or "inappropriate touching" mean any more? They are obviously not up there with sending pornographic materials or rape - he would have been prosecuted - but do flirting or an arm round the shoulders fall into the categories? We do not have the details.

The party's own investigation concluded the claims could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but that the evidence was "broadly credible". That's about as much of a non-statement as can be imagined and leaves the waters muddied even more.

Yes, that's the whole point WM. What was quite usual behaviour years ago is considered an assault nowadays. I was a secretary in government offices for a few years at the ages of about 18-22. If I had cried assault and sought damages every time one of the chaps put his hand on my knee whilst I was taking shorthand, or put his arm round my shoulders and gave me an over-friendly squeeze I might have been very wealthy woman now. We just learnt how to deal with it.

Things certainly have changed Rodo I expect I would have been "done" otherwise for giving a secretary a hug after a triumph. Apparently "Innocent until proved guilty" no longer applies.

It's very much a generational thing - as Rodo and Pederito have indicated. But it's a very different world from those days. Clumsy fumbling or "over-familiarity", you might call it, but you just cannot do that now.

Rennard is a dinosaur, about time he was made extinct, methinks.

Personally I think there should be a legal time limit, after which such claims as these women are making would not be allowed.

If they were that serious, they should have done something about it at the time.

I would have thought that the police have enough present-day crimes needing their attention.