Lord Rennard - Should he apologise?

[pjclarke]

He can't see what harm he's done so apart from quietly shunting him sideways and out there is nothing anyone can really do about him....

Ah, but there's the rub. he doesn't intend to let anyone shunt him anywhere. Cleggy has said that without an apology Rennard should not resume his seat in the Lords, but Chris intends to do just that today, I don't think Clegg has the power to stop him, so its a test of his authority and that of the party, and a blow to their claim, sorry pledge, that as a party, they treat everyone with respect.

[eek]

Ah, but there's the rub. he doesn't intend to let anyone shunt him anywhere. Cleggy has said that without an apology Rennard should not resume his seat in the Lords, but Chris intends to do just that today, I don't think Clegg has the power to stop him, so its a test of his authority and that of the party, and a blow to their claim, sorry pledge, that as a party, they treat everyone with respect.

Which is why they should have avoided the issue entirely rather than talking at all about it.

[VectraMan]

Which is why they should have avoided the issue entirely rather than talking at all about it.

I don't understand why Nick Clegg is being such an arse. All he's doing is turning a slightly embaressing situation for his party into a really embaressing situation.

Clearly the bloke can't apologise without looking guilty.

[Scrag Meister]

There are 2 trains of thought.

1. He hasn't been found guilty of anything, so why should he apologise?
2. As a politeness to the person involved he should apologise.

As this is a very political arena an apology would be seen as something significantly more that a simple politeness, actually an admission of guilt.

So NO he should not apologise.

[DirtyDog]

Ah, but there's the rub.

I think that's where the problems started...

I don't think Clegg has the power to stop him

He can't. Only the chief whip and the leader in the lords can do that, and even that can be overturned by the Lib Dem lords voting to overturn it.

That's the trouble with being a democratic party - democracy can get in the way.

[vetran]

what should have happened was that at the first offence he should have been taken in with HR and read the riot act, second offence and gone.

on the surface he is a foolish old buffer who overstepped the mark. possibly because he was brought up that way and he should have been managed.

[DirtyDog]

Surely they can't stop him sitting in the House of Lords if he wants to?

Irrespective of him being in the LibDems.

No. It's whether he returns as a peer or a Lib Dem peer which is the discussion.

Today's Lords debate - anti-social behaviour

[pjclarke]

He's innocent in the legal sense of innocent until proven guilty. However the enquiry found compelling evidence of inappropriate behaviour, that did not rise to the level required for a prosecution to stand a good chance of securing a conviction. He sees this as exoneration, therefore no apology is required. However the very same enquiry that he claims 'cleared' him also recommended that an apology would be appropriate. He wants it both ways (no jokes pls). Its all about the message that him carrying on apparently uncontrite would send on the party's position (no jokes again) on sexual harrassment; Cleggy needs to stamp his authority on ..... oh dear



Hi, I'm Chris, 53, built for comfort, married, and a major player in Lib Dem politics. Want to see my manifesto?

Mmmm take me now, big boy;

[Mich the Tester]

If the guy really believes he's done nothing wrong, what value would an apology be to anyone, aside from the political needs?

[EternalOptimist]

If I had a pound for everytime a bird had pinched me bum, I'd have two pound fifty.
If they had chained me to the bed and forced me to do 'fings' to them, that would be different, that would be grounds , that would