General councillors and other notable defections

[tonygreaves]

carlton23 - accusation is not guilt. And whether the four accusers were all "inner true believers" is something that has not been tested. The fact is that their evidence was not found worthy or taking to the "trial" stage by an eminent QC. There was "no case to answer". Lord Rennard is innocent.

[carlton43]

Nov 14, 2015 16:48:23 GMT tonygreaves said:

"Creepy slime ball" may or may not be defamatory. But if all elected politicians at any level were vetoed for being "creepy slime-balls" quite a few would have to go. The democratic point is that if I vote for someone that I think is a fine upstanding person but is thought by a political opponent to be a creepy slime-ball, that is a matter of opinion. Not a reason for rejecting the result of a democratic election.

The only thing that Chris threatened to sue the party over was when the party refused to abide by its own rules by refusing to allow him to see the report that was the basis of the proposals to discipline him. In the end they gave in and it became clear that the report exonerated him. I would do the same - what would you do if it happened to you?

But whether or not Chris Rennard is a "disgrace" is a matter of opinion. It is not the opinion of a majority of the Liberal Democrat peers and who represents them on the FE is their (our) decision.

It is your own female party staffers who made the complaints, not political opponents. Is this man worth all the hurt and dislocation and the antagonizing of a section of your female support. Just asking?!

[carlton43]

Nov 14, 2015 16:51:19 GMT tonygreaves said:

carlton23 - accusation is not guilt. And whether the four accusers were all "inner true believers" is something that has not been tested. The fact is that their evidence was not found worthy or taking to the "trial" stage by an eminent QC. There was "no case to answer". Lord Rennard is innocent.

So they are all liars and he is 'innocent'. Nice one. How very liberal. Feminism passed you chaps by didn't it. In these cases it is very difficult to get evidence that stands up in court which is why so few cases of child abuse or sexual harassment, or rape ever succeed. The perpetrators  are all 'innocent' of course. Neat trick and serves justice so well. You are fully happy with that position then and think it worth turning the knife in the wound by choosing him over all others and damn the effect it has on observers? You do? I am amazed.

[Deleted]

The bit which I find hard to swallow is the standard of proof.

Rightfully, the barrier for criminal conviction is high - beyond reasonable doubt. You can't lock someone up unless you are very sure of their guilt.

I can accept there is reasonable doubt of Lord Rennard's guilt.

Why this standard of proof should be applied in the case of political appointments I don't know. Logic would dictate that balance of probabilities should apply. In my view, Lord Rennard does probably not pass this hurdle.

[East Anglian Lefty]

In all honesty, balance of probabilities is probably too generous when you're discussing whether something bars an appointment. It's not a civil case, it's an appointment decision. Reasonable and widespread suspicion probably ought to rule somebody out when there are other equally-qualified candidates available.

[J.G.Harston]

Nov 14, 2015 16:59:45 GMT carlton43 said:

So they are all liars and he is 'innocent'. Nice one. How very liberal. Feminism passed you chaps by didn't it. In these cases it is very difficult to get evidence that stands up in court which is why so few cases of child abuse or sexual harassment, or rape ever succeed. The perpetrators  are all 'innocent' of course. Neat trick and serves justice so well. You are fully happy with that position then and think it worth turning the knife in the wound by choosing him over all others and damn the effect it has on observers? You do? I am amazed.

If Feminism had passed the party by then the complaints would have been ignored. As it is, the complaints were taken on board and investigated. The investigation found no case to answer. Not being omniscient or having mind-reading skills, none of us here can know the metaphysical facts, only the reported claimed facts. A finding of fact has to be based on the reported claimed facts and the Finding of Fact was that there was no case to answer. If there is no case to answer the accused is innocent.

[Deleted]

Nov 14, 2015 18:08:07 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Nov 14, 2015 16:59:45 GMT carlton43 said:

So they are all liars and he is 'innocent'. Nice one. How very liberal. Feminism passed you chaps by didn't it. In these cases it is very difficult to get evidence that stands up in court which is why so few cases of child abuse or sexual harassment, or rape ever succeed. The perpetrators  are all 'innocent' of course. Neat trick and serves justice so well. You are fully happy with that position then and think it worth turning the knife in the wound by choosing him over all others and damn the effect it has on observers? You do? I am amazed.

If Feminism had passed the party by then the complaints would have been ignored. As it is, the complaints were taken on board and investigated. The investigation found no case to answer. Not being omniscient or having mind-reading skills, none of us here can know the metaphysical facts, only the reported claimed facts. A finding of fact has to be based on the reported claimed facts and the Finding of Fact was that there was no case to answer. If there is no case to answer the accused is innocent.

Again, no criminal case to answer for and innocent of a criminal offence. That is accepted based on the report by a QC.

This is not the pertinent question. The pertinent question is, by applying that level of proof, are you doing enough to protect women who work around him?

Following your argument - would you consider an application by OJ Simpson to a Lib Dem anti-domestic violence post. After all, he was found innocent in the criminal courts. 

[neilm]

What does Lord Rennard do for a living now? Presumably some sort of PR or public affairs role?

[neilm]

The thing about whether a verdict of innocent in a criminal context renders an individual actually innocent is interesting. I really like the Scottish 'not proven' verdict: when I did jury service, it was really obvious that the two in the dock were guilty of something, and quite possibly what they were charged with, but the evidence was thin. I suspect the jury is out on Rennard, although I side with him for personal reasons that I've mentioned before.

[finsobruce]

Nov 14, 2015 18:14:40 GMT neilm said:

What does Lord Rennard do for a living now? Presumably some sort of PR or public affairs role?

Director of Communications for the British Health Trades Association according to his entry on the UK parliament website.

[Deleted]

Nov 14, 2015 16:51:19 GMT tonygreaves said:

carlton23

Go forward a generation.

[Crimson King]

what I can't understand is what Chris Rennard and the Lords who elected him thought would be the upshot of all this. These people are skilled and experienced politicians, who should have the interests of teh party at heart, and must have realised standing/electing him would cause exactly the sort of distress it has.

I appreciate that sometimes you have to stand up for a principle, even if it going to cause you difficulty. I am less convinced that you should do so when it is going to cause a lot of other people difficulty

[Merseymike]

Nov 14, 2015 19:00:44 GMT Crimson King said:

what I can't understand is what Chris Rennard and the Lords who elected him thought would be the upshot of all this. These people are skilled and experienced politicians, who should have the interests of teh party at heart, and must have realised standing/electing him would cause exactly the sort of distress it has.

I appreciate that sometimes you have to stand up for a principle, even if it going to cause you difficulty. I am less convinced that you should do so when it is going to cause a lot of other people difficulty

It did appear, from the outside, to be something of an 'up yours' statement.

[tonygreaves]

I think to be honest no-one realised that there were still angry and apparently vindictive people who had not accepted the previous decisions. By the way this is not a personnel "appointment" it is a democratic election. As for the standard of proof, the QC who looked into the case in detail and produced a detailed report had to adjudicate on the basis of the party rules at the time. He has however said since that if it had been the civil level of proof his decision would have been the same. And remember - this was not a trial or hearing of any kind - it was a prior investigation to see whether there was any basis for going to the next stage. The answer was clear - no case to answer.

Tony Greaves

[carlton43]

Nov 14, 2015 22:53:09 GMT tonygreaves said:

I think to be honest no-one realised that there were still angry and apparently vindictive people who had not accepted the previous decisions. By the way this is not a personnel "appointment" it is a democratic election. As for the standard of proof, the QC who looked into the case in detail and produced a detailed report had to adjudicate on the basis of the party rules at the time. He has however said since that if it had been the civil level of proof his decision would have been the same. And remember - this was not a trial or hearing of any kind - it was a prior investigation to see whether there was any basis for going to the next stage. The answer was clear - no case to answer.

Tony Greaves

Jolly good. Keep up the good work. We in other parties are delighted you insist on shooting the other foot as well. Set back your recovery as far as you like.

[Richard Allen]

Nov 14, 2015 22:53:09 GMT tonygreaves said:

I think to be honest no-one realised that there were still angry and apparently vindictive people who had not accepted the previous decisions. By the way this is not a personnel "appointment" it is a democratic election. As for the standard of proof, the QC who looked into the case in detail and produced a detailed report had to adjudicate on the basis of the party rules at the time. He has however said since that if it had been the civil level of proof his decision would have been the same. And remember - this was not a trial or hearing of any kind - it was a prior investigation to see whether there was any basis for going to the next stage. The answer was clear - no case to answer.

Tony Greaves

As I previously said, staggering political naivety.

[john07]

Nov 14, 2015 22:53:09 GMT tonygreaves said:

I think to be honest no-one realised that there were still angry and apparently vindictive people who had not accepted the previous decisions. By the way this is not a personnel "appointment" it is a democratic election. As for the standard of proof, the QC who looked into the case in detail and produced a detailed report had to adjudicate on the basis of the party rules at the time. He has however said since that if it had been the civil level of proof his decision would have been the same. And remember - this was not a trial or hearing of any kind - it was a prior investigation to see whether there was any basis for going to the next stage. The answer was clear - no case to answer.

Tony Greaves

This sounds remarkably similar to the verdict on Jimmy Saville, when he was alive, to me. Saville was protected by elements from the BBC, Rennard clearly has the backing of Lib Dem men on the Lords and elsewhere.

Rennard was accused of being a sex pest not a rapist or child molester. He may not have been guilty of any crime but is that the sort of person you want to be a representative of your party? On your head be it.

My 'other half' has been a SDP and Lib Dem activist for 30 years and she confirms that Rennard was notorious as a sex pest by virtually all Lib Dem women who have come across him.

[finsobruce]

Nov 15, 2015 0:04:03 GMT Richard Allen said:

Nov 14, 2015 22:53:09 GMT tonygreaves said:

I think to be honest no-one realised that there were still angry and apparently vindictive people who had not accepted the previous decisions. By the way this is not a personnel "appointment" it is a democratic election. As for the standard of proof, the QC who looked into the case in detail and produced a detailed report had to adjudicate on the basis of the party rules at the time. He has however said since that if it had been the civil level of proof his decision would have been the same. And remember - this was not a trial or hearing of any kind - it was a prior investigation to see whether there was any basis for going to the next stage. The answer was clear - no case to answer.

Tony Greaves

As I previously said, staggering political naivety.

And you also pointed this out on January 18th 2014.....They don't appear to have been listening.

[maxque]

Nov 15, 2015 0:04:03 GMT Richard Allen said:

Nov 14, 2015 22:53:09 GMT tonygreaves said:

I think to be honest no-one realised that there were still angry and apparently vindictive people who had not accepted the previous decisions. By the way this is not a personnel "appointment" it is a democratic election. As for the standard of proof, the QC who looked into the case in detail and produced a detailed report had to adjudicate on the basis of the party rules at the time. He has however said since that if it had been the civil level of proof his decision would have been the same. And remember - this was not a trial or hearing of any kind - it was a prior investigation to see whether there was any basis for going to the next stage. The answer was clear - no case to answer.

Tony Greaves

As I previously said, staggering political naivety.

Or, totally out of touch unelected Lords who didn't met "real" people for years.

[J.G.Harston]

Nov 15, 2015 0:04:03 GMT Richard Allen said:

Nov 14, 2015 22:53:09 GMT tonygreaves said:

I think to be honest no-one realised that there were still angry and apparently vindictive people who had not accepted the previous decisions. ...

As I previously said, staggering political naivety.

The best political solution for any organisation would be for a Rennard to no longer be involved with that organisation, but how do you impose that? On what grounds can the party expel him? The party have investigated him and by its rules found no case to answer. The only way they can expell him is by changing its rules to allow the expulsion of somebody accussed but not found guilty of an accusation. That would require fundamental rewiring of the core beliefs of the sort of polity that the Liberal Democrats claim to be and represent.

It is his own personal decision to not quietly fade into the background. As long as he remains active he can put himself forward for positions within the party. How do you stop members of the party voting for him? Again, by the rules of the party you cannot stop party members voting for him, and the only way to do so is by the above-mentioned fundamental rewiring of core principles.