Rennard and the Lib-Dems

[herulach]

Erm, I can't see how the party are trying to overturn the report. What they're saying is closer to Rennard not being able to cherry-pick the bits he likes.

Don't forget, the report said (paraphrasing, obviously)

1) Insufficient evidence to meet the criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) standard of evidence - good for Rennard
2) BUT .... claims made by women are credible, and Rennard should apologise - bad for Rennard

Reading between the lines, the inference would appear to be the report author believes the accounts of the women, but doesn't feel the evidence is sufficient to PROVE it, "beyond reasonable doubt".

The suspension now is not over those allegations, directly, but that complaints have been received asserting that by refusing to implement part 2, the apology, Rennard is bringing the party into disrepute. hence, suspension pending a disciplinary inquiry ON THAT. Not on the original complaints. In other words, triggered by the fiasco over the complaints, but actually a second issue. As I Understand It.

If the "report" were actually a formal disciplinary process, and had found him not guilty, I'd agree with you. But, as I understand it, it wasn't. It appears to merely be a legal opinion, based on a review of documentary evidence, such as the complaints filed years ago. The claimants, and witnesses, apparently weren't even interviewed.

According to most of the reporting I've heard, the report is the formal disciplinary process as party rules are set out. Now whether or not they're a load of rubbish is an entirely separate matter of course

If it were a court case, it's a bit like the judge acting as judge and jury, and deciding based on the police reports, without bothering to hear actual testimony from either side.

I'm clearly only going by media reports, but while various people (mainly senior LibDems) seem to regard this as an inquiry, it seems to me it isn't anything of the sort.

What MIGHT settle this, properly, is actually a full disciplinary inquiry into these complaints, based along both the methodology and standards we would expect if such allegations had been made about a senior member of management in any commercial or business organisation. Then, at least we'd expect to see both sides able to actually present their case, and evidence, and the company can be held to account legally for ensuring proper and fair disciplinary standards are in place in the first place, and rigorously adhered to in something happens. The LibDem "process", such as it is, appears to be rather archaic, convoluted, and anything but rigorous in procedure, and more akin to a Star Chamber.

I'm not defending the position at all, but, according to party rules the disciplinary procedure has been followed and he's been found with no case to answer. I can sympathise with wanting to be thick headed and not apologise. After all, the substantive finding is that he did nothing wrong (according to the rules of the party). In so far as I can tell he's seen neither the body of the report nor the substance of the allegations, so may not even know what he is being asked to apologise for.

[ik9000]

According to most of the reporting I've heard, the report is the formal disciplinary process as party rules are set out. Now whether or not they're a load of rubbish is an entirely separate matter of course


I'm not defending the position at all, but, according to party rules the disciplinary procedure has been followed and he's been found with no case to answer. I can sympathise with wanting to be thick headed and not apologise. After all, the substantive finding is that he did nothing wrong (according to the rules of the party). In so far as I can tell he's seen neither the body of the report nor the substance of the allegations, so may not even know what he is being asked to apologise for.

So, yet again politicians subjecting someone to trial by media rather than a fair and properly conducted investigation. And they want us to vote for them? Err, that would be a no then. I find it ironic that this is the behaviour of the "liberal" party. Hardly very liberal now is it.

[wasabi]

So, yet again politicians subjecting someone to trial by media rather than a fair and properly conducted investigation. And they want us to vote for them? Err, that would be a no then. I find it ironic that this is the behaviour of the "liberal" party. Hardly very liberal now is it.

Difficult one though. An issue with sex offence trials/enquiries of any sort is that the dirt sticks even if unfairly. So if there is (at an extreme example) a rape case, even if the defendant is proven not guilty, the defendant is going to become a social pariah thanks to the press and gossip. Plenty of cases where a woman destroys a man's career through allegations which turn out to be lies. In theory it should all be in the open - trial by media is often very unfair. Remember Strauss-Kahn?

[herulach]

So, yet again politicians subjecting someone to trial by media rather than a fair and properly conducted investigation. And they want us to vote for them? Err, that would be a no then. I find it ironic that this is the behaviour of the "liberal" party. Hardly very liberal now is it.

No, an example of a party following the processes laid down in the party rules, and then the media making a huge stink about it even though he's been cleared (by the party). The press are perfectly capable of inventing their own scandals without having them set up with any collusion from the parties. Indeed, playing devils advocate, theres a strong argument to say the ones stirring this up (and therefore bringing the party into disrepute) are the accusers.

I don't necessarily agree that is the case, or that he's not deserving of criticism. However, if you're going to agree with one party causing an issue, the others are just as bad.

[ik9000]

Difficult one though. An issue with sex offence trials/enquiries of any sort is that the dirt sticks even if unfairly. So if there is (at an extreme example) a rape case, even if the defendant is proven not guilty, the defendant is going to become a social pariah thanks to the press and gossip. Plenty of cases where a woman destroys a man's career through allegations which turn out to be lies. In theory it should all be in the open - trial by media is often very unfair. Remember Strauss-Kahn?

That's my point. Innocent until proven guilty ought to be just that. Media should not be allowed to report on a case until a conviction is made. (Or the accuser found to be lying). Then the press can tear the guilty party to pieces, whichever of the two it is.

During the trial etc both parties should be granted leave from work, with a suitable letter from the court, without going into details. Media should be prevented from reporting until the conclusion of the case, whereupon the details are made public. If the trial's findings are inconclusive or acquittal the defendant should get his loss of earnings paid for and the employer should not get any further info on what the charge was, other than that the defendant has been exonerated. He then returns to work with his losses covered. Ditto the accuser unless they can be shown to be a false accuser in which case they should suffer the fate the defendant faced had they been wrongly accused.

I've probably missed some subtleties but that would seem a far fairer and reasonable approach all round.

[ik9000]

No, an example of a party following the processes laid down in the party rules, and then the media making a huge stink about it even though he's been cleared (by the party). The press are perfectly capable of inventing their own scandals without having them set up with any collusion from the parties. Indeed, playing devils advocate, theres a strong argument to say the ones stirring this up (and therefore bringing the party into disrepute) are the accusers.

I don't necessarily agree that is the case, or that he's not deserving of criticism. However, if you're going to agree with one party causing an issue, the others are just as bad.

If the party rules are to hold a closed investigation the accused can't see, and then demand he apologises when he's effectively been cleared of wrong doing then wtf kind of rules are those?

[Saracen]

According to most of the reporting I've heard, the report is the formal disciplinary process as party rules are set out. Now whether or not they're a load of rubbish is an entirely separate matter of course


I'm not defending the position at all, but, according to party rules the disciplinary procedure has been followed and he's been found with no case to answer. I can sympathise with wanting to be thick headed and not apologise. After all, the substantive finding is that he did nothing wrong (according to the rules of the party). In so far as I can tell he's seen neither the body of the report nor the substance of the allegations, so may not even know what he is being asked to apologise for.

The thing is .... he has not been found to have "no case to answer". He absolutely has not, for the simple reason that that was not what the "investigation", and the resulting report, was asked to assess.

It was asked to assess whether there was a greater than 50% chance that, based solely on submission of written evidence, indecent intent could be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In my opinion, the evidence of behaviour which violated the personal space and autonomy of the complainants was broadly credible. However, it is my judgment, considering all of the evidence collected, that it is unlikely that it could be established beyond reasonable doubt that Lord Rennard had intended to act in an indecent or sexually inappropriate way. Without proof of such an intention, I do not consider that such a charge would be tenable.

I stress that I am notfinding that the evidence of the complainants was unreliable. I have specifically discounted suggestions made during the investigation that the incidents had been invented as part of a political campaign against Lord Rennard.

Bold emphasis is mine.

So the questions are :-

1) Did he act in a way that caused upset and distress. The answer to that, clearly, is yes.

2) Did he intend to do so? That is unclear.

3) Can it be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that he intended to do so? The report says, less than 50% chance that intent can be proven.

It is very clear, explicitly clear, that ALL the report seeks to ascertain is 3). Can INTENT be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, with 50% or higher chance? Even if Webster felt the odds were 49.9% that it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the conclusion of the report would be "no charges".

That standard, if I remember my perusal of CPS charging guidelines is higher even than the CPS require for criminal charges, which say something like ...

- reasonable, or realistic (can't remember which) prospect of conviction, and
- in the public interest to proceed.

Someone who looks it up, or knows, can correct that, but "reasonable" or "realistic" is deliberately vague, and effectively simply eliminates wasting public money by tilting at windmills where they don't believe a credible chance if winning exists.

So, nothing in that inquiry suggests Webster doesn't believe the women that actions were inappropriate, or that offence was caused, or whether Rennard did or did not intend to cause distress, or intend to make inappropriate advances or actions. It simply expresses an opinion on whether THAT standard of proof, to > 50% chance, can be met.

It's not an investigation. It did not hear testimony from Rennard, from the complainants, or from witnesses. It was not even an investigation, but an assessment of written evidence ONLY, with a very specific and narrow remit

It is perfectly consistent for the women to be believed, and for Rennard to have acted exactly as alleged, with intent (though we certainly don't know if that was the case) and not be able to prove it to that level.

[ik9000]

It is perfectly consistent for the women to be believed, and for Rennard to have acted exactly as alleged, with intent (though we certainly don't know if that was the case) and not be able to prove it to that level.

Sure, don't debate that. But that is then where the matter should end. This media fallout is unwarranted. No good evidence, impossible to resolve. It comes down to he said, she said. It is therefore not suitable grounds to dismiss the chap. He takes back his job, management know to maybe keep a bit of a closer eye on him for a bit. Women get to request not to work with him and be repositioned if they want to. End of story IMO. To take Clegg's stance is unreasonable and goes too far. That was my point.

[Saracen]

Sure, don't debate that. But that is then where the matter should end. This media fallout is unwarranted. No good evidence, impossible to resolve. It comes down to he said, she said. It is therefore not suitable grounds to dismiss the chap. He takes back his job, management know to maybe keep a bit of a closer eye on him for a bit. Women get to request not to work with him and be repositioned if they want to. End of story IMO. To take Clegg's stance is unreasonable and goes too far. That was my point.

I wouldn't argue about media fallout, but nobody, including a political party, can dictate to a newspaper or tv media outlet what they can or cannot cover, except for a court and even then, only in limited circumstances and up to a point.

As for the rest, I would say you are simply wrong that it should end there, and wrong as a matter of law.

Sexual Harrassment is the subject of several bits of law, not least, the Sexual Discrimination Act, and in cases of alleged harrassment, the employer is liable, and required by law to follow certain basic steps and principles both in what the do, and how they do. They MUST have reasonable and practical steps in place to prevent harrassment, to avoid liability, and liability can be incurred simply by not taking further reasonable and practical steps. The duty on the employer is pretty pointed. And secondly, they have a duty to act on, and investigate, complaints, or again, they open themselves to liability.

Among those duties, very VERY firmly, is a duty to interview both complainant and the alleged harasser, both of whom are entitled to be accompanied by a representative, a union rep or colleague (that isn't otherwise involved).

They also have a duty to act in a timely fashion, which by the way, will be weeks, not ten years. They have a duty to reach a report which WILL, in their reasonable belief that the alleged harrassment did or did not take place. Note, that standard is NOT "prove beyond reasonable doubt".

The Webster report is, as I said before, effectively a private legal opinion, and on a very specific issue at that. What it is NOT is an investigation, as REQUIRED by employment law, and "beyond reasonable doubt" is not the standard required by employment law either.

It would be quite acceptable for the LDs to get legal opinion before taking certain steps. It may be that they can legitimately have a party rule, for instance, that says before they can eject a member from the party they need a better than 50% chance of proving misconduct, beyond reasonable doubt. Setting that standard for ejection may well be legal, may well be what they want (though I'd bet that will change before long) but it is not an acceptable standard for complying with employment legislation.

Nor, for that matter, did Webster's activities follow required steps for an SDA investigation, not least because he didn't even interview either side, nor apparently, notify Rennard of the allegations. That, as I understand it, had already previously been done.

The Webster report is, as I understand it, a legal opinion on a narrow issue. It is not, absolutely NOT an investigation of the facts, or intended to be any sort of tribubal deciding guilt. It was never intended to be, and would gave failed miserably if it had, but even Webster himself stresses in his publicly released statement that he did NOT investigate matters of fact, merely assessed written evidence to see if it met that standard.

It's not an investigation, and did not seek to reach a conclusion (as required, by the way, by the SDA in the investigation of any complaint) on whether or not abuses took place.

Furthermore, the LD management have reportedly received numerous complaints that refusing to apologise brings the party in disrepute. These are new complaints, from ( reportedly) numerous party members and activists, about a new issue - refusing to apologise - and THAT triggers a party disciplinary procedure.

Rennard, of course, is quite within his rights to refuse to apologise for something he maintains he hasn't done, or at least, didn't intend, and hasn't been found guilty of, either by a court or a disciplinary process. Innocent until proven guilty, etc.

But, whether he's guilt or not depends, as I said earlier, on what actions he physically took (I.e. did, or said) AND his intent. That latter point is what the legal opinion was about, the chances of proving that, not his physical actions.

As for "he said, she said", well, that's interesting. And by the way, not true.

Harrassment is an interesting issue. The definition is (paraphrasing) about whether the person feeling harrassed feels harrassed, threatened, intimidated, etc, not the exact nature of what the harrasser did. Some cover to prevent trivial allegations exists, in that it must be something that a "reasonable" person in a similar category to the complainant would feel harrassed by it. So, for instance, especially vulnerable groups, like the very young, or gays or lesbians, or ethnic minorities, might be intimidasted by something that wouldn't intimidate a person more comfortable with themselves.

For instance, if Rennard had (and I've no idea what he's alleged to have done, let alone did or didn't do) put his hand or my knee, I'd have told him to keep his hands to himself, and if he repeated it, I'd be very likely to remove the offending hand forcibly, quit and sue for constructive dismissal. But would a young woman, or an intern, feel confident enough to do that? So the standard if that a person of a similar level of susceptibility must reasonably find the actions harrassing, but if so, it's that the harrassee feels harrassed that triggers the need for disciplinary action.

Next comes what that action should be. It might be as simple as ensuring the harrasser is left in no doubt that such actions are both unwelcome and inappropriate. It might be separating them (though not promoting the harasser away), but the greater the disparity in power, that is, colleague to colleague, manager to subordinate, etc, the more serious the action needs to be considered because the opportunities for 'revenge' increase.

But in any event, unless clearly unreasonable, the default position is that sexual harrassment, as opposed to physical violence, is about perceptions (provided it's reasonable) of the one being harrassed, and they are if they say they are. It's not a "he said, she said" situation, but much closer to "if she said it was harrassing, it was". Though, of course, it's not only women that get harrassed.

It is, for instance, quite possible for a senior manager to be, erm, persistent in asking a junior out, just because he's keen and a bit tactless or insensitive, but for the junior to feel that refusal might affect performance reports or even promotion chances.

As a general rule, I would say ang senior is always on thin ice making advances, or even risque jokes, to juniors. What you mean may be VERY different from how it's perceived, so as a professional, just don't go there, or if you do, very, VERY carefully and sensitively, and not persistently. If a dinner invitation is declined once or at most twice. I certainly wouldn't persist a third time with a junior, and to be honest, I'd be very unlikely to suggest it the first time.

Early in my career, myself an an attractive and similar level colleague were working late one night, on site. I said "fancy going and getting dinner?" She said "I've got a boyfriend". She thought I was hitting on her. In fact, I was just hungry. I said "Congratulations. But I'm hungry. Coming?" and left. She followed, but blushing furiously. She was a very attractive girl, but I wasn't interested. First, I was engaged myself, and second, workplace romances are too likely to be nightmares if they go wrong. But her perception, of being hit on, was real to her even though she was wrong about my intent. If I had persisted in asking her out, as she saw it, it could well have been unwelcome, intimidating (especially if I'd been her boss, though in fact, it was closer to her being my boss) and, porentially, harrassment, because it was inappropriate.

So, not quite he said, she said. Not for harrassment. The intent, however, is the really tricky bit, not who did and said what.

[herulach]

I don't disagree with any of that, however, I'm not sure that political parties actually employ members of the lords. At least from a the standpoint of this kind of thing. Hence why, they followed party rules, which was for an independent individual to assess the claims to a criminal standard of proof. That was party policy at the time of the incidents, and as far as I can tell, rennards complaint is they've followed policy, found him 'innocent' and continue to try and force him out.

Given the obvious PR nightmare something like this was bound to cause with those kind of findings, I'm pretty confident that had there been a shred of viability in it, then the author of the independent (secret, funded by the party) report would have found a way to have him out.

Perhaps I have a little more sympathy than most as I've been wrongly accused of intimidation in the past (on the grounds of me being intimidating by being reasonable well built and having a shaved head, by someone with a history of spurious claims who ended up getting sacked). The whole process is largely stacked in favour of the accuser, and couldn't be better designed to get someones back up and cause them to be an arrogant idiot about conceding anything to the accuser. The suggestion by a lot of parties that he issues an 'I'm sorry if' type apology is (imo) daft, as he'd be as highly criticised for that as for not doing anything.

You're entirely right that harassment is an interesting issue, as in principle its one of those things that could or couldn't be harassment based entirely on the interpretation of one party. For example I make a pass at someone at work, reasonably expecting it to be welcome, if it is thats fine, if its not - harassment. Now, obviously that's a stupid thing to do on the part of someone in a position of authority, however, its not necessarily malicious to be stupid. Which is where stuff like this gets messy. If he was their direct line manager then that's one thing, but if for example they were at a party he attended and he hadn't met them before its quite another.

As we've both said, its difficult to make judgements without knowing any details.

[Saracen]

Just to add, herulach, the definition of "employee" in harrassment legislation is deliberately wide, and NOT restricted to those in a traditional "employee" role .... so it includes, for example, agency staff, interns, self-employed contractirs, and so on. It is specifically not restricted to those on the payroll. And, as (former) party Chief Executive, he certainly falls into a category of those having a position of authority.

[Rave]

I haven't read all this thread in detail- too drunk. Having thought about it over the last couple of days I have come to the conclusion that Rennard is basically a crap chat-up artist...and that if he was a slim hotty rather than a slimy-looking fat git with a face like an unbaked apple pie, his conduct might not have got him into such hot water. Bit Un-PC I know- but thankfully Rod Liddle got the Spectator to publish his identical thoughts a few days before I even got round to forming them. Opposite his column in this week's Speccy is a column by a young straight chap detailing the perfidies of various closeted backbench MPs...

As a former extremely crap chat up artist myself I really hate the idea that clumsy sexual advances should be a matter for the police and/or disciplinary hearings, rather than women having the gumption to tell an unwanted suitor to sling his hook. I'm a very very long way from being Mr Rapey, but apparently some of the things I did drunk many years ago are now enough to get me branded as a danger to women, which I transparently am not; I very much doubt that Rennard is either, just a lonely and slightly delusional politician.

[Saracen]

There's a lot of truth to that, Rave, but remember, he's allegedly a lousy chat-up artist who was, at the time, the Chief Executive of an organisation employing the young, female workers he's trying to "chat up", by putting his hand on her knee, and when she moves to remove it, puts it back again, and when she physically moves away from him, follows and does it yet again. And, again allegedly, puts his hand down the back of other employees dresses. And so on.

So there's two aspects to this.

First, as a bloke pestering a female in a social setting, that's obnoxious and offensive enough behaviour. As a senior manager with junior staff, it's not only obnoxious, but intimidating, and harrassment. Doing that in a social setting is likely to get you told, in no uncertain terms, to sling your hook, or get your face slapped. But when doing so might lose you your job, or put paid to promotion prospects??

The real issue, to my mind, is the failure of the LibDems to handle this properly when it happened, all those years ago, and IMHO, clearly because it would have been politically embarrassing. They failed the women making the complaints, way back then. Badly. And that from a party with a distictly moralising, if not downright patronising holier-than-thou tone to it.

[herulach]

Sorry Saracen, I'd missed your post. And thanks rave for literally the funniest thing I've read in a while - you should get a job as an apology writer. I'd love to see a times ed with rennard saying he's not mr rapey.

I tend to agree with both of you that there probably is something worthy of apology, but not necessarily all the drama. As i'm thinking about it more I wonder if it might be an engineered by party leadership down these lines to attempt to divert awkward questions about disciplinary policies and equality within the party down 'look at that dirty old perv' lines.

[Saracen]

Well, the "drama", the media attention, is part, is partly because this is a political party.

Clearly, the media like a cheap win, and this is a farce that, currently, just won't stop giving. I doubt oarty leaders are behind it, though. Other parties don't want to appear smug, and are orobably jyst glad that this particular (alleged) miscreant isn't their problem. And aren't saying much because, next time, it might be. My bet us they're holding their collective breathes, and hoping no "me to" claims arise in their own back yard.

And I'd bet Clegg is wishing the ground would open up and swallow this disaster whole.

The thing is, he can't force Renbard to apologise, and it seems, he won't. He daren't even seem to be taking Rennard's side against the women if he wants any women other than maybe his own wife voting for him next time. And due to party structures, he can't even take a temporary hit by booting Rennard out of the party or keeping him out of the LD whip in the Lords because he doesn't hold either power.

Basically, Clegg is blowing in the wind on this, squirming as it goes on and on, and to all practical purposes, utterly powerless even to lance the boil. I think it's hilarious, on that level. I just feel sorry for the women, that this became necessary, because of a sad, little man that, allegedly, can't keep his hands to himself, and doesn't seem to get what he, allegedly, did wrong, why it was, at the very least, a monumentally stupid way to behave.