Why Is Clegg Insisting Lord Rennard Apologises?

18th January 2014

WTF is going on with the liberal do-gooders in this country - I've posted about this attitude quite a lot over the past two weeks. Lord Rennard has not been found guilty of anything.

This also covers the historic child abuse claims - It is now my belief that people are being found guilty of crimes when the jury is not sure of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Do you all remember a Labour minister saying "there are not enough guilty verdicts for rape - we need to increase the guilty verdicts"?

Very worrying for the justice of British citizens.


Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has increased pressure on the party's former chief executive, Lord Rennard, to apologise following an inquiry into allegations he sexually harassed activists.

The internal investigation found the claims could not be proved beyond doubt but evidence against him was "broadly credible" and he should say sorry.

Mr Clegg told LBC Radio it was a matter of "great regret" he had not done so.

But Lord Rennard's legal adviser said there was no reason to apologise.

The peer resigned the party whip last year amid claims he made unwanted sexual advances to several women and touched them inappropriately, but he remains a member of its main policy-making body.

He has always denied the allegations.

An internal inquiry launched by the Lib Dems concluded that there was broadly credible evidence dating back several years of "behaviour which violated the personal space and autonomy of the complainants".

'Basic decency'

The party's internal disciplinary procedures require guilt to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

But the inquiry's chairman, Alistair Webster QC, said it was "unlikely that it could be established beyond reasonable doubt that Lord Rennard had intended to act in an indecent or sexually inappropriate way".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25764255

Is this too complicated for you all?

A bit too in depth maybe?

I guess you're all here for left vs right and muzzie threads.

I am struggling with broadly credible
he either did it or didnt.
If he is innocent why should he apologise if he is guilty why isnt he in jail?

BigAndy9 wrote:Is this too complicated for you all?

A bit too in depth maybe?

I guess you're all here for left vs right and muzzie threads.

And you claim you are not racist?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Is this too complicated for you all?

A bit too in depth maybe?

I guess you're all here for left vs right and muzzie threads.

And you claim you are not racist?

As expected, that got a reply.

Well done BigM.

NemsAgain wrote:I am struggling with broadly credible
he either did it or didnt.
If he is innocent why should he apologise if he is guilty why isnt he in jail?

So it sounds like a boardline case? he isn't completely Innocent but didn't actually cross the line of the law. We do see them here, I beleive the UK has the same 'reasonable person' test in their judgements. The line between chasing and harassing a love interest is a bit of a grey area.

Clegg has really got himself into a pickle here because if Rennard decides to take the legal route I think he will win.

Mind you I can't believe these women are lying and there does appear to be a touch of the lizard about him but that's not really enough - legally.