Liberal Democrats sexual harassment mess

The timing might be coincidental or serendipitous depending on your political and ethical stance. The original Channel 4 interview that triggered all this took place in January before the by-election was in the pipeline.

It puzzles me that government/high ranking politcians respond to allegations so clumsiiy, when public sector organisations have clearly laid out policies and procedures for dealing with even the merest whiff of an allegation of gross misconduct. Before I retired I conducted several investigations of alleged sexual harassment. The alleged perpetrators were all suspended immediately, on full pay, and all lost their jobs. The first interview with the complainant always included an explanation that anything constituting an offence could and should be reported to the police.

It is reported that one young woman was told to go to his office, then came runnng out complaining he had 'fondled' her (that should have read 'sexually assaulted her'). At that point, he should have been suspended pending the outcome of an investigation, or do government departments think they don't have to abide by their own disciplinary polices and procedures? Such hypocrisy!

Totally agree. Suspension pending investigation. I thought it was standard procedure in all big organisations.

Not sure whether he was an employee or not. But there should still be procedures. He's still denying all.
Hard hitting interview on world at one R4 - woman who was on the receiving end. It will be interesting who, within the party, gets the blame.

He was a Party - not government - employee. Masterminded many by-election successes. He retired as Chief Executive in 2009 (owing to ill health) and took his seat in the Lords. The alleged harassment took place while he was still an employee of the Party.

Jess I only tuned in partly through the interview but heard a woman saying he kept moving to sit by her and invited her to his room. Was there more to it than that? I know that is a pain but it didn't seem like something to make so much fuss about. I think we must all have been in that situation and just dealt with it and not given it another thought. Surely there must be more to it than that?

Always a bit of a *** when the top person is the one that has allegations against them. That is why schools have a separate procedure for allegations against the head and disciplinary issues involving the head. I am very relieved that during my time as chair of governors I was never called upon to use this as it involves the chair of governors making the decision and suspending the head! You do wonder how many times heads don't get suspended because this would require considerable confidence on the part of the chair, who is, after all, an untrained volunteer. (And you can't discuss it with other governors because they might be involved in a hearing or appeal. Local authorities would offer advice though, but do not have the power to suspend)

I heard the interview as well, Movedalot. I thought, he (possibly) made a mild pass, she made it clear she wasn't interested. Er....she said it was the power imbalance that made it so inappropriate and disturbing. Anyone remember Cosmo and Helen Gurley Brown? If I believed in conspiracies, I might think it's all a desperate attempt to get rid of Clegg who wasn't even leader nine years ago.

That's right lilygran if it is a colleague of equal (or less) power there is no problem declining an unwanted "pass" or telling someone to push off if they are trying to grope you. if it is someone who has a lot of power it is inexcusable. In this case could easily be seen as - you come to bed with me and I will see you right for a safe seat - you don't and you never will. So a form of corruption as well inasmuch as might be using power to get what he wants and distort what is meant to be a transparent process.

The counterweight to "you come to bed with me and I will see you right for a safe seat" is, of course, "if you don't come to bed with me …" – in other words, an implied threat which is equally an abuse of power.

Or she might just have another agenda? It just didn't seem worth all the fuss to me. I've had bosses who have made a pass at me but I didn't ever think my job depended upon it. Maybe I was being naive? People away from home get up to stuff, you join in - or not. I'm just not sure it is all as it is made to appear.

She seemed a little vague during the interview about whether he was making advances. He moved to sit nearer to her, he waited for her and walked her to her room. He invited her to his room for a drink. She said no. She went into her room, he went to his. JessM how do any relationships between two people of unequal status ever develop? Because if you look around, you'll see lots of relationships in which one partner (often the male in the case of heterosexual couples but not always) is richer, higher status, more powerful, older than the other. Is it not a question of how welcome the advance is?

Leaving aside this particular case, I think there is every reason to make a "fuss" if someone is found to have abused his (or her) senior position by making suggestive remarks or sexual advances to a less senior person. It's true that one person may feel able to deal with this sort of harassment but others, who are not so confident and assertive, may feel badly intimidated and may also feel that their position within an organisation is at risk.

It isn't just one woman who has complained. The alleged incidents may not be serious enough to involve the police and I have to say I am slightly surprised that they have already become involved. That doesn't mean that sexual harassment should go unchallenged within the workplace/government/school or Liberal party.

Not getting you lilygran of course there are relationships of unequal status. And some of them start in the workplace.
But what has that got to do with "unwelcome advances"?

Unwelcome advances are approaches that aren't acceptable to the person approached. If they are welcome they may lead to a relationship. There are many relationships which start between people of unequal status. How do they start if an approach from a person of higher status is by definition unacceptable?

Well in many workplaces people are strongly advised to avoid such relationships - if not downright forbidden. A boss inviting a junior out on a date would be a disciplinary matter because it immediately compromises both of them.
But really - even without guidance, any man with half a brain should have twigged that it may be OK to make a pass at a colleague while on a conference, But NOT if you are their boss or their bosses boss, or you are any powerful position over them. This is not the time or the place for sexual opportunism (ie seeing of you can cop on) bc.
Terrible problems arise when a boss starts a relationship with someone in his team. At best other people are going to be envious (will she get promotion?) and wonder what is being said about them outside work (she's a spy). Trust disintegrates.
I have seen it happen and it usually upsets a whole lot of people. I once worked in a team where this occurred (boss was married and they were supposedly keeping it a secret) The whole team, about 10 of us, all left over a period of about a year to go to different roles because they atmosphere became so toxic.
(i know it could happen with female bosses, but that is pretty rare because not many women go around trying it on to see if they can get their end away with junior staff)

It seems to me that there are parallels between the case of Cardinal O'Brian and Lord Rennard. Both were in positions of power and their victims were afraid of the consequences if they spoke out at the time. In the past women who worked for male bosses sometimes found themselves in similar positions but were afraid to speak out for fear of getting poor references or not being believed.

Rennard, after 3 months or so of contemplation, has "apologised" for "invading personal space".
Obviously wants to get back into the fold. Boring being suspended when there is the possibility that Clegg might be toppled. Rennard used to being in the thick of it "king making" .

What a mess the Libdems are in, and at a time when we particularly need our politicians to be focussed on politics rather than infighting. The Rennard case alongside the continued drip of information about the extent of Cyril Smith's abuse of boys suggest attitudes to sexual harassment/abuse remain problematic within this party.

And he (Rennard) should get back into the fold. Not that he ever left. The women have had their apology and they should drop their campaign now. In other words, they should be sensible, and focus on the important things in governing a country.

Ok, so sexual abuse/sexual harassment aren't important when governing a country. It must be true, because that was the decision taken in relation to CS 30 years ago - no change there then

Oh, I knew, even as I typed, that would be a reply.

Sexual harrassment is bad. But the matter has been dealt with. They should shut up and get on with their jobs now.

Former Liberal leader Lord Steel said he thought Lord Rennard had brought "closure" to a "very unfortunate episode" with his apology.

Alistair Webster, the QC appointed by the party to examine the evidence in the disciplinary case being considered against Lord (Chris) Rennard stated in his review (available online):

I reject that view. It seemed to me that it was eminently reasonable to explain that, in my view, there was credible evidence that events had occurred which had caused distress. To have done otherwise would have been unfair to some of the complainants and would have deprived my conclusions of context.

The statements made that there were only four statements from the complainants, set against the many others is a gross oversimplification. Other independent statements were highly relevant in my conclusion as to the likelihood of establishing that events had occurred which caused distress.

To apologise over a mistake made, is one thing - to apologise because you keep making the same mistake is another.