Senior Watford Lib Dem, Susan Gaszczak, resigns from party over handling of Lord Rennard scandal

Watford Observer: Susan Gaszczak Susan Gaszczak

A senior Liberal Democrat from West Watford has torn up her membership of the party over the Lord Rennard scandal.

Susan Gaszczak said she could not longer remain in a party that “feels it is acceptable for the then chief executive to invite me to his hotel room to advance my political career”.

The 42-year-old’s resignation comes after she said Lord Chris Rennard’s apology in May over accusations of sexual harassment did not go far enough.

Last year she was one of four women in the party to go public with accusations the peer had acted inappropriately towards them.

Lord Rennard has always denied the allegations but in May apologised for any behaviour that had made female party members feel "uncomfortable".

The peer, who used to be the party's chief executive, is currently suspended from the Liberal Democrats.

In an open letter Ms Gaszczak said she was leaving the party she had joined as a teenager even though she still supported its policies.

She said: “I can no longer remain a member of a party that feels it is acceptable for the then chief executive to invite me to his hotel room to advance my political career. Even though I have complained, and raised this for over seven years, the party still do not see the complaint as an issue.

“This week the appeals panel met and threw out our appeal to an unfair process. I have been called credible more than once. Yet still no-one feels it is appropriate to deal with the issue.

“I know I am not alone: even as recently as the last media storm, more women have admitted he did this to them. Only four of us were brave enough to go public – how many more do you need on public record? You have a serious thorn in your side. He claims to have built the party, but actually I see him destroying it.”

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:22pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Cuetip says...

When it comes to source credibility, some are more equal than others.

In Animal Farm Orwell explains how the elite class abuses language to control the lower classes to drown out dissenting opinion as shown by the numerous shocking scandals involving the rich and powerful which daily hit our headlines.

Changes to legal support have sparked widespread concern amongst various sectors that the reforms will severely reduce access to justice. In a recent case, one judge claimed that it would be a "violation" of the legal process to allow the case to proceed, citing issues over adequate representation.

We need more whistle blowers and a press which is prepared to campaign for truth.
When it comes to source credibility, some are more equal than others. In Animal Farm Orwell explains how the elite class abuses language to control the lower classes to drown out dissenting opinion as shown by the numerous shocking scandals involving the rich and powerful which daily hit our headlines. Changes to legal support have sparked widespread concern amongst various sectors that the reforms will severely reduce access to justice. In a recent case, one judge claimed that it would be a "violation" of the legal process to allow the case to proceed, citing issues over adequate representation. We need more whistle blowers and a press which is prepared to campaign for truth. Cuetip
  • Score: 13

9:43am Thu 3 Jul 14

Wacko Jacko says...

I think I've read somewhere that the problem the LibDems have over this comes down to their rules which state that the standard of proof required in such cases is the same as for criminal offences under the law. In other words the case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is a much sterner test than that used in employment for example where disciplinary issues would be decided on the balance of probability.
The Libs reliance on criminal standards of proof allows an exploitative minority to get away with actions which simply would not be tolerated in other walks of life. The party needs to put its house in order and change their rules so that influential individuals, whoever they are, cannot hide behind them and get away with any sort of bullying, predatory or other inappropriate behaviours.
It's a sad reflection that a party built on liberal, socially responsible values can't adequately protect it's more vulnerable members.
I think I've read somewhere that the problem the LibDems have over this comes down to their rules which state that the standard of proof required in such cases is the same as for criminal offences under the law. In other words the case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is a much sterner test than that used in employment for example where disciplinary issues would be decided on the balance of probability. The Libs reliance on criminal standards of proof allows an exploitative minority to get away with actions which simply would not be tolerated in other walks of life. The party needs to put its house in order and change their rules so that influential individuals, whoever they are, cannot hide behind them and get away with any sort of bullying, predatory or other inappropriate behaviours. It's a sad reflection that a party built on liberal, socially responsible values can't adequately protect it's more vulnerable members. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 2

10:56am Thu 3 Jul 14

garston tony says...

Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc.

And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini
on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me
Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc. And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me garston tony
  • Score: 7

12:43pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Cuetip says...

garston tony wrote:
Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc.

And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini

on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me
The scales of justice as you well know are weighted so heavily in favour of the rich and powerful as shown by the numerous abuse cases that the ordinary people have to put up or shut up.

We need more people to take a courageous stand against abuse by those who see themselves as above the law and are protected by those who are forever fawning over them.

We all need to help to create a more diverse fairer representative democratic society where institutions are less prejudiced as shown by Glencore, last all-male FTSE 100 board, finally appointing a female as director in June 2014.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc. And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me[/p][/quote]The scales of justice as you well know are weighted so heavily in favour of the rich and powerful as shown by the numerous abuse cases that the ordinary people have to put up or shut up. We need more people to take a courageous stand against abuse by those who see themselves as above the law and are protected by those who are forever fawning over them. We all need to help to create a more diverse fairer representative democratic society where institutions are less prejudiced as shown by Glencore, last all-male FTSE 100 board, finally appointing a female as director in June 2014. Cuetip
  • Score: 6

1:39pm Thu 3 Jul 14

ancientandageing says...

"its the criminal burdon of proof", well yes and no if applied to the accusation that he brought the party into disrepute, I am thinking that even on this burdon he should be found guilty, if applied to a single incedent less likely and when applied to the series of sexual assualts alleggedly perpetrated by the enobled gentleman clearly not.

very very puzzleing maybeBaroness Sal Brinton and Dorothy could help out here
"its the criminal burdon of proof", well yes and no if applied to the accusation that he brought the party into disrepute, I am thinking that even on this burdon he should be found guilty, if applied to a single incedent less likely and when applied to the series of sexual assualts alleggedly perpetrated by the enobled gentleman clearly not. very very puzzleing maybeBaroness Sal Brinton and Dorothy could help out here ancientandageing
  • Score: 1

6:33pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Cuetip says...

ancientandageing wrote:
"its the criminal burdon of proof", well yes and no if applied to the accusation that he brought the party into disrepute, I am thinking that even on this burdon he should be found guilty, if applied to a single incedent less likely and when applied to the series of sexual assualts alleggedly perpetrated by the enobled gentleman clearly not.

very very puzzleing maybeBaroness Sal Brinton and Dorothy could help out here
No such luck as tribal politics means they adopt a bunker mentality and the unacceptable becomes aceptable and it's no wonder justice is like the Ritz Hotel open to anyone with the right credentials.

Just look at the farce over the mystery of missing dossier on VIP child abusers and aTory peer Leon Brittan faces questions over 1980s files on Westminster paedophile ring.

It seems the tribal minions can't think for themselves and love nothing better than to defer to their 'superiors'.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: "its the criminal burdon of proof", well yes and no if applied to the accusation that he brought the party into disrepute, I am thinking that even on this burdon he should be found guilty, if applied to a single incedent less likely and when applied to the series of sexual assualts alleggedly perpetrated by the enobled gentleman clearly not. very very puzzleing maybeBaroness Sal Brinton and Dorothy could help out here[/p][/quote]No such luck as tribal politics means they adopt a bunker mentality and the unacceptable becomes aceptable and it's no wonder justice is like the Ritz Hotel open to anyone with the right credentials. Just look at the farce over the mystery of missing dossier on VIP child abusers and aTory peer Leon Brittan faces questions over 1980s files on Westminster paedophile ring. It seems the tribal minions can't think for themselves and love nothing better than to defer to their 'superiors'. Cuetip
  • Score: 5

7:17pm Thu 3 Jul 14

ancientandageing says...

Cuetip wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
"its the criminal burdon of proof", well yes and no if applied to the accusation that he brought the party into disrepute, I am thinking that even on this burdon he should be found guilty, if applied to a single incedent less likely and when applied to the series of sexual assualts alleggedly perpetrated by the enobled gentleman clearly not.

very very puzzleing maybeBaroness Sal Brinton and Dorothy could help out here
No such luck as tribal politics means they adopt a bunker mentality and the unacceptable becomes aceptable and it's no wonder justice is like the Ritz Hotel open to anyone with the right credentials.

Just look at the farce over the mystery of missing dossier on VIP child abusers and aTory peer Leon Brittan faces questions over 1980s files on Westminster paedophile ring.

It seems the tribal minions can't think for themselves and love nothing better than to defer to their 'superiors'.
An observation or two on this one, that there is a conflict of interests they have a duty of care to members to protect them from pests like Rennard, and this is a very local issue with this target or victim being connected at one time to our local Libdems, yet they are very quite.
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: "its the criminal burdon of proof", well yes and no if applied to the accusation that he brought the party into disrepute, I am thinking that even on this burdon he should be found guilty, if applied to a single incedent less likely and when applied to the series of sexual assualts alleggedly perpetrated by the enobled gentleman clearly not. very very puzzleing maybeBaroness Sal Brinton and Dorothy could help out here[/p][/quote]No such luck as tribal politics means they adopt a bunker mentality and the unacceptable becomes aceptable and it's no wonder justice is like the Ritz Hotel open to anyone with the right credentials. Just look at the farce over the mystery of missing dossier on VIP child abusers and aTory peer Leon Brittan faces questions over 1980s files on Westminster paedophile ring. It seems the tribal minions can't think for themselves and love nothing better than to defer to their 'superiors'.[/p][/quote]An observation or two on this one, that there is a conflict of interests they have a duty of care to members to protect them from pests like Rennard, and this is a very local issue with this target or victim being connected at one time to our local Libdems, yet they are very quite. ancientandageing
  • Score: -1

11:27pm Thu 3 Jul 14

drunkenduck says...

Morel of the story, so Lib Dems turns a bind eye in sexual assaults / harassment and the Conservative Party turns a blind eye to child abuse. And guess who's running the country, this government.

So do we really want paedophiles and sex perverts, in power and/or running this country? - No Thanks.
Morel of the story, so Lib Dems turns a bind eye in sexual assaults / harassment and the Conservative Party turns a blind eye to child abuse. And guess who's running the country, this government. So do we really want paedophiles and sex perverts, in power and/or running this country? - No Thanks. drunkenduck
  • Score: 0

8:14am Fri 4 Jul 14

garston tony says...

Cuetip wrote:
garston tony wrote: Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc. And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me
The scales of justice as you well know are weighted so heavily in favour of the rich and powerful as shown by the numerous abuse cases that the ordinary people have to put up or shut up. We need more people to take a courageous stand against abuse by those who see themselves as above the law and are protected by those who are forever fawning over them. We all need to help to create a more diverse fairer representative democratic society where institutions are less prejudiced as shown by Glencore, last all-male FTSE 100 board, finally appointing a female as director in June 2014.
Actually I dont know that the scales of justice are weighted towards the rich and famous, if that was the case why are many rich and famous people being punished under the justice system?

Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve but we just dont get to hear about it.

Ultimately its this ladies word against that chap, on the basis of that having no conclusive evidence that the man did anything wrong you want him hung drawn and quartered. Thats not very just is it!

Yes i'm sure people have gotten away with bad deeds but you dont have to look very far for people who have been vilified after some claim has been made against them, their careers and livelyhoods ruined who have turned out to be totally innocent
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc. And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me[/p][/quote]The scales of justice as you well know are weighted so heavily in favour of the rich and powerful as shown by the numerous abuse cases that the ordinary people have to put up or shut up. We need more people to take a courageous stand against abuse by those who see themselves as above the law and are protected by those who are forever fawning over them. We all need to help to create a more diverse fairer representative democratic society where institutions are less prejudiced as shown by Glencore, last all-male FTSE 100 board, finally appointing a female as director in June 2014.[/p][/quote]Actually I dont know that the scales of justice are weighted towards the rich and famous, if that was the case why are many rich and famous people being punished under the justice system? Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve but we just dont get to hear about it. Ultimately its this ladies word against that chap, on the basis of that having no conclusive evidence that the man did anything wrong you want him hung drawn and quartered. Thats not very just is it! Yes i'm sure people have gotten away with bad deeds but you dont have to look very far for people who have been vilified after some claim has been made against them, their careers and livelyhoods ruined who have turned out to be totally innocent garston tony
  • Score: 1

8:15am Fri 4 Jul 14

garston tony says...

ancientandageing wrote:
"its the criminal burdon of proof", well yes and no if applied to the accusation that he brought the party into disrepute, I am thinking that even on this burdon he should be found guilty, if applied to a single incedent less likely and when applied to the series of sexual assualts alleggedly perpetrated by the enobled gentleman clearly not. very very puzzleing maybeBaroness Sal Brinton and Dorothy could help out here
Or alternatively if the man didnt do anything wrong then its Mrs Gaszczak who has brought the party into disrepute isnt it?
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: "its the criminal burdon of proof", well yes and no if applied to the accusation that he brought the party into disrepute, I am thinking that even on this burdon he should be found guilty, if applied to a single incedent less likely and when applied to the series of sexual assualts alleggedly perpetrated by the enobled gentleman clearly not. very very puzzleing maybeBaroness Sal Brinton and Dorothy could help out here[/p][/quote]Or alternatively if the man didnt do anything wrong then its Mrs Gaszczak who has brought the party into disrepute isnt it? garston tony
  • Score: 0

8:17am Fri 4 Jul 14

garston tony says...

drunkenduck wrote:
Morel of the story, so Lib Dems turns a bind eye in sexual assaults / harassment and the Conservative Party turns a blind eye to child abuse. And guess who's running the country, this government. So do we really want paedophiles and sex perverts, in power and/or running this country? - No Thanks.
Moral of the story is that people seem to want to convict others where there is no conclusive evidence they have dont anything wrong.

And please, like Labour have never been involved in any scandals. Truth is parties of all colours make mistakes
[quote][p][bold]drunkenduck[/bold] wrote: Morel of the story, so Lib Dems turns a bind eye in sexual assaults / harassment and the Conservative Party turns a blind eye to child abuse. And guess who's running the country, this government. So do we really want paedophiles and sex perverts, in power and/or running this country? - No Thanks.[/p][/quote]Moral of the story is that people seem to want to convict others where there is no conclusive evidence they have dont anything wrong. And please, like Labour have never been involved in any scandals. Truth is parties of all colours make mistakes garston tony
  • Score: 2

9:56am Fri 4 Jul 14

ancientandageing says...

garston tony wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
garston tony wrote: Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc. And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me
The scales of justice as you well know are weighted so heavily in favour of the rich and powerful as shown by the numerous abuse cases that the ordinary people have to put up or shut up. We need more people to take a courageous stand against abuse by those who see themselves as above the law and are protected by those who are forever fawning over them. We all need to help to create a more diverse fairer representative democratic society where institutions are less prejudiced as shown by Glencore, last all-male FTSE 100 board, finally appointing a female as director in June 2014.
Actually I dont know that the scales of justice are weighted towards the rich and famous, if that was the case why are many rich and famous people being punished under the justice system?

Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve but we just dont get to hear about it.

Ultimately its this ladies word against that chap, on the basis of that having no conclusive evidence that the man did anything wrong you want him hung drawn and quartered. Thats not very just is it!

Yes i'm sure people have gotten away with bad deeds but you dont have to look very far for people who have been vilified after some claim has been made against them, their careers and livelyhoods ruined who have turned out to be totally innocent
I do strugle with this!!!

If I or anyone else I know had four credable women acuse me or them of sexual assault we would be found guilty (and in these cases he was persistant, it was not just a quick pass, where the defence of getting it wrong may apply) the threshold would have been passed, plain and simple.

If it walks like a duck etc.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc. And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me[/p][/quote]The scales of justice as you well know are weighted so heavily in favour of the rich and powerful as shown by the numerous abuse cases that the ordinary people have to put up or shut up. We need more people to take a courageous stand against abuse by those who see themselves as above the law and are protected by those who are forever fawning over them. We all need to help to create a more diverse fairer representative democratic society where institutions are less prejudiced as shown by Glencore, last all-male FTSE 100 board, finally appointing a female as director in June 2014.[/p][/quote]Actually I dont know that the scales of justice are weighted towards the rich and famous, if that was the case why are many rich and famous people being punished under the justice system? Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve but we just dont get to hear about it. Ultimately its this ladies word against that chap, on the basis of that having no conclusive evidence that the man did anything wrong you want him hung drawn and quartered. Thats not very just is it! Yes i'm sure people have gotten away with bad deeds but you dont have to look very far for people who have been vilified after some claim has been made against them, their careers and livelyhoods ruined who have turned out to be totally innocent[/p][/quote]I do strugle with this!!! If I or anyone else I know had four credable women acuse me or them of sexual assault we would be found guilty (and in these cases he was persistant, it was not just a quick pass, where the defence of getting it wrong may apply) the threshold would have been passed, plain and simple. If it walks like a duck etc. ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

10:00am Fri 4 Jul 14

Cuetip says...

garston tony wrote:
drunkenduck wrote:
Morel of the story, so Lib Dems turns a bind eye in sexual assaults / harassment and the Conservative Party turns a blind eye to child abuse. And guess who's running the country, this government. So do we really want paedophiles and sex perverts, in power and/or running this country? - No Thanks.
Moral of the story is that people seem to want to convict others where there is no conclusive evidence they have dont anything wrong.

And please, like Labour have never been involved in any scandals. Truth is parties of all colours make mistakes
garston tony says...
What this article exposes is that wherever one digs in Britain, there are people of rank - who the ordinary people are expected to defer and respect - using all sorts of gagging orders. The recent cases involving Saville, Rolf Harris exposes the protective ring these nasty people enjoy to enable them to share their proclivities.

They remain a tiny minority – but their population is in inverse proportion to their power whether it is on a local level or national level. Let's not underestimate the scale of their damage as well as the twisted norms / values they infect on institutions. Check out '12 years a slave'.

I also think you miss the point of what really angers the ordinary people of this country and that is why so many dont vote as they are seen as all the same. Reducing it to speeding tickets trivialises the big issue and smacks of a predisposition to prejudice .

‘Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve...'.

Jimmy Savile got away with it because he had protection in the senior echelons of the Establishment and references reveal his connections into the Conservative Party at the highest levels.

The ex Culture Secretary Maria Miller (expenses?) told MPs she was “confident” BBC chiefs were taking the claims “very seriously” – and warned that an outside inquiry could hamper police investigations.

Why don’t you check out JHJ Lewis, Chairman of the Groucho Club and political connections? The club’s website has hastily been taken down.

Imagine the work place situation as ACAS is being flooded with a dramatic increase in calls for advice on redundancy and lay-offs during this ‘economic revival’.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drunkenduck[/bold] wrote: Morel of the story, so Lib Dems turns a bind eye in sexual assaults / harassment and the Conservative Party turns a blind eye to child abuse. And guess who's running the country, this government. So do we really want paedophiles and sex perverts, in power and/or running this country? - No Thanks.[/p][/quote]Moral of the story is that people seem to want to convict others where there is no conclusive evidence they have dont anything wrong. And please, like Labour have never been involved in any scandals. Truth is parties of all colours make mistakes[/p][/quote]garston tony says... What this article exposes is that wherever one digs in Britain, there are people of rank - who the ordinary people are expected to defer and respect - using all sorts of gagging orders. The recent cases involving Saville, Rolf Harris exposes the protective ring these nasty people enjoy to enable them to share their proclivities. They remain a tiny minority – but their population is in inverse proportion to their power whether it is on a local level or national level. Let's not underestimate the scale of their damage as well as the twisted norms / values they infect on institutions. Check out '12 years a slave'. I also think you miss the point of what really angers the ordinary people of this country and that is why so many dont vote as they are seen as all the same. Reducing it to speeding tickets trivialises the big issue and smacks of a predisposition to prejudice . ‘Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve...'. Jimmy Savile got away with it because he had protection in the senior echelons of the Establishment and references reveal his connections into the Conservative Party at the highest levels. The ex Culture Secretary Maria Miller (expenses?) told MPs she was “confident” BBC chiefs were taking the claims “very seriously” – and warned that an outside inquiry could hamper police investigations. Why don’t you check out JHJ Lewis, Chairman of the Groucho Club and political connections? The club’s website has hastily been taken down. Imagine the work place situation as ACAS is being flooded with a dramatic increase in calls for advice on redundancy and lay-offs during this ‘economic revival’. Cuetip
  • Score: 3

10:30am Fri 4 Jul 14

garston tony says...

ancientandageing wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
garston tony wrote: Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc. And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me
The scales of justice as you well know are weighted so heavily in favour of the rich and powerful as shown by the numerous abuse cases that the ordinary people have to put up or shut up. We need more people to take a courageous stand against abuse by those who see themselves as above the law and are protected by those who are forever fawning over them. We all need to help to create a more diverse fairer representative democratic society where institutions are less prejudiced as shown by Glencore, last all-male FTSE 100 board, finally appointing a female as director in June 2014.
Actually I dont know that the scales of justice are weighted towards the rich and famous, if that was the case why are many rich and famous people being punished under the justice system? Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve but we just dont get to hear about it. Ultimately its this ladies word against that chap, on the basis of that having no conclusive evidence that the man did anything wrong you want him hung drawn and quartered. Thats not very just is it! Yes i'm sure people have gotten away with bad deeds but you dont have to look very far for people who have been vilified after some claim has been made against them, their careers and livelyhoods ruined who have turned out to be totally innocent
I do strugle with this!!! If I or anyone else I know had four credable women acuse me or them of sexual assault we would be found guilty (and in these cases he was persistant, it was not just a quick pass, where the defence of getting it wrong may apply) the threshold would have been passed, plain and simple. If it walks like a duck etc.
Actually you are wrong as recent court cases quite clearly show.

As counter intuitive as it sounds just because more than one person makes a claim of a similar nature that does not mean the accused is guilty. Take for instance several cases that have gone through the courts.

It is not unknown for someone to make a claim against an individual and for others to 'join in' with their own claims because they have an axe to grind, want their 15 minutes of fame, are not right in the head, are just wrong in their intepretation of what happened or have blown in out of all proportion.

I'm not defending this chap, or saying the claims are not true but I do want to live in a world where people are not found guilty of something without conclusive evidence.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc. And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me[/p][/quote]The scales of justice as you well know are weighted so heavily in favour of the rich and powerful as shown by the numerous abuse cases that the ordinary people have to put up or shut up. We need more people to take a courageous stand against abuse by those who see themselves as above the law and are protected by those who are forever fawning over them. We all need to help to create a more diverse fairer representative democratic society where institutions are less prejudiced as shown by Glencore, last all-male FTSE 100 board, finally appointing a female as director in June 2014.[/p][/quote]Actually I dont know that the scales of justice are weighted towards the rich and famous, if that was the case why are many rich and famous people being punished under the justice system? Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve but we just dont get to hear about it. Ultimately its this ladies word against that chap, on the basis of that having no conclusive evidence that the man did anything wrong you want him hung drawn and quartered. Thats not very just is it! Yes i'm sure people have gotten away with bad deeds but you dont have to look very far for people who have been vilified after some claim has been made against them, their careers and livelyhoods ruined who have turned out to be totally innocent[/p][/quote]I do strugle with this!!! If I or anyone else I know had four credable women acuse me or them of sexual assault we would be found guilty (and in these cases he was persistant, it was not just a quick pass, where the defence of getting it wrong may apply) the threshold would have been passed, plain and simple. If it walks like a duck etc.[/p][/quote]Actually you are wrong as recent court cases quite clearly show. As counter intuitive as it sounds just because more than one person makes a claim of a similar nature that does not mean the accused is guilty. Take for instance several cases that have gone through the courts. It is not unknown for someone to make a claim against an individual and for others to 'join in' with their own claims because they have an axe to grind, want their 15 minutes of fame, are not right in the head, are just wrong in their intepretation of what happened or have blown in out of all proportion. I'm not defending this chap, or saying the claims are not true but I do want to live in a world where people are not found guilty of something without conclusive evidence. garston tony
  • Score: 1

10:33am Fri 4 Jul 14

garston tony says...

Cuetip wrote:
garston tony wrote:
drunkenduck wrote: Morel of the story, so Lib Dems turns a bind eye in sexual assaults / harassment and the Conservative Party turns a blind eye to child abuse. And guess who's running the country, this government. So do we really want paedophiles and sex perverts, in power and/or running this country? - No Thanks.
Moral of the story is that people seem to want to convict others where there is no conclusive evidence they have dont anything wrong. And please, like Labour have never been involved in any scandals. Truth is parties of all colours make mistakes
garston tony says... What this article exposes is that wherever one digs in Britain, there are people of rank - who the ordinary people are expected to defer and respect - using all sorts of gagging orders. The recent cases involving Saville, Rolf Harris exposes the protective ring these nasty people enjoy to enable them to share their proclivities. They remain a tiny minority – but their population is in inverse proportion to their power whether it is on a local level or national level. Let's not underestimate the scale of their damage as well as the twisted norms / values they infect on institutions. Check out '12 years a slave'. I also think you miss the point of what really angers the ordinary people of this country and that is why so many dont vote as they are seen as all the same. Reducing it to speeding tickets trivialises the big issue and smacks of a predisposition to prejudice . ‘Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve...'. Jimmy Savile got away with it because he had protection in the senior echelons of the Establishment and references reveal his connections into the Conservative Party at the highest levels. The ex Culture Secretary Maria Miller (expenses?) told MPs she was “confident” BBC chiefs were taking the claims “very seriously” – and warned that an outside inquiry could hamper police investigations. Why don’t you check out JHJ Lewis, Chairman of the Groucho Club and political connections? The club’s website has hastily been taken down. Imagine the work place situation as ACAS is being flooded with a dramatic increase in calls for advice on redundancy and lay-offs during this ‘economic revival’.
You are talking about two different things. It is wrong that people are protected from accusations due to their position/fame, however as the recent cases you mentioned show when the matter does go to court they dont receive any preferrential treatment do they
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drunkenduck[/bold] wrote: Morel of the story, so Lib Dems turns a bind eye in sexual assaults / harassment and the Conservative Party turns a blind eye to child abuse. And guess who's running the country, this government. So do we really want paedophiles and sex perverts, in power and/or running this country? - No Thanks.[/p][/quote]Moral of the story is that people seem to want to convict others where there is no conclusive evidence they have dont anything wrong. And please, like Labour have never been involved in any scandals. Truth is parties of all colours make mistakes[/p][/quote]garston tony says... What this article exposes is that wherever one digs in Britain, there are people of rank - who the ordinary people are expected to defer and respect - using all sorts of gagging orders. The recent cases involving Saville, Rolf Harris exposes the protective ring these nasty people enjoy to enable them to share their proclivities. They remain a tiny minority – but their population is in inverse proportion to their power whether it is on a local level or national level. Let's not underestimate the scale of their damage as well as the twisted norms / values they infect on institutions. Check out '12 years a slave'. I also think you miss the point of what really angers the ordinary people of this country and that is why so many dont vote as they are seen as all the same. Reducing it to speeding tickets trivialises the big issue and smacks of a predisposition to prejudice . ‘Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve...'. Jimmy Savile got away with it because he had protection in the senior echelons of the Establishment and references reveal his connections into the Conservative Party at the highest levels. The ex Culture Secretary Maria Miller (expenses?) told MPs she was “confident” BBC chiefs were taking the claims “very seriously” – and warned that an outside inquiry could hamper police investigations. Why don’t you check out JHJ Lewis, Chairman of the Groucho Club and political connections? The club’s website has hastily been taken down. Imagine the work place situation as ACAS is being flooded with a dramatic increase in calls for advice on redundancy and lay-offs during this ‘economic revival’.[/p][/quote]You are talking about two different things. It is wrong that people are protected from accusations due to their position/fame, however as the recent cases you mentioned show when the matter does go to court they dont receive any preferrential treatment do they garston tony
  • Score: 0

11:24am Fri 4 Jul 14

ancientandageing says...

garston tony wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
garston tony wrote: Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc. And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me
The scales of justice as you well know are weighted so heavily in favour of the rich and powerful as shown by the numerous abuse cases that the ordinary people have to put up or shut up. We need more people to take a courageous stand against abuse by those who see themselves as above the law and are protected by those who are forever fawning over them. We all need to help to create a more diverse fairer representative democratic society where institutions are less prejudiced as shown by Glencore, last all-male FTSE 100 board, finally appointing a female as director in June 2014.
Actually I dont know that the scales of justice are weighted towards the rich and famous, if that was the case why are many rich and famous people being punished under the justice system? Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve but we just dont get to hear about it. Ultimately its this ladies word against that chap, on the basis of that having no conclusive evidence that the man did anything wrong you want him hung drawn and quartered. Thats not very just is it! Yes i'm sure people have gotten away with bad deeds but you dont have to look very far for people who have been vilified after some claim has been made against them, their careers and livelyhoods ruined who have turned out to be totally innocent
I do strugle with this!!! If I or anyone else I know had four credable women acuse me or them of sexual assault we would be found guilty (and in these cases he was persistant, it was not just a quick pass, where the defence of getting it wrong may apply) the threshold would have been passed, plain and simple. If it walks like a duck etc.
Actually you are wrong as recent court cases quite clearly show.

As counter intuitive as it sounds just because more than one person makes a claim of a similar nature that does not mean the accused is guilty. Take for instance several cases that have gone through the courts.

It is not unknown for someone to make a claim against an individual and for others to 'join in' with their own claims because they have an axe to grind, want their 15 minutes of fame, are not right in the head, are just wrong in their intepretation of what happened or have blown in out of all proportion.

I'm not defending this chap, or saying the claims are not true but I do want to live in a world where people are not found guilty of something without conclusive evidence.
@garston Tony
really name one case, under the sexual offences act 2003 where 4 people have accused a person of assault who has persisted in advances after it being made clear to him/her that they were not interested, and whose storys have been assessed as credable.
I am sorry these are not historic cases that go back thirty years they are much more contemporary under a llaw that was specifically designed to be much lesss ambigouse.

many an eyebrow has been peeled of the cieling at the stance taken on this!
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Cuetip, this has nothing to do with changes in legal aid etc. And whilst I dont know all the facts isnt the idea that something should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before action is taken against someone a good principle? I mean, would you like to be sacked from your job because someone made a claim against you which couldnt be proven yet a decision was made to do away with you anyway? A lower level of proof allows for peoples personal likes/dislikes/opini on of another to influence the decision which doesnt seem fair to me[/p][/quote]The scales of justice as you well know are weighted so heavily in favour of the rich and powerful as shown by the numerous abuse cases that the ordinary people have to put up or shut up. We need more people to take a courageous stand against abuse by those who see themselves as above the law and are protected by those who are forever fawning over them. We all need to help to create a more diverse fairer representative democratic society where institutions are less prejudiced as shown by Glencore, last all-male FTSE 100 board, finally appointing a female as director in June 2014.[/p][/quote]Actually I dont know that the scales of justice are weighted towards the rich and famous, if that was the case why are many rich and famous people being punished under the justice system? Ok, yes some may be able to get out of a speeding ticket or points because they can afford a lawyer who finds a loop hole. But Chris Hume anyone? Problem is just as many poor people dont get the punishments they deserve but we just dont get to hear about it. Ultimately its this ladies word against that chap, on the basis of that having no conclusive evidence that the man did anything wrong you want him hung drawn and quartered. Thats not very just is it! Yes i'm sure people have gotten away with bad deeds but you dont have to look very far for people who have been vilified after some claim has been made against them, their careers and livelyhoods ruined who have turned out to be totally innocent[/p][/quote]I do strugle with this!!! If I or anyone else I know had four credable women acuse me or them of sexual assault we would be found guilty (and in these cases he was persistant, it was not just a quick pass, where the defence of getting it wrong may apply) the threshold would have been passed, plain and simple. If it walks like a duck etc.[/p][/quote]Actually you are wrong as recent court cases quite clearly show. As counter intuitive as it sounds just because more than one person makes a claim of a similar nature that does not mean the accused is guilty. Take for instance several cases that have gone through the courts. It is not unknown for someone to make a claim against an individual and for others to 'join in' with their own claims because they have an axe to grind, want their 15 minutes of fame, are not right in the head, are just wrong in their intepretation of what happened or have blown in out of all proportion. I'm not defending this chap, or saying the claims are not true but I do want to live in a world where people are not found guilty of something without conclusive evidence.[/p][/quote]@garston Tony really name one case, under the sexual offences act 2003 where 4 people have accused a person of assault who has persisted in advances after it being made clear to him/her that they were not interested, and whose storys have been assessed as credable. I am sorry these are not historic cases that go back thirty years they are much more contemporary under a llaw that was specifically designed to be much lesss ambigouse. many an eyebrow has been peeled of the cieling at the stance taken on this! ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Cuetip says...

Dear garston tony,

Your loyalty to maintain the status quo where some are more equal than us when it comes to justice, health care, education, the old school tie system, is admirable even if you can't see what is in front of you everyday on your TV screen. The example below applies across society.

Fans accused owners of the exclusive Wimbledon members’ seats of ‘not bothering to show up after a long lunch’ as swathes of the stands were left unoccupied.

As one fan states’I think the members need to think about how lucky they are to have these seats. Tennis should be for the fans and not just for the elite.’
Dear garston tony, Your loyalty to maintain the status quo where some are more equal than us when it comes to justice, health care, education, the old school tie system, is admirable even if you can't see what is in front of you everyday on your TV screen. The example below applies across society. Fans accused owners of the exclusive Wimbledon members’ seats of ‘not bothering to show up after a long lunch’ as swathes of the stands were left unoccupied. As one fan states’I think the members need to think about how lucky they are to have these seats. Tennis should be for the fans and not just for the elite.’ Cuetip
  • Score: 2

8:46am Sat 5 Jul 14

trebleywebley says...

Cuetip.Whist your fundamentalist views do have merit.We are at present bound by the legislature per se. The gentleman being discussed was not found guilty ,as simple as that.Who doesn't know that an apology from the gentleman would be akin to an admission of guilt and therefore not possible.This is taking place in the political arena where politicians should know better as they are the people who promulgate the legislature.
Cuetip.Whist your fundamentalist views do have merit.We are at present bound by the legislature per se. The gentleman being discussed was not found guilty ,as simple as that.Who doesn't know that an apology from the gentleman would be akin to an admission of guilt and therefore not possible.This is taking place in the political arena where politicians should know better as they are the people who promulgate the legislature. trebleywebley
  • Score: 0

9:46am Sat 5 Jul 14

Cuetip says...

trebleywebley says... The gentleman being discussed was not found guilty ,as simple as that. Really simple?

Discrimination which is swept under the carpet occurs at all levels and the public owes a great deal to those who expose it and are not cowards. I salute all the victims who stand up against injustice.

Four Liberal Democrat members have made complaints at various stages about the behaviour of Lord Rennard.

Alison Smith, now a politics lecturer at Oxford, told Channel 4 News that she had made complaints about Rennard's 'inappropriate behaviour'.

Gaszczak, who sat with Rennard on the party's federal policy committee, says that at the event Rennard's hand started to rub the outside of her leg.

Bridget Harris, a former special adviser to Nick Clegg, says that Rennard repeatedly touched her legs in a hotel bar at a party conference in 2003 in Swansea.

Alison Goldsworthy agreed to identify herself as one of the complainants, but has not publicly set out her allegations.

During the party inquiry conducted by Alistair Webster QC, Webster said there was credible evidence that the women's personal space was violated, but not enough evidence that there was a more than 50% chance Rennard would be found guilty of sexual harassment.

This is not exclusively a Liberal Democrat issue, nor exclusively a women's issue. Sexual harassment occurs in many organisations but members are kettled into believing that there is some greater good in not making a formal complaint.

Liberal Democrats should take a hard look at their core principles and lead by example, and show their boldness. In their quest for power, the means don’t always justify the end product.
trebleywebley says... The gentleman being discussed was not found guilty ,as simple as that. Really simple? Discrimination which is swept under the carpet occurs at all levels and the public owes a great deal to those who expose it and are not cowards. I salute all the victims who stand up against injustice. Four Liberal Democrat members have made complaints at various stages about the behaviour of Lord Rennard. Alison Smith, now a politics lecturer at Oxford, told Channel 4 News that she had made complaints about Rennard's 'inappropriate behaviour'. Gaszczak, who sat with Rennard on the party's federal policy committee, says that at the event Rennard's hand started to rub the outside of her leg. Bridget Harris, a former special adviser to Nick Clegg, says that Rennard repeatedly touched her legs in a hotel bar at a party conference in 2003 in Swansea. Alison Goldsworthy agreed to identify herself as one of the complainants, but has not publicly set out her allegations. During the party inquiry conducted by Alistair Webster QC, Webster said there was credible evidence that the women's personal space was violated, but not enough evidence that there was a more than 50% chance Rennard would be found guilty of sexual harassment. This is not exclusively a Liberal Democrat issue, nor exclusively a women's issue. Sexual harassment occurs in many organisations but members are kettled into believing that there is some greater good in not making a formal complaint. Liberal Democrats should take a hard look at their core principles and lead by example, and show their boldness. In their quest for power, the means don’t always justify the end product. Cuetip
  • Score: 5

11:01am Sun 6 Jul 14

Cuetip says...

trebleywebley wrote:
Cuetip.Whist your fundamentalist views do have merit.We are at present bound by the legislature per se. The gentleman being discussed was not found guilty ,as simple as that.Who doesn't know that an apology from the gentleman would be akin to an admission of guilt and therefore not possible.This is taking place in the political arena where politicians should know better as they are the people who promulgate the legislature.
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ has never been more fundamentally important and these cases are just the tip of the iceberg as there are too many in positions of power at all levels running the show who believe they have to keep abuse out of the public arena because we are too stupid as they sell their hollow rhetoric.

Interesting is that it takes someone like Lord Tebbit with ‘source credibility’ for people similar to you to sit up and listen as he claims the Thatcher government may have orchestrated an Establishment cover-up of child abuse by senior politicians.

Imagine if the victim was female and black ? Absolutely no chance of being taken seriously. They would probably investigate the victim as with Doreen Lawrence's experience.

The former Tory party chairman claimed there was a mindset to ‘protect the system’ which has been to shown to have gone ‘spectacularly’ wrong because incidents of abuse grew.
[quote][p][bold]trebleywebley[/bold] wrote: Cuetip.Whist your fundamentalist views do have merit.We are at present bound by the legislature per se. The gentleman being discussed was not found guilty ,as simple as that.Who doesn't know that an apology from the gentleman would be akin to an admission of guilt and therefore not possible.This is taking place in the political arena where politicians should know better as they are the people who promulgate the legislature.[/p][/quote]‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ has never been more fundamentally important and these cases are just the tip of the iceberg as there are too many in positions of power at all levels running the show who believe they have to keep abuse out of the public arena because we are too stupid as they sell their hollow rhetoric. Interesting is that it takes someone like Lord Tebbit with ‘source credibility’ for people similar to you to sit up and listen as he claims the Thatcher government may have orchestrated an Establishment cover-up of child abuse by senior politicians. Imagine if the victim was female and black ? Absolutely no chance of being taken seriously. They would probably investigate the victim as with Doreen Lawrence's experience. The former Tory party chairman claimed there was a mindset to ‘protect the system’ which has been to shown to have gone ‘spectacularly’ wrong because incidents of abuse grew. Cuetip
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree