Thursday, January 16, 2014
The 'harassment' card pulled on Chris Rennard
At the same time as what are very likely to turn out to be largely or wholly trumped-up cases against three entertainers -- Rolf Harris, Bill Roache and Dave Lee Travis (and we've yet to see what is likely to be similar if not even more obviously nonsense against Max Clifford) -- the 'harassment' card is still being pulled on Lord (Chris) Rennard, the Lib Dem peer, despite an investigation finding no convincing evidence (and on the balance of probabilities, not just beyond reasonable doubt).
Claims of 'distress' by a few women are neither here not there: the worst that Rennard is accused of is placing his hand on a woman's knee or back, and sitting so close as to be touching. He was "reluctant to take 'no' for an answer", we were told; but the 'no' apparently was never an explicit one. He made "unwanted approaches". Big Deal. Most approaches by men to women are unwanted. Men are evolutionarily 'designed' to play long odds in the sexual game.
Chris Rennard appears to have behaved in no way beyond the usual forwardness required of males to enable females to initially reply coyly to test if the male is persistent, so that then she may well not – but sometimes just may – decide to accept his advances. The current utterly daft notion of what constitutes 'harassment' potentially makes normal sexual interaction impossible though obviating any beginning of courtship.
We've had the ridiculous spectacle of Lib-Dem spouse Vicky Price cowering behind the truly antique notion of 'coverture' to excuse her own illegal behaviour, and now we have these Lib-Dem women so socially incompetent that they can't deal with the most innocuous mild sexual overtures. Most even half-worldly women would make light and deliver a humorous put-down so that both parties save face. Having not taken it lightly, it's just not good enough to hide behind the notion that they could not complain because of Chris Rennard's 'power' in the political hierarchy. Well were they just using their femininity to enable themselves to climb the Party's hierarchy, and didn't want to give this up?! If they genuinely felt their complaints had substance, then why would they allow themselves to be 'fobbed off'?
The whole affair is pretty funny in that the Lib Dems are – albeit quite a way after Labour -- a locus of 'political correctness' fascism, so any woman within the organisation can expect a very good hearing indeed if she makes any, however flimsy charge of sexual misdemeanour, and knows full well that she would be able to push beyond any rebuff.
I note the reporting on this Channel4 story is headed up by Cathy Newman: someone who personally told me that what matters to her in assessing a news story is what she "believes", not journalistic standards. She's a rabid feminist activist, not a journalist.
As a very ex-Lib Dem activist owing to my profound disagreement with several major LD policies and orientations, I've no reason to be kind to Chris Rennard, albeit I know him personally. Long ago I worked as his admin assistant. Even during the back-end of those 'Young Liberal' days of promiscuity I never saw nor heard of Chris making any sexual move, no matter how subtle or how crude, on anyone. Indeed, I might be wrong but from my understanding at the time he has no natural interest in females at all!
So what if some, even many Lib Dem women leave the Party? The Lib Dems might be well rid of such fragile narcissistic creatures. Politics generally would be well rid of them. How about some actually relevant, representative, grown-up politics instead of the ever-ridiculous playing-the-victim game?
# posted by Steve Moxon @ 8:46 pm 
