Jaspar Gerard on the Lord Rennard affair

Lord Rennard (PA)

Jaspar Gerard, who was once a rising star on the Sunday Times with excellent contacts among the Liberal Democrats, wrote an entire book about how Nick Clegg captured the party leadership, and thought he had scored a success when the Daily Mail paid a handsome price of the serialisation rights. What he did not foresee was that Mail scribes would comb the book for everything bad they could find about Clegg or his party, leaving out the rest. He was shocked. He feared that his relationship with the party would be ruptured.

Bridges have since been mended. Gerard is now a prospective Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, and he went on the World at One today to belittle the Lord Rennard affair as a big fuss about very little. “It was only touching a woman’s knee, it’s hardly Jimmy Savile,” he complained.

That echoed similar remarks by the Lib Dem peer, Tony Greaves. “It is hardly an offence for one adult person to make fairly mild sexual advances to another,” he said.

No wonder that the women involved felt they would never get the Lib Dem establishment to take their complaints seriously.

Recent Posts on McSmith

• Ian Katz and the great Clark County stunt
• Eleven Labour MPs backed last night's Tory rebel amendment. Another didn't vote
• Ten Labour MPs have signed the EU amendment
• Space Oddity: a political quiz question
• Ex-jailbird Lord Hanningfield claimed £24,600 in 2012

• http://www.facebook.com/NickHartGBH Nick Hart

  Does anyone actually know exactly what Rennard is actually supposed to have done? Thought not. And by the way, ‘innapropriate’ sexual advances are by no means restricted to man on woman, as any man who’s been mauled by a drunken cougar can attest. Or predatory female bosses hitting on their underlings? In fact, wherever there’s a Dirty Den there’s usually a Dirty Denise…

• Martin_Kinsella

  Oooh, another article of hate for the Lib Dems.

  Lord Rennard is alleged to have done some unpleasant things but get a perspective. He is hardly sir james of the savile.

• Martin_Kinsella

  Ah, so do we have a paid Labour shill then ?

• Susan G.

  I see, you can’t address my main point but choose to deliver some feeble ad hominem line and suggest that I am being partisan. If being partisan is wanting to see this kind of behaviour being exposed and the alleged perp held to account then it is for you to explain why this is wrong- something you seem singularly unable to do. Instead, because I express my disdain for the shabby and hypocritical way these numerous complaints were not appropriately dealt with this gives you the opening to launch into some absurd counterpoint about ‘dirty tricks’. You really couldn’t make it up.

  Then you proceed to ‘whataboutery’ regarding the Labour party because you can’t address the point at hand. Oh dear, this is a little more than what you would have it. It’s not only the extent of the sexual harassment, but the abuse of power should these allegations be found to be true. Neither of which has been addressed by the Libdems and are totally ignored by you for the sake of some cheap jibes. What an absurd response. Risible.

  Nowadays, most intelligent people do not employ the pathetic fallacy of last resort and try to hide behind accusations of naivety and lack of awareness of the political machinations that are present but honestly deal with the issue. What you fail to understand is that if these complaints had been dealt with honestly at the time there would have been no possibility of political opportunism for anyone. Sometimes a little honesty from politicians serves them well. Something you fail to acknowledge and that speaks volumes about the level of your integrity and nothing about your understanding of principles and decent behaviour. I wouldn’t even stoop to articulating what I think of your bias, it’s simply not worth the candle. Risible.

• Susan G.

  Of course not. Interested to note that Raymond Burke has now anonymised his pathetic comments to me. What is it with the moral fibre of the Libdems and their apologists? They never learn: it’s the cover up, stoooopid. LOL.