Actually, I've found an even better, "Why Shirley Williams is a twonk about sexual harassment" piece: here
I've said before why I've got reservations about the "bingo card" format for arguments (it imposes a false equivalence between arguments just on the basis that they're frequently used arguments, rather than considering that some arguments have merit, even if you don't always accept them as valid in a specific case) but this sexual harassment scandal hasn't half been ticking the boxes:
1. Not "real" harassment (check; see above) 2. Gold-diggers aiming to get a quick payout from a lawsuit (check : and raised by the man himself, too ) 3. "Kangaroo courts" "trial by rumour" "breach of natural justice" (check: see Guardian link in my earlier comment) 4. Can't be shown to be intentional/may have been social awkwardness* (check; in verdict of investigator itself) 5. Can't we just get on with the more important things and avoid this side-show? (check; various senior libdems including Lord Carlile) 6 [ETA from comments to the latest article about this on LibDemVoice] It's all a long time ago (check; what people using this one don't tend to mention is that the reason it's a long time ago is that it was first reported back in 2007/8 by the complainants, the people to whom it was reported including very probably Clegg seemed to have sat on it hoping it would go away, when it was clear it wasn't there was some kind of behind the scenes fudge where Rennard retired "on grounds of ill-health" in 2009 and it was only when he was brought back onstage in late 2011 that the original women said, "Oy! You told us you'd dealt with this, in a way which wouldn't cause damage to the Party but would make sure we didn't have to work with him again.")
*Such a common trait among senior politicians who've delivered the most effective electioneering strategy in their party's history
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-01-18 10:55 am (UTC)I've said before why I've got reservations about the "bingo card" format for arguments (it imposes a false equivalence between arguments just on the basis that they're frequently used arguments, rather than considering that some arguments have merit, even if you don't always accept them as valid in a specific case) but this sexual harassment scandal hasn't half been ticking the boxes:
1. Not "real" harassment (check; see above)
2. Gold-diggers aiming to get a quick payout from a lawsuit (check : and raised by the man himself, too )
3. "Kangaroo courts" "trial by rumour" "breach of natural justice" (check: see Guardian link in my earlier comment)
4. Can't be shown to be intentional/may have been social awkwardness* (check; in verdict of investigator itself)
5. Can't we just get on with the more important things and avoid this side-show? (check; various senior libdems including Lord Carlile)
6 [ETA from comments to the latest article about this on LibDemVoice] It's all a long time ago (check; what people using this one don't tend to mention is that the reason it's a long time ago is that it was first reported back in 2007/8 by the complainants, the people to whom it was reported including very probably Clegg seemed to have sat on it hoping it would go away, when it was clear it wasn't there was some kind of behind the scenes fudge where Rennard retired "on grounds of ill-health" in 2009 and it was only when he was brought back onstage in late 2011 that the original women said, "Oy! You told us you'd dealt with this, in a way which wouldn't cause damage to the Party but would make sure we didn't have to work with him again.")
*Such a common trait among senior politicians who've delivered the most effective electioneering strategy in their party's history