Two female peers have condemned fellow Lords members for “misogynistic, victim-blaming” attitudes after they cast doubt on the claims of a woman found to have been sexually harassed by a Lib Dem peer [Lord Anthony Lester], because she was friendly to him on later occasions…
Meral Hussein-Ece, a Lib Dem peer, said she became “more and more incredulous and angry” as she listened to the debate, which she said appeared to be a concerted effort by Lester’s friends in the Lords to stop a suspension imposed by the privileges and conduct committee. [The Guardian]
Those peers who angered her, alas, including a chunk of Liberal Democrat peers:
Other peers spoke to say they had known Lester, 82, for many years and could not believe he would act in such a way. The average age of speakers in the debate was 75.
A Lib Dem peer, Tom McNally, also noted the warm comments Sanghera had written in the book, saying: “It seems strange, but never mind.” He also expressed doubt over whether a “confident and determined campaigner” like her would be intimidated by a peer.
Another Lib Dem, Dick Taverne, said Sanghera’s behaviour was such that if her evidence to the inquiry had been cross-examined – the key demand of Lester and Pannick – then it was likely “sufficient doubts would have been raised for the charge to be dismissed”.
This prompted shouts of, “Shame on you!” from Jones and Hussein-Ece.
What is more:
In addition, it is worth noting that Lord Lester had previously supported these disciplinary rules, including over how evidence is handled.
Former Liberal Democrat special advisor Sean Kemp puts it well:
And thankfully Vince Cable has added: