"He was an effective politician and a tireless champion of women. He could also be like a bully who seemed incapable of moderation or restraint, writes Ben Thomas.
"Mallard has been variously described at different stages of his long career as a thug, an attack dog, a bovver-boy and, yes, a bully."
Despite Parliament's denial of cSharma'slaims of bullying, this insight into the double-life of Mallard seems contradictory. And one only has to watch a session in the House to see the bully antics of many MPs on both/all sides.
I'm a fervent Labour supporter, but the party's lacklustre response to Sharma's allegations — and the final decision to oust him — seem all too much like further examples of inappropriate "power-over" behaviour.
An observer commented:
I’m totally willing to believe that politicians are capable of bending the rules, suppressing evidence, bullying and harassing one of their own if they want to get rid of them, and sadly it’s probably more likely to happen to someone who isn’t white, but I’m just not seeing anything that is conclusive. However, when I ask myself, “Why would Gaurav Sharma make these claims if they weren’t true?”, I can’t think of a good reason. Hopefully the truth will become clear at some point and justice will prevail, but probably not, eh?
Sadly, I agree. No matter who is running the Government, a long history of bad behaviour is stronger than any principles held by the ruling majority.