Sorry seems to be the hardest word

Elton John wasn't on the money with this song lyric as far as real life goes (commercially, of course, he was) as 'sorry' is often used as a throwaway without any real import attached to it and frequently used to end an argument, even if lacking in sincerity.  Lord Rennard though seems to believe that he does not need to apologise and its causing Nick Clegg palpitations as he was getting an inappropriate shakedown.
Just because the Crown Prosecution Service (which never take to trial any case where they believe exists less than a 50% chance of conviction) and an internal Liberal Democrat investigation by a respected QC have concluded that the charges against Rennard cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  People can leave the High Court "without a stain on their character" (though that seldom really translates post-trial) after being acquitted because the jury could not agree that the defendant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  Not so with Lord Rennard.  His reluctance to apologise comes across because he was cleared on a legal technicality and this therefore excuses him.  Could it be though that he fears a civil case where the burden of proof is lower and a person can pay damages 'on the balance of probabilities'.  An apology, he may have been advised, would tip that balance against him.
Yet as I stated at the start (and as Nick Clegg emphasised on Today) people say sorry all the time without meaning it, even further diluting it by adding a clause of 'if'.  A formulation could be, "I regret that certain aspects of my behaviour have been misinterpreted and I apologise if any offence has been caused.  I will work to ensure that no such misunderstanding occur in the future."  Case closed and that is not being flippant, as that which is ranged against him remain allegations (without denying the very real grievances the women may possess) and anyone, in such a situation, must not be sunk by gossip and given the benefit of the doubt. Rennard's intransigence, possibly abetted by friends and allies (and friends in all walks of life can be guilty of offering the worst advice imaginable), is making the issue a running sore.  He needs to swallow his pride if he cares about his party.  His billing as an 'election supremo' does not make him an indispensable part of the Lib Dem electoral machine.  Despite being a 'small' political party, arguably they underperformed in 2005 (and not just because of Charles Kennedy's alcoholism) and though they gained vote share in 2010, they lost seats.  As politicians in the USA must, British strategy teams must work within the vagaries of a broken system and put down deep roots in strongholds, not broad and shallow roots across the whole.  Even if Lord Rennard was the lynchpin, he will continue to embarrass the Lib Dems until he says sorry.