Ruth Davidson’s ‘political soulmate’ exposed as having sent sexually explicit messages to two young women and as having voted against outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation

JrWdEaj3  Stephen-Crabb-AFP

                    (c) PH                                                                       AFP/Getty Images

[Thanks to my French correspondent, L Thierry, for alerting me to this link]

In a Daily Telegraph article on 3rd January 2016, Scottish Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, gave her support to MP Steve Crabb if he were to stand against David Cameron in the leadership race that year. In the piece, she described him as her ‘political soulmate’ and said of him I think there’s a few really, really competent and impressive people who demonstrate warmth as well as intelligence and I think that’s quite important in politics’ and that she would ‘find it very hard to vote for anyone else.’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12078577/Ruth-Davidson-Next-Conservative-leader-will-be-an-outsider-with-warmth-and-intelligence.html

Now, Crabb, who resigned a ministerial post in 2016 after sending sexually explicit texts to a ‘young woman’ during the EU referendum has been exposed, in the Times and in the Mail on Sunday, as having sent ‘explicit’ messages to a 19-year-old woman, in 2013, after a job interview at Westminster. The earlier case is even worse in that he was in a position of power over the future career of this teenager.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/06/stephen-crabb-mp-says-sexting-scandal-excruciating-embarrassment/

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/welsh-mp-accused-sending-sexual-13826881

Jeremy Corbyn has already warned that MPs who engage in the abuse and sexual harassment of women must be held accountable for their actions. Ruth Davidson has just announced ‘Sexual harassment in the workplace is wrong and must not be tolerated. Those in positions of power, like MPs and MSPs, have an even greater responsibility to lead by example and show respect for all members of staff. The Scottish Conservatives take these issues extremely seriously.’

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-investigating-two-cases-of-sexual-harassment-1-4600315

So, will Ruth call for her former ‘soulmate’ to be sacked?

Also, I wonder did she know that ‘he voted against the Equality Act of Sexual Regulation Orientation 2007, which outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation?’

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/loyal-stephen-crabbs-voting-record-shows-support-for-welfare-benefits-cuts-a6941221.html

I’ve written many times about how nasty and hypocritical the Tories cannot help but be, before. See this for a few more examples:

The Scottish Tories so bad Ruth wants to kick some of them out and replace them with what, we wonder?

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Ruth Davidson’s ‘political soulmate’ exposed as having sent sexually explicit messages to two young women and as having voted against outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation

  1. gavin November 1, 2017 / 11:19 am

    Add a photo of Kim Jung-un to make triplets.

    Isn’t it time politicians were disqualified from hiring personal staff? The ability to hire and fire someone who has to work to your demands(yes, all of them or you are out) is part of the problem. There should be a pool of qualified people + interns, free to move about “bosses” if needs arise. Competence and confidentiality a must.

    It used to be High Heid Yins looked down on “their underlings” as socially inferior and therefore exploitable. Downstairs people.
    This is the 21st century for goodness sakes.

    Like

  2. Alasdair Macdonald November 1, 2017 / 3:36 pm

    We are talking about ‘guilt by association’ here. Generally, I consider it to be a reprehensible practice, which is often used by politicians against opponents and by journalists against politicians and others. Good journalists – but we do not have too many assiduous ones these days – would investigate such links before publishing stories. However, most of the guilt-by-association stories are simply about throwing mud and deploying the ‘no-smoke-without-fire-cliche’ and creating a mob mentality. We saw that most heinously with the former MP, Ms Michelle Thomson. Frequently, the hapless Ms Kezia Dugdale was pursued about relatively trivial matters, but was insufficiently adept at quietening the jackals. In the current furore about sexual harassment we are getting individuals who are indulging in consensual relations between adults being included in the ‘scandal’. It is an unedifying spectacle and one which, in the end, often ends up with the serious issue being unaddressed.

    The problem with politicians like Ms Davidson is that she has readily indulged in the bear-baiting and has presented herself as a doughty fighter on behalf of gay people. If she wishes to be present herself in the latter light she has to be like ‘Caesar’s wife’. So, in her case her association with Mr Crabb and his actions and views merits her being asked about it. But, most of the media simply will not do this. She is not made answerable.

    Contrast this with Michelle Thomson. Even after it was demonstrated she had nothing to be guilty for, the BBC played the story for almost a week and managed to transfer some ‘culpability’ to the First Minister.

    Pigs will fly before we have an angry Hayley Millar confronting Ms Davidson in the shocking way she attacked Ms Shona Robison.

    Like

  3. johnrobertson834 November 1, 2017 / 3:42 pm

    I did have second thoughts about this but feel the Tories excuse my weakness here…temporary of course.

    Like

  4. Ludo Thierry November 1, 2017 / 6:24 pm

    Hi John – Hi all.

    No John – you are not descending into the gutter with this article. It was Colonel Davidson who chose to publicly endorse this Honourable? Member (Stephen Crabb MP) as her candidate to replace David Cameron as tory leader/PM. It was her choice of words to describe Crabb as her “..political soulmate..”.

    Legitimate questions are there to be asked regarding Colonel Davidson’s political judgement: Does the Colonel still hold these views? If not -why not? When, precisely, did she change her views (if this is the case)? What, precisely, made her change her views (if this is the case)?

    Given that the ‘Scottish’ msm print /broadcasters are failing to ask these questions of the Colonel then the alternative media have to do it for them.

    Another interesting aspect of the Colonel’s political relationship with Crabb concerns his involvement with the (apparently very well funded) campaigning organisation CARE (Christian Action, Research and Education). See below:

    Christian (and bearded!) minister appointed Welsh Secretary
    Carey Lodge CHRISTIAN TODAY JOURNALIST 17 July 2014

    Now famed for being the first bearded Conservative cabinet minister in over a century, Crabb began his political career as a graduate on the CARE Leadership Programme (Christian Action Research and Education) – an initiative which offers young Christians placements in the public sphere.

    Also: Stephen Crabb opens up about faith and politics
    Mon 28 Mar 2016
    By Aaron James

    … Stephen Crabb, the MP for Preseli Pembrokeshire in South Wales, currently attends St Mary’ Church in his home village of Wiston with his French wife Beatrice and their two children.
    He has received criticism for his links to the Christian lobby group CARE, and for voting against gay marriage in 2013.

    Having established Crabb’s active involvement with CARE it is instructive to note that CARE were part of the coalition of interests which took legal action to challenge the Named Person legislation.

    When the ‘british’ Supreme Court asked the Scottish Govt to make alterations to the information disclosure elements of the legislation Colonel Davidson was quoted on the beeb website (below):

    Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said the ruling was “important” and “a victory for campaigners” against “illiberal, invasive and deeply flawed” legislation.
    She added: “Simply put, the SNP does not know better than parents when it comes to raising their children.
    “We have consistently argued against the named person legislation on grounds of principle and practicality.

    That statement was simply factually incorrect. The Col and her north british tories had not opposed the legislation in the Scottish Parliament vote. See below (from beeb website):

    Supreme Court rules against Named Person scheme
    • 28 July 2016
    • From the section Scotland politics

    Why was the legislation challenged?

    The Scottish government contend that the system would help to protect young people and has accused opponents of misrepresenting the legislation, which was approved by 103 votes to nil by MSPs when it formed part of the Children and Young People Act in 2014.

    NOTE:The 2014 legislation was passed with not a single party or single MSP voting against it. CARE and their fellow travellers then took legal action. See below:

    The appeal was brought by the No to Named Persons (NO2NP) coalition, which includes the Christian Institute, Care (Christian Action Research and Education), Tyme Trust and the Family Education Trust. (See below):

    Their arguments had previously been dismissed as “hyperbole” by the Court of Session, which said named person did not diminish the role of parents and had “no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family”.

    Having failed in the Scottish Court of Session CARE and co went to the ‘british’ Supreme Court. See below:

    They tried to convince the panel of five Supreme Court judges that the named person legislation authorised “unjustified and unjustifiable state interference with family rights”.
    And while the Supreme Court did not oppose the legislation in principle, it said information-sharing proposals interfered with privacy and family life.

    Now – I have no inside information whatsoever on this issue. However, I would have thought the msm ‘Scottish’ print/broadcast media might have wondered why Col. Davidson and her north british tories suddenly did an ‘about turn’ on the Named Person legislation? Having been perfectly happy to see it pass through the Scottish Parliament unopposed – and, suddenly – out of nowhere – claim to have “.consistently argued against the named person legislation on grounds of principle and practicality”.

    Were I the ‘Scottish’ msm press/broadcasters I might – just might – have enquired of the Colonel whether her sudden and dramatic change of position on the Named Person legislation had any connection with her burgeoning relationship with her “..political soulmate..” Crabb – given his demonstrated involvement with the (apparently very well funded) campaign group CARE?

    I suppose that would involve having ‘Scottish’ msm press/broadcasters who could be bothered doing the day job to even the barest of standards – and which aren’t determined to protect and promote Col. Davidson, no matter the cost to Scotland?

    Thanks, Ludo

    Like

    • Alasdair Macdonald November 2, 2017 / 12:06 am

      The BBC website has reported that a former Conservative candidate has been suspended by the party after allegations of an assault some years ago on a woman in Oxford. Interestingly, the report includes a photo of his election poster and there is a photograph on the poster, as large as the photograph of the candidate, of THE COLONEL! (Like all candidates in Scotland, he was standing on behalf of her, because the election literature made scarce mention of the Conservative and Unionist Party).

      So, here we have the BBC associating Ms Davidson with an alleged thug.

      Is this a change in attitude by the Beeb, or will some internet editor have already got his P45?

      Like

  5. Ludo Thierry November 1, 2017 / 8:47 pm

    Hi John – I saw the piece on the National website. Interesting that the Colonel’s office seem to be actively distancing her from this ‘political soulmate’ – Given what seems to be developing at westminster perhaps they are aware of the risk of becoming political cell-mates?

    Like

  6. Alasdair Macdonald November 2, 2017 / 10:10 am

    Good Morning Scotland had an ‘interview’ with The Colonel this morning in the wake of Mr Fallon’s resignation. ‘Interview’ is perhaps not the right word. She was given time to appear stateswomanlike by standing above the fray in the tawdry Westminster swamp of iniquity and calling for higher standards. No mention of Messrs Crabb or Cullen.

    The New Statesman, Observer, Guardian and the various ‘progressive’ metropolitan media will be swooning!! They will be asking, why the Tories don’t get rid of ‘Strong and Stable’ and invest The Colonel with the panoply of powers!!!!!???????

    Like

    • gavin November 2, 2017 / 2:08 pm

      Then we could have a “Regime of the Colonel”, just like Greece did ’67-74……….AKA The Junta.

      Perhaps she could team up with the “Colonels” in Spain: I’m sure they would have aspirations in common.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s