Did Slipper make sleazy, unwanted and inappropriate advances to Ashby or not?
It seems to me that this was an asymmetric power relationship, where the older man was the boss and he made inappropriate and sleazy sexual advances to a younger employee.
The rest is politics. It's a little naive to think that political opponents wouldn't use so egregious an example of unfitness for office as those texts of Slippers. If you've any doubt, just reverse it, would you imagine anyone in their right mind going in to bat to say that the use of a government funded phone to send those texts to a junior employee was OK?
I am a little concerned that in the painting of this matter as a wholly political adventure we might be losing sight of the sort of conduct that if found to have existed between say a school principal and a good-looking junior teacher would have resulted in immediate and crystal clear disciplinary action.
We're forgetting the texts, the travel together, the use of official services like the phone for those sleazy purposes.
Somehow the party that professes to stand for the less powerful worker and against perceived misogyny has gone out of its way to support a powerful, married boss here who has acted woefully while trying to groom a junior employee for sex. Disgusting.
Ashby's motivations and antecedents are worthy of criticism too. He seems to be a hyper-political operative with a prediliction for peculiar practices. I would not like to work with him.
But we ought not lose sight here of the digusting behaviour of this unfit boss Slipper.
This is the letter from the Labor member for Moreton, Graham Perrett MP, calling on the Federal Police to investigate the matter. No, not Slipper's behaviour, he's dobbing in the victim Ashby and Slipper's political foe Mal Brough.