MP says he “regrets” assault while implying it wasn’t DV
With the headline Tory MP David Ruffley speaks of assault 'regret' , the BBC produces an article that buys into multiple myths about domestic abuse, in particular by giving full voice to the abuser but no voice to the victim.
Conservative MP David Ruffley has said he "deeply regrets" actions that led to a police caution for common assault on his ex-partner earlier this year.
Speaking about the incident in London for the first time through his lawyers, the MP for Bury St Edmunds admitted "inappropriate action".
Notice the minimising of what he did, talking of vaguely “inappropriate actions”.
Now, 18 weeks later, and for the first time, he has told me, through a statement from his lawyers, about the incident.
"In March this year, an incident occurred between me and my former partner, resulting in inappropriate action on my part, which I deeply regret, in respect of which I accepted a police caution for common assault."
Note the victim blaming implicit in his statement. - an “incident occurred between me and my partner” implying that his partner shares the blame for his “inappropriate action”.
He adds: "Some time later, I telephoned my former partner to apologise.
"I am pleased to be able to say that she has accepted my apology. I have refrained from making any public statement on this matter as it is a deeply personal matter. "It is my understanding that my former partner wishes the incident to remain private."
So, according to him, his former partner has accepted his apology and this should be an end to it. He has generously refrained from telling the public that he committed common assault against his former partner to save her feelings. Because she is his former partner, it is a personal matter and not one of public interest? Really? An MP commits common assault and, because he has been intimate with his victim, no one should care and we should all mind our own business?
His statement concludes: "I wish to stress that I would never condone domestic violence under any circumstances."
Ah, I see. He would never condone domestic violence. So, according to Mr Ruffley, when he commits common assault against a former partner, it’s not domestic violence. What, exactly, is it, then, Mr Ruffley? What exactly, in your mind, Mr Ruffley, makes your common assault, which the Dean of Saint Edmundsbury Cathedral has said resulted in your ex-partner wincing in “obvious pain” shortly after the incident, not the domestic violence which you would never condone? Could it , by any chance, be because you did it?Download this post as PDF? Click here