Tory minister for civil society Brooks Newmark resigns after sex scandal

[Wilf]

It's a bit like the myth of the free market really. For anyone to think this was okay, just 2 adults sexting, you have to believe it's an exchange of equals (and I'm not aiming this at you spy). To see it as an exploitative exchange (had it been real of course) is to recognise it isn't. That doesn't mean that someone trying to get access or a job through this route is trapped, has no choice or agency, but it does mean the minister is trading with the thing he has - power and wealth.

 

[Wilf]

Eh?





Ok. I seem to be missing a big chunk of this story.

Where are you getting this from? Got links or quotes?

It's not a case of having links, it's there in the story as revealed - who is he? Why would anyone read his twitter stuff? Why would they engage with him? What was the exchange hinted at between this governmet minister and aspiring PR woman?

 

[andysays]

Eh?

Ok. I seem to be missing a big chunk of this story.

Where are you getting this from? Got links or quotes?

Here's the first reference to it on this thread, in a post made on Saturday:

From the Mirror....

Newmarket, 56, said he was “so sorry” after the investigation found he had contacted the freelance male reporter online before swapping sexually explicit images.

The new Minister for Civil Society, who co-founded the campaign group Women2Win, initiated a private message conversation on a social networking site and as part of a series of exchanges sent a graphic picture exposing himself while wearing a pair of paisley pyjamas

Lol

I can't remember exactly where I got all the info, but none of it is from obscure sources; try re-reading the rest of the thread, following the links, and consulting The Guardian's coverage, then you'll know everything I do.

 

[andysays]

It's a bit like the myth of the free market really. For anyone to think this was okay, just 2 adults sexting, you have to believe it's an exchange of equals (and I'm not aiming this at you spy). To see it as an exploitative exchange (had it been real of course) is to recognise it isn't. That doesn't mean that someone trying to get access or a job through this route is trapped, has no choice or agency, but it does mean the minister is trading with the thing he has - power and wealth.

Exactly, and to be fair to Spymaster, if you read back through the first pages of this thread, you will see that many posters were taking this "it's just two consenting adults, nobody's business but theirs" line

 

[chemicimbalance]

It's actually not illegal to send 'indecent images' to someone, whether solicited or not, unless the people involved are under 18, and as long as it wasn't sent with the intention of causing offence to the receiver. It can be illegal for the recipient to pass on the picture to someone else (a breach of copyright law which belongs to the creator of the photo). This means Brooks Newmark is probably innocent of any crime whereas Alex Wickham is potentially guilty.

 

[butchersapron]

It's actually not illegal to send 'indecent images' to someone, whether solicited or not, unless the people involved are under 18, and as long as it wasn't sent with the intention of causing offence to the receiver. It can be illegal for the recipient to pass on the picture to someone else (a breach of copyright law which belongs to the creator of the photo). This means Brooks Newmark is probably innocent of any crime whereas Alex Wickham is potentially guilty.

Have you the legal source for the above?

 

[andysays]

It's actually not illegal to send 'indecent images' to someone, whether solicited or not, unless the people involved are under 18, and as long as it wasn't sent with the intention of causing offence to the receiver. It can be illegal for the recipient to pass on the picture to someone else (a breach of copyright law which belongs to the creator of the photo). This means Brooks Newmark is probably innocent of any crime whereas Alex Wickham is potentially guilty.

It's not merely a question of whether he's guilty of a crime or not though, is it? It is a question of whether someone who's done this is fit to be a minister, and specifically fit to be this particular minister with these particular responsibilities*.

I agree that the use of someone else's photos is utterly wrong, may be illegal (I don't claim to know), and was also unnecessary - they could potentially have used photos for which they had permission, but to be honest that's the only aspect of the journo and the Mirror's conduct in this case which is shitty (and in saying that I'm not tryng to deny or minimise the shittiness of it).

*And funnily enough, most of the coverage I've read, from memory, seems not to mention this abuse of his specific position line, for some reason.

 

[butchersapron]

It's not merely a question of whether he's guilty of a crime or not though, is it? It is a question of whether someone who's done this is fit to be a minister, and specifically fit to be this particular minister with these particular responsibilities*.

I agree that the use of someone else's photos is utterly wrong, may be illegal (I don't claim to know), and was also unnecessary - they could potentially have used photos for which they had permission, but to be honest that's the only aspect of the journo and the Mirror's conduct in this case which is shitty (and in saying that I'm not tryng to deny or minimise the shittiness of it).

*And funnily enough, most of the coverage I've read, from memory, seems not to mention this abuse of his specific position line, for some reason.

I think the wickham potential offence referred to would be passing on the tories dick photos - not the uses of the other photos.

 

[andysays]

I think the wickham potential offence referred to would be passing on the tories dick photos - not the uses of the other photos.

OK, I'm not sure which photo is being referred to, and as I already said, I don't claim to know the law, but I suggest that there is a potential public interest defence or whatever the exact legal term would be to passing the dick photo to the Mirror, but not in using the woman or women's photos without permission.

Whatever the legal position though, I personally am happy with the former, but not with the latter, if that makes sense.

 

[chemicimbalance]

*And funnily enough, most of the coverage I've read, from memory, seems not to mention this abuse of his specific position line, for some reason.[/QUOTE]

Though it's a line that Guido Fawkes is taking in his crap defence.

 

[bemused]

It's not merely a question of whether he's guilty of a crime or not though, is it? It is a question of whether someone who's done this is fit to be a minister, and specifically fit to be this particular minister with these particular responsibilities*.

Although I think he was foolish, I'm at a loss why two grown consenting adults exchanging naked pictures of themselves should exclude you from public office?

 

[andysays]

Although I think he was foolish, I'm at a loss why two grown consenting adults exchanging naked pictures of themselves should exclude you from public office?

Because they weren't simply two grown consenting adults - have you read the last couple of pages?

 

[Wilf]

Although I think he was foolish, I'm at a loss why two grown consenting adults exchanging naked pictures of themselves should exclude you from public office?

He did the excluding - he resigned. To be honest, I wouldn't go down the 'he's not fit for public office' route - it suggests being an MP/Minister is somehow an honest and decent thing which needs to be defended. I'm glad he's got some shit because he's seems to be a creep, but most of all because he's a politician who has been dishing it out. I'm not that fussed abot defending the 'integrity of the office', or similar twaddle.

 

[chemicimbalance]

I think the wickham potential offence referred to would be passing on the tories dick photos - not the uses of the other photos.

Yes that's the one I was talking about, though the other one also applies.

 

[andysays]

*And funnily enough, most of the coverage I've read, from memory, seems not to mention this abuse of his specific position line, for some reason.

Though it's a line that Guidio Fawkes is taking in his crap defence.[/QUOTE]

I'm not entirely convinced it is a crap defence (which doesn't mean I'm saying it's a perfect one).

It certainly seems to be an argument for public interest which many have missed and one which can't be simply dismissed because of who's making it.

 

[bemused]

Because they weren't simply two grown consenting adults - have you read the last couple of pages?

I've read them, the fact one of them was actually a man pretending to be a girl (who would believe such a think happens on the Internet?) they were both consenting and it the only harm that was done was to Newmark's pride and probably more shamefully the women whose images were used without their permission.

Have any of these women he's been pictured with come forward to say he harassed them? I may have missed that.

If he has used this to support claims from an alleged victim I'd give argument he creeped around younger women more weight. Until then it does seem they targeted gullible middle aged men on the Internet with promises of a bunk up.

 

[Wilf]

I've read them, the fact one of them was actually a man pretending to be a girl (who would believe such a think happens on the Internet?) they were both consenting and it the only harm that was done was to Newmark's pride and probably more shamefully the women whose images were used without their permission.

Have any of these women he's been pictured with come forward to say he harassed them? I may have missed that.

If he has used this to support claims from an alleged victim I'd give argument he creeped around younger women more weight. Until then it does seem they targeted gullible middle aged men on the Internet with promises of a bunk up.

Whilst he was, literally, a gullible middle aged man on the internet, he was also a gullible governmet minister on his official twitter account seeking shags for access. Different, yes?

 

[andysays]

I've read them, the fact one of them was actually a man pretending to be a girl (who would believe such a think happens on the Internet?) they were both consenting and it the only harm that was done was to Newmark's pride and probably more shamefully the women whose images were used without their permission.

Have any of these women he's been pictured with come forward to say he harassed them? I may have missed that.

If he has used this to support claims from an alleged victim I'd give argument he creeped around younger women more weight. Until then it does seem they targeted gullible middle aged men on the Internet with promises of a bunk up.

It's certainly possible they simply targeted random gullible middle aged men on the internet, and the only one who responded happens to be the one whose responsibilities include encouraging young women into politics who thought he saw the possibility of getting a shag and thought, given this opportunity, he'd chance his arm, but even if that's the case and there's nothing more to it than that, there is arguably a public interest in knowing that.

Or so it seems to me...

 

[bemused]

Whilst he was, literally, a gullible middle aged man on the internet, he was also a gullible governmet minister on his official twitter account seeking shags for access. Different, yes?

Not really, he doesn't seem to have been posting from a government account. Shags for access is a red herring.

 

[andysays]

Not really, he doesn't seem to have been posting from a government account. Shags for access is a red herring.

 

[Wilf]

It's certainly possible they simply targeted random gullible middle aged men on the internet, and the only one who responded happens to be the one whose responsibilities include encouraging young women into politics who thought he saw the possibility of getting a shag and thought, given this opportunity, he'd chance his arm, but even if that's the case and there's nothing more to it than that, there is arguably a public interest in knowing that.

Or so it seems to me...

Yes and seemingly part of a growing trend amongst MPs (using social media as the means to swap access for sex) - at least as far as the journo claimed. Certainly fits with the bahaviour of rennard, hancock, evans et al.

 

[Wilf]

Not really, he doesn't seem to have been posting from a government account. Shags for access is a red herring.

As I understand it, this all began on his twitter account. To claim this isn't about shags for access is a bit

 

[chemicimbalance]

Have you the legal source for the above?

I'll try to find one. The reason I know is I used to do a job that involved talking to young people about sex, porn and sexting. Often had to warn them it was illegal for them to send each other explicit pictures and to share them. Was sent on lots of courses.

 

[andysays]

Yes and seemingly part of a growing trend amongst MPs (using social media as the means to swap access for sex) - at least as far as the journo claimed. Certainly fits with the bahaviour of rennard, hancock, evans et al.

As I understand it, Wickham is saying that Newmark has previous for this. I hope he is prepared to back that up in some way (is there a way he can do it without outing those who have been on the receiving end?), but even if he doesn't, and even if this is simply Newmark responding to a random opportunity which happened to come his way, I think it's significant.

 

[andysays]

I'll try to find one. The reason I know is I used to do a job that involved talking to young people about sex, porn and sexting. Often had to warn them it was illegal for them to send each other explicit pictures and to share them. Was sent on lots of courses.

Worth pointing out we're not talking about young people in this case.

 

[bemused]

As I understand it, this all began on his twitter account. To claim this isn't about shags for access is a bit

What evidence is there that he was offering access to her apart from wanting to screw her? Are they any text exchanges that support this?

 

[andysays]

What evidence is there that he was offering access to her apart from wanting to screw her? Are they any text exchanges that support this?

None of this has been made public, or at least I haven't seen it if it has. We're going totally on what Wickham and the Mirror are alleging, which I agree is problematic.

 

[Wilf]

What evidence is there that he was offering access to her apart from wanting to screw her? Are they any text exchanges that support this?

I haven't go time at the moment to search for the texts and details, but there was certainly an offer for her to come to his office or a tour. I'll admit though, it's mostly implicit, as set out in post 332. However the whole operation - sophiePRGirl or whatever it was - was a trap to get MPs into exactly that implicit exchange. The fact that he may well have not delivered on access afterwards is likely, thogh not relevant.

 

[bemused]

None of this has been made public, or at least I haven't seen it if it has. We're going totally on what Wickham and the Mirror are alleging, which I agree is problematic.

Which is my problem, obviously if they have evidence of this they should publish it or pass it to the Police because if true he should be prosecuted and if found guilty jailed. However; a newspaper saying they won't publish evidence of corruption or at least pass it onto the Police does seem a bit fishy to me and makes me wonder if it's a smokescreen because the whole thing seems to have backfired on the Mirror.

 

[andysays]

Which is my problem, obviously if they have evidence of this they should publish it or pass it to the Police because if true he should be prosecuted and if found guilty jailed. However; a newspaper saying they won't publish evidence of corruption or at least pass it onto the Police does seem a bit fishy to me and makes me wonder if it's a smokescreen because the whole thing seems to have backfired on the Mirror.

Again, we're not talking simply about whether there has been criminal activity and if there is evidence which would support prosecutions.

I also don't claim to know the legal or technical position about publishing other people's tweets without their permission, but I say again, if it's possible for Wickham and the Mirror to back their claims up, I think they should do so.