chemicimbalance
New Member
Found this. It's the Telegraph but a good summary of the law and recent: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/10985660/Sexting-scare-6-sexting-myths-busted.html
Tory minister for civil society Brooks Newmark resigns after sex scandal
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Ta. That's one I found earlier as well but no mention of unsolicited pics.
Last edited:
andysays
Love and solidarity
Interesting though that is, given that it's all about images of children, it's not really relevant to the current issue.
Here are some stories on the Mirror website which are rather more relevant
Sunday Mirror defends ''clear public interest” in story on sex scandal Tory MP Brooks Newmark
Don’t cry for Brooks Newmark – has half of the country gone bonkers?
Is Westminster still a world where women fall prey to unwelcome advances of predatory men?
Still nothing about revealing the exact contents of the various tweets, unfortunately, but here's some background on Newmark's previous good works as Minister for Civil Society
New Tory Charities Minister tells volunteers to ''stick to their knitting'' and stay out of politics
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Yes.
bemused
Well-Known Member
The trouble here is who do you believe a politician or a tabloid journalist?
Theisticle
Well-Known Member
Not very convincing stuff from the Mirror writers, tbh.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Again, you're oversimplifying, and you're in danger of misrepresenting what I'm saying.
I don't believe either a politician or a tabloid journalist uncritically, which is why I have said, a number of times, I would like Wickham and the Mirror to give us more to back their story up.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Where?
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
In the report.
bemused
Well-Known Member
Isn't that the point?
The story was originally pitched along the lines of a silly married MP sending picture of his cock to some random women on the Internet. Standard low level sex scandel.
When it emerged that the story had used images of women without their consent as bait and that they were fishing for a victim the line emerged that he was a predator and after sexual favours for access.
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that a man would use his position to get in a women's knickers? Of course not.
But it's also not that likely that any evidence he'd actually been up to that sort of things is in the hands of a paper and blog but they choose not share it.
I really don't care about the fishing, if you're an MP on social media and aren't bright enough to spot someone taking you for a ride it's your own fault. Sending naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to someone yuo don't know in his position is naive and foolish - not great qualities in a leader. It's cost him his career.
However; randomly picking images to use in that story is despicable and disgusting. They could have easily used a model but choose not to - I assume because it was cheaper to use other peoples.
If they have evidence that he was harassing women and using his position as a lever for exploiting them he should face the consequences.
I merely find it intriguing that people apparently are willing to lean more toward the shags for access line than the covering their arse one.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
The original report, did you read it? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-minister-brooks-newmark-quits-4335398
And no, busy.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
andysays
Love and solidarity
Here's the original story as it appeared in the Mirror on Saturday:
Have a read and notice that it mentions
- that he co-founded campaign group Women2Win
- that he invited Sophie to a Women2Win event and told her to “feel free to drop by Parliament anytime for a chat”
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
bemused
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how you jump, indeed leap, from inviting a women to your office and setting up a womens focus group to him asking for sex in return for favours.
I've no doubt he wanted to bonk her but I've seen zero evidence that he put conditions on it even from the reporter of wrote the story.
Please do provide any communication where he suggests that if she blows him he'll give her something or any of the women he worked with accusing him of harassing them.
chemicimbalance
New Member
Course it's relevant. Did you read the whole article? It says 'anyone partaking in the trend to send 'd***pics' or photographs of male genitalia - could be committing a crime, so long as they do it with the intention of causing harm, distress or anxiety to the recipient'. It also highlights a possible breach of privacy law, as well as the copyright aspect. Most of the information out there about this tends to be aimed at young people. Maybe it's assumed adults aren't usually affected by it?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Good job they don't have a horse in this race, eh?
chemicimbalance
New Member
What do you mean?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I meant unsolicited pics, my auto-correct changed it to indicted.
andysays
Love and solidarity
I've said repeatedly that they need to provide more evidence to back it up, but my post was a response to and a refutation of your claim that
and that it was only
It's all in there from the beginning, including quotes (as yet backed up with actual evidence) of who said what to whom and how the two issues of "I can help you get involved in politics" and "I'd like to meet you/see naked pictures of you" are intertwined.
So do you think the Mirror's story - absolutely none of which has been denied by Newmark, Downing Street or anyone else - suggests that the crackdown on the culture of lechery and sexism at Westminster which Newmark himself had some responsibility for has been a success, or that Newmark has complied with the ministerial code of conduct upholding the highest standards of propriety?
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
You think they made this bit up? You think they didn't call him prior to publishing?
andysays
Love and solidarity
No, I admit I missed that bit, buried amongst all the other stuff about children, so apologies for that.
I'm still not sure how the bit about
would apply here, though the bit about breach of privacy/copyright might apply if Wickham had actually forwarded the photos on, rather than simply showing them to the Mirror.
So all in all, even though I was too quick to dismiss it entirely, I'm still not convinced it's particularly relevant.
bemused
Well-Known Member
To be clear the Mirror's reason for this investigation was:
Now I'm no big city lawyer but I think men meeting women over the Internet is pretty common and totally legal; maybe there is some rule MPs can't do it I'm not aware of?
The timeline of this encounter seems to be him striking up a conversation with her over twitter, then inviting her to an event for women who want to get into politics - which the reporter never attended. He then hits her up on whatsapp.
Now as far as I can tell, chasing a women half your age when you're married is also legal - despite being somewhat slimy.
The real meat of the story doesn't materialise until they have a late night text chat. At some point the reporter starts sending him 'intimate image(s)'then naked pictures and it escalated with him eventually sending a photo of his knob. Given he thought he was up for a shag he then invited her to other events.
There are over 500 male MPs the fact this reporter found one stupid enough to is hardly ground shaking. I wouldn't be shocked if they had others as well.
To take this story and then try to spin it into some sort of cash for blowjobs scandal would seem to be a bridge too far. There is no evidence that he suggested that, inviting a women you are trying to seduce on a date is hardly unusual.
To answer your specific question I don't think Newmark complied with the MCC; then again political parties want their MPs to be monotone robots with no personality - reading a copy of Viz is probably going to get you in trouble. This country for some reason is pretty puritanical with in comes to sex in pubic office. I'm not sure about a culture of 'lechery and sexism' because as far as I can tell from the story there are no women who've experience it from Newmark so I've no idea if we was pestering women he worked with.
What I do know is that this paper exploited women to as bait and are trying to use free-speech and public interest as a smoke screen to avoid addressing it. They could have easily used a model for that and they choose not to. As I've said I don't care they they bait every MP everyday - if they bite that's their issue. I just find any suggestion this was noble investigative journalism and not good old fashioned muck raking amusing.
This is simply a story of a gutter jorno and a horny idiot - not of free-speech and political corruption. They deserve each other.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Chronology wrong. The invitation to events and to pop into his office anytime she liked was before the pics. He requested a pic after this. he wasn't sent it out of the blue. The reason he was sent a pic first is because he asked her for one first.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
That seems pretty convincing to me. There's a lot of drivel in there too, but tbf it is the Mirror.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Unfortunately my desire to see The Mirror and its fraudulent cohorts keel-hauled, means I have to defend Skidmark.
With respect, Wilf, you're posting utter shit and the usually sensible andysays is doing himself no favours by allying himself to this particular branch of tabloid-led moronism.
You two have decided that Skidmark, after being hit-up by Wickham, was clearly exploiting his position as an MP to get fucked.
Are you fucking mad?
Honestly? This comprises part of the ludicrous position than The Mirror are likely to hang their hat on.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Skidders offered, or thought that he was expected to provide, favours.
What is far more likely is that this vainglorious, multi-millionaire politician, so-far-up-his-own-arse-he's-in-a-circle, genuinely thought that this hot young lady actually fancied him.
There is no necessarily implicit abuse of power here. Stop pretending that there is because that's totally unsubstantiated.
Remove that from your argument and you're flapping in the wind for public interest.
Last edited:
andysays
Love and solidarity
Well, I suppose it's nice to be described as "usually sensible", even if there's an implicit suggestion that I'm being far from sensible this time.
No, it's not necessary to defend Newmark in order to attack or criticise the Mirror, it's perfectly possible to find fault with both, and to criticise each for the parts of their conduct which deserve criticism. I'm happy to criticise the Mirror (again) for using two women's photos without their permission, and for failing to back up their story with hard evidence.
And I'll have to correct you again when you claim I've decided Newmark was clearly exploiting his position as an MP to get fucked. I've said quite clearly that he appears to be prepared to exploit his position, and it's his former position as Minister for Civil Society and co-founder of campaign group Women2Win I'm referring to, not just the fact that he's an MP.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Bollocks, Andy.
You cannot reasonably reach this conclusion without citing evidence that hasn't thus far been presented.
So, present it!
andysays
Love and solidarity
I can't present it because I don't have it. I don't even know for sure that it exists, and I haven't claimed that I do.
Only Wickham and the Mirror, and possibly Newmark himself, know if it exists, and I've repeatedly said that they should produce it if they have it.
But if the details of the original story in the Mirror are correct then it appears to me that Newmark was prepared to attempt to exploit his position to get at least explicit pictures and probably more from the woman he imagined he was talking to.
That's all I've been saying, in effect that Newmark has a charge to answer (not a criminal charge, but you know what I mean). You and others appear to be simply dismissing large chunks of the story out of hand, with no more actual evidence than I have, and concluding that Newmark couldn't possibly have been attempting to exploit his position, and are dismissing the charge without proper consideration.
Similar threads
- Poll
