Tory minister for civil society Brooks Newmark resigns after sex scandal
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
We haven't got anything explicit in terms of 'shag me for access', but in the post of mine you replied to above I asked what was the situation about, what would any reasonable person think was going on when an aspiring PR person in her 20s, model looks, starts to flirt with someone 30 years older, at best 'averagely attractive' and in a position to help her get the career she wants. Was Newmark deluded to the point that, in his heart of hearts he thought this woman fancied him - or was it more reasonable to assume he knew what the game was (regardless of whether he would have actually delivered a job. He was someone who invited her to Westminster rather than visit her, the place where she might all her (career dreams could come true). And let's remember the whole sting operation was set up to make her an aspiring Tory PR person, someone who by definition might have seen him as the person to get her where she wants.
As an aside, this
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dont-cry-brooks-newmark-half-4349763
rather dreadful piece mentions it was in works time and on his work phone, not something most people would get away with (he has of course got away with it in one sense - wasn't sacked). It will be interesting if the mirror expand on the list of MPs contacted by 'Sophie' was 'narrowly targeted'. Might be an outright lie, but it rather implies previous.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
We're just going around in circles now so I'll leave it, except to say again that a reasonable person could just as easily assume she was attracted to him because she was "into MP's" or because he's a multi-millionaire, as assume she was looking for potential career enhancement.
Last edited:
chemicimbalance
New Member
Oh I see. Assuming someone doesn't directly say "send me a picture of your dick", and everyone's over 18, my understanding is they'd look at whether the sender of the picture was reasonable in thinking the recipient wouldn't be offended by it. It's all down to context and the conversations that took place.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
he probably sends cock shots out willy nilly
chemicimbalance
New Member
Sorry, I thought it was obvious how that bit applies; did he send the picture with the intention of causing harm, distress or anxiety? Though we don't really know, in the context of flirty texts and the hope of a shag, I very much doubt it! I think you're wrong about the privacy thing too - just showing is enough to breach it.
Btw when I got round to reading those piss-poor Mirror articles, I realised the biggest problem I have with these stories is the 'holier and smarter than thou' reactions of people. Who ffs has never done something they shouldn't be doing during work time? Who hasn't done something they feel ashamed of? Who hasn't been fooled by someone? Above all, I think we really need to stop shaming people for their sexual behaviour. However wrongly we think they've behaved, shaming doesn't help anyone. It certainly doesn't make us better people.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I'm better than him because I'm not a tory minister.
andysays
Love and solidarity
No one is suggesting he sent the picture with the intention of causing harm, distress or anxiety. You appear to be the only one fixated solely on the question of if Newmark has committed a criminal offence.
And your "who hasn't done this? who hasn't done that?" defence is like saying no one who's ever done anything they could be criticised for is ever allowed to criticise anyone for anything, ever. It's nonsense which even Newmark has more sense than to resort to.
andysays
Love and solidarity
No we don't. We don't know for sure that he even showed to anyone at the Mirror, rather than simply said "Newmark sent me a cock shot".
Strictly speaking all we know for absolutely certain is that the Mirror printed a story, and that Newmark resigned without challenging any of the details of the story, but I think we can deduce from that that the story has a strong basis in fact.
andysays
Love and solidarity
I agree that we're kind of going round in circles (ever decreasing ones in your case
), but because I think that you're (usually) a reasonable person, I've got a question for you:Even if Newmark did "reasonably assume" she was attracted to him because she was "into MP's" or because he's a multi-millionaire, and remembering in particular this extract from the story
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Well that wrong-headed piece that Wilf linked to suggests they're on the net somewhere:
If that's the case they can only have come from Wickham and distributing fraudulently obtained, intimate pictures must be some kind of offence.
chemicimbalance
New Member
I actually began by responding to a couple of comments regarding the legality around sexting. I also happen to think the question of 'so which crime's been committed here' is pretty important. You're confusing criticising with shaming. Tabloid articles of a sexual nature have nothing to do with criticising and everything to do with shaming. He is so ashamed and the world is so disgusted that he has to step down and hide himself away.
andysays
Love and solidarity
So are you taking this particular suggestion from the Mirror more seriously than all the ones in the original story?
Maybe they are on the net somewhere. I haven't seen them (but I haven't gone looking for them). I'm sure Brooks Newmark is able to take legal action against whoever has published them if he wishes...
chemicimbalance
New Member
Course that makes you better than him when it comes to politics but even good politics don't stop people from being human and fucking up.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I agree that we're kind of going round in circles (ever decreasing ones in your case
Even if Newmark did "reasonably assume" she was attracted to him because she was "into MP's" or because he's a multi-millionaire, and remembering in particular this extract from the story
He clearly hasn't "upheld the highest standards". That's why he's resigned. That doesn't mean it's in the public interest to trap him into doing something that he wouldn't have done otherwise just for a newspaper story.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Not particularly, that's why I asked the question. I just don't fancy searching the internet for Brooks Newmark's cock myself.
I hope it is out there though as it could potentially drop Wickham in some proper shit.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Good. I'm glad you're (eventually) prepared to make that clear
I don't particularly fancy either searching for it or seeing it
, but I do think they should publish it properly rather than in this underhand way (if that's what they've done).butchersapron
Bring back hanging
hash tag
Books, not bombs
There was a woman from the Mirror on question time last night who, I thought, made a spirited defence of the article. It was not entrapment because he had allegedly done similar things several times before and as it in public interest? yes, do you want someone with so much power using that power abusing their position......will try and catch the whole programme later when I can sit down and watch it properly.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Seems that The Mirror need to get their story straight then.
Last edited:
Lurdan
old wave
The woman on the Question Time panel was Susie Boniface (the former 'Fleet Street Fox' blogger and currently a freelance journalist who contributes regularly to the Mirror). She stressed that what she was saying was her own opinion although one "informed by her experience of journalism". She then came out with a version of the defence that Paul Staines came up with on Tuesday. (That this had been a targeted operation aimed at Brooks Newmark, and that following 100 other Tory twitter accounts was just part of the set up and absolutely not a fishing expedition).
http://order-order.com/2014/09/30/not-so-pronto-ipso/
Interestingly, in that blog post Staines didn't specifically say why they aimed this operation at Newmark, beyond stating
Boniface however, said explicitly that there had been a tip off about Newmark. Interesting that, although speaking purely in a personal capacity, she should know this. My guess is that she was stating the Mirror's line, which will be that this is what they were told by Wickham. After all, it is the Mirror being investigated by IPSO, not Wickham who is merely their source. And what do you bet that Wickham will 'heroically' (and conveniently) refuse to reveal his source if it gets to that point.
This affair offers an interesting vision of the ways in which this kind of journalistic 'outsourcing' might be used by IPSO members in future to try to circumvent its code. (And in the form of Susie Bonifaces contribution on Newsnight, an example of the way that a newspaper can 'outsource' it's PR).
The notion of a forensically targeted operation by Wickham hardly ties up with the casual way that photographs were snatched off the internet to send Newmark. And Stella Creasey, also on Newsnight, pointed out that there seemed to be a disparity between the claim that 'Sophie Wittams' following other MPs twitter accounts had just been 'cover', and the nature of the messages actually sent to other MPs from that fake 'Sophie Wittams' account, some of which she had seen.
Another of the Question Time panelists raised the issue of the use of the photographs, which he linked to the way pictures are used in revenge porn. In response Susie Boniface dismissed the comparison, but then went on to reveal her own contempt for the women whose pictures had been exploited by claiming that the issue raised by the use of the photographs was simply one of breach of copyright.
In my opinion the notion that Wickham wasn't engaged in an unjustified fishing expedition which got lucky is almost certainly a load of horseshit.
Sadly there are plenty of people who are prepared to swallow tabloid nonsense when it confirms their prejudices, and prepared to rush to the defense of their methods when they approve of the target.
I entirely enjoyed the spectacle of Newmark's downfall and if it happens I will enjoy the spectacle of the Mirror getting a kicking for condoning Wickhams activities. They are all arseholes and the idea of picking sides is quite ludicrous.
http://order-order.com/2014/09/30/not-so-pronto-ipso/
Interestingly, in that blog post Staines didn't specifically say why they aimed this operation at Newmark, beyond stating
Presumably his vagueness had in mind the fact that IPSO will be questioning the Mirror about this.
Boniface however, said explicitly that there had been a tip off about Newmark. Interesting that, although speaking purely in a personal capacity, she should know this. My guess is that she was stating the Mirror's line, which will be that this is what they were told by Wickham. After all, it is the Mirror being investigated by IPSO, not Wickham who is merely their source. And what do you bet that Wickham will 'heroically' (and conveniently) refuse to reveal his source if it gets to that point.
This affair offers an interesting vision of the ways in which this kind of journalistic 'outsourcing' might be used by IPSO members in future to try to circumvent its code. (And in the form of Susie Bonifaces contribution on Newsnight, an example of the way that a newspaper can 'outsource' it's PR).
The notion of a forensically targeted operation by Wickham hardly ties up with the casual way that photographs were snatched off the internet to send Newmark. And Stella Creasey, also on Newsnight, pointed out that there seemed to be a disparity between the claim that 'Sophie Wittams' following other MPs twitter accounts had just been 'cover', and the nature of the messages actually sent to other MPs from that fake 'Sophie Wittams' account, some of which she had seen.
Another of the Question Time panelists raised the issue of the use of the photographs, which he linked to the way pictures are used in revenge porn. In response Susie Boniface dismissed the comparison, but then went on to reveal her own contempt for the women whose pictures had been exploited by claiming that the issue raised by the use of the photographs was simply one of breach of copyright.
In my opinion the notion that Wickham wasn't engaged in an unjustified fishing expedition which got lucky is almost certainly a load of horseshit.
Sadly there are plenty of people who are prepared to swallow tabloid nonsense when it confirms their prejudices, and prepared to rush to the defense of their methods when they approve of the target.
I entirely enjoyed the spectacle of Newmark's downfall and if it happens I will enjoy the spectacle of the Mirror getting a kicking for condoning Wickhams activities. They are all arseholes and the idea of picking sides is quite ludicrous.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Great post, particularly that bit. I suspect you are right on the cover bit - the changing line on this being about him being an identified 'creep', the status of the other MPs contacted by 'Sophie' and the rest is stuff Wickham and the Mirror will struggle to get a straight defence on.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I didn't see Question Time, did anyone provide clarity where this all started? The line now seems to be it began with Newmark's apparent reputation, though the Mirror were talking about MPs generally using social media for sex. What are they claiming now, that someone contacted Wickham directly and that's where it began - or that it started with him deciding to investigate a general phenomena? The latter would certainly be fishing.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Lurdan
old wave
Boniface said directly that there had been a tip-off. She didn't say to who, and she was only giving 'her own opinion'. She's not a Mirror employee so what she says can't come back on them. But yeah, the suggestion was that it began with a tip-off and the activities of the fake twitter account was all cover. Stella Creasey employed the word 'surreal' at about this point in the discussion and I think that could well be applied to aspects of this argument.
Similar threads
- Poll
