Tory minister for civil society Brooks Newmark resigns after sex scandal

[bemused]

I'm still amazed that these people haven't learned from every other 'leaked' photo story that having photos of yourself naked in a digital format and then transmitting them isn't very smart. Bring back the Polaroid.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm still amazed that these people haven't learned from every other 'leaked' photo story that having photos of yourself naked in a digital format and then transmitting them isn't very smart. Bring back the Polaroid.

Then you hand all the power to boots the chemist.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm still amazed that these people haven't learned from every other 'leaked' photo story that having photos of yourself naked in a digital format and then transmitting them isn't very smart.

Astonishing isn't it?

At what point did Newmark think "I know, I'll text a photo of my nob"?

We should probably be more concerned that he's likely been taking mind-altering substances.

Even if "Sophie" had been 100% pukka and they'd developed a genuine one-to-one relationship it would still have been a bad idea!

There just aren't enough facepalms.

 

[bemused]

At what point did Newmark think "I know, I'll text a photo of my nob"?

You have to wonder where the romance has gone? When was taking a charming lady out for coffee replaced with 'here is a picture of my cock'?

 

[Spymaster]

 

[Lurdan]

Truly the unspeakable in pursuit of the intolerable.

Very entertaining blog post by barrister Matthew Scott suggesting that this sting might constitute an offence under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 “causing a person to indulge in sexual activity without consent”.

Tricked into sex by fraud. Was the Sunday Mirror’s sting of Brooks Newmark criminal?

Of course in a sense he did consent. However his consent was to engage in a sexual activity involving a nubile young female called Sophie, not one involving a sleazy male journalist from the gutter press.

His consent, in other words, was obtained by fraud.

If Mr Newmark’s consent was obtained fraudulently does that still amount to consent in law?

The answer is provided by S.76 (2). If “Sophie” caused Mr Newmark to engage in the activity by “intentionally deceiving” him “as to the nature or purpose of the … act,” then there is a “conclusive presumption” that he did not consent.

There are apparently legal precedents both for and against such an interpretation in cases involving people tricking one another online. Be great to see this tested in court. Preferably in excruciating detail.

 

[bemused]

Although I really don't see the point exposing the shocking story that middle aged men can be manipulated by 20 something old blonde ladies the people claiming this was press entrapment seem to me to be stretching it too far.

He could have simply avoided this by not taking a picture of his genitals and sending it to someone he had never met.

 

[Spymaster]

Truly the unspeakable in pursuit of the intolerable.

Very entertaining blog post by barrister Matthew Scott suggesting that this sting might constitute an offence under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 “causing a person to indulge in sexual activity without consent”.

Tricked into sex by fraud. Was the Sunday Mirror’s sting of Brooks Newmark criminal?



There are apparently legal precedents both for and against such an interpretation in cases involving people tricking one another online. Be great to see this tested in court. Preferably in excruciating detail.

Nice one. I'll get into that later.

The prospect, however slight, that Wickham could end up on "the register" for this, fills me with feelings of deep mirth!

 

[Spymaster]

He could have simply avoided this by not taking a picture of his genitals and sending it to someone he had never met.

You could say that about any case of entrapment though.

"The target could have avoided entrapment by not becoming entrapped".

 

[tony heath]

A story about a photo of a minister's cock leaking should have been buried in the stigmata section of the Catholic Gazette

 

[Pickman's model]

A story about a photo of a minister's cock leaking

mind bleach pls

 

[andysays]

Truly the unspeakable in pursuit of the intolerable.

Very entertaining blog post by barrister Matthew Scott suggesting that this sting might constitute an offence under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 “causing a person to indulge in sexual activity without consent”...

...There are apparently legal precedents both for and against such an interpretation in cases involving people tricking one another online. Be great to see this tested in court. Preferably in excruciating detail.

If this does get thoroughly tested in court, the former Minister for Civil Society* will have done us all a great service, not only in clarifying the law, but in providing a great example of the perils of sexting etc - something to tell your kids...

*and is it just me, or is there something vaguely Orwellian about that job title?

 

[Spymaster]

Tricked into sex by fraud. Was the Sunday Mirror’s sting of Brooks Newmark criminal?

Causing a person to engage in a sexual activity without consent is a far more serious offence. In fact we know that the law regards it as about five times more serious than phone hacking, because it carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment (or even life imprisonment if the activity caused involves penetrative sex). Anyone convicted must also sign the sex offenders register.

No doubt Mr Embley and his reporter carefully considered all these issues before taking the decision to humiliate Mr Newmark, and no doubt they will be in a position to justify their decision should Inspector Plod invite them in for questioning.

It seems that Scott wasn't aware that it was a freelance set-up when he wrote this, but that noise you just heard was the sound of Alex Wickham and Lloyd Embley shitting their pants!

 

[Dogsauce]

There are apparently legal precedents both for and against such an interpretation in cases involving people tricking one another online. Be great to see this tested in court. Preferably in excruciating detail.

So, potentially a useful 'fraudulent consent' law for an MP tricked into sending cock pictures, but presumably of no use against undercover filth putting themselves into environmental activists under false pretences?

 

[Spymaster]

So, potentially a useful 'fraudulent consent' law for an MP tricked into sending cock pictures, but presumably of no use against undercover filth putting themselves into environmental activists under false pretences?

I'd say that that legally the case you're referring to could quite clearly be prosecuted under these sections.

 

[DotCommunist]

but they won't be cos all law is class law

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah man.

 

[Lurdan]

CPS apparently did consider it in the recent Operation Herne case :

The other charges considered by the CPS were procuring a woman to have sexual intercourse by false pretences, misconduct in public office and breaches of the Official Secrets Act.

The CPS said the fact the women they formed sexual relationships with were unaware they were police officers was not particularly relevant under the Sexual Offences Act.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28877001

 

[andysays]

Truly the unspeakable in pursuit of the intolerable.

Very entertaining blog post by barrister Matthew Scott suggesting that this sting might constitute an offence under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 “causing a person to indulge in sexual activity without consent”.

Tricked into sex by fraud. Was the Sunday Mirror’s sting of Brooks Newmark criminal?



There are apparently legal precedents both for and against such an interpretation in cases involving people tricking one another online. Be great to see this tested in court. Preferably in excruciating detail.

Having now read that piece, it doesn't really make much of a case. His consent was to engage in "sexual activity" with someone who claimed to be "a nubile young female called Sophie", but in circumstances where most people would recognise that those claims could be (as they were) a complete fabrication.

But if this does go through, and it's found that the claims were fraudulent, and the consent was therefore invalid, I wonder what implications this might have to the cases of females activists who were fraudulently tricked by undercover coppers into giving "consent" not just to engage in real life sexual activity, but also relationships and, in at least one case, having children.

ETA: as dogsauce has now pointed out

 

[Chilli.s]

What a dimbo, should have sent a picture of someone else's cock.

 

[brogdale]

What a dimbo, should have sent a picture of someone else's cock.

With a ruler by the side, for scale....in inches, of course.

 

[Wilf]

I do hope this regretable case doesn't make Mr Newmark any less willing to help me transfer my Nigerian oil revenues into a UK account.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Someone should set up a charity to help the amoral self interested victims of newspaper stings, but unfortunately they wouldn't be able to influence the electorate, thanks to people like...Brokes Newmark.

 

[Awesome Wells]

I don't see the issue here: Nomark Newmark gave consent. Whether the person really was a woman or a man? Come on that's the oldest scam in the book! The point is he was willing to ignore his fidelity and his marriage and the values the tories profess to give a shit about (same old sleaze innit) to get it on with 'Sophie'. If she'd been real that would be ok then?

I haz no sympathy for Brokes Primark

 

[Theisticle]

Wickham is behind the sting:



He wrote this in 2011:



But, also likes a photo with OJ:

 

[butchersapron]

That's two of the fawkes team Jones is best buds with now. And laurie was all pally with the Cole one. After accusing him of stalking and threatening her sister and stealing explicit photos of herself. Journalism - what a noble pursuit.

 

[Theisticle]

The Sun on Sunday and MoS would not touch Wickham's story:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/sep/30/sundaymirror-guidofawkes

 

[Dogsauce]

They wouldn't touch it because the victim of the 'sting' was on their side. Don't interpret it as a moral decision.

 

[Theisticle]

More to do with the nature of the source - e.g. fishing expedition. Those papers are smart enough not to touch the story.

 

[Dan U]

They wouldn't touch it because the victim of the 'sting' was on their side. Don't interpret it as a moral decision.

Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn
Follow
Sorry to see @TweetBrooks go. One of the very few MPs to talk sense on Syria from the start. At least now he's unchained to do so again

eta - i still can't work out how to embed tweets but that was from Sat evening.