My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

Brooks Newmark "Entrapment"

326 replies

FloraFox · 29/09/2014 08:15

There doesn't seem to be any suggestion "she" asked him to send her the photo, is there?

So simply being an attractive young woman and complimenting national politicians on twitter is "entrapping" men into sending photos of their genitals?

OP posts:
FloraFox · 29/09/2014 08:18

Sorry about the title fail.

OP posts:
PeckhamPearlz · 29/09/2014 23:01

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here.


A male journalist creates a fraudulent female identity, including pictures of a young model used without her consent.

Then he goes 'fishing' for male conservative MPs, contacting at least 6 identified so far.

When he gets a nibble from the hapless Mr Newmark, he reels him in using explicit pictures from other women (again used without their consent) in a ridiculous "I've shown you mine, now you show me yours" interchange.

Zoe Williams wrote an interesting piece in the Guardian here

But in some respects I disagree with her - Newmark had to go because he had demonstrated that he was just too stupid to hold any post in government (or anywhere else really). Let's hope he never gets any emails telling him he's inherited 20 million dollars...

But I have nothing but contempt for the so-called 'journalist' that executed this shitty entrapment - I hope the women whose pictures were used sue him and the Mirror for every penny made from this story.

FloraFox · 30/09/2014 08:09

I don't agree. He followed "her" on twitter to DM her then solicited photos from her while talking about visits to parliament. The tweets from "her" we're innocuous till then.

OP posts:
WhyTheCagedBirdTweets · 30/09/2014 09:01

I'm sorry Flora, but I think there's every suggestion that the photo was being sought.

Yes, this MP put himself in a position where he was open to blackmail and that's very significant for people with his level of responsibility; he had to go. However, just because Newmark is a twerp does not mean that the entrapment is something we should not be worried about. This was a deliberate operation and, therefore, I think we can take for granted that every encouragement was given. This is not a feminist issue.

FloraFox · 30/09/2014 09:49

I don't agree. I've posted a similar post on the AIBU thread. We've been through a few years of revelations about powerful men exploiting women and children. The adults in question were usually in lower status employment and it would have been career ending to have created a fuss. This story shows how Brooks Newmarket would have behaved if this was a real young Tory hopeful trying to get access to a politician. A real young Tory hopeful would never have exposed him and he knew that and relied on it. A sting is the only way we would have a chance to see how he would have behaved.

The fact that he was actively campaigning to increase participation of women in politics makes it worse. Of course it's a feminist issue, women trying to get into politics have significant barriers to face and potential for dealing with creeps like this is one of them.

OP posts:
WhyTheCagedBirdTweets · 30/09/2014 10:42

I agree of course that there are situations as you desribe them and it's entirely possible that this MP might be someone that uses his power in the aggressive pursuit of junior women. But this particular episode doesn't demonstrate that. I'm sorry, but you're over-reaching and excusing some pretty shoddy actions on the part of the newspaper. That journalist had a very clear agenda and we can be sure that every effort was made to encourage this action. In the situation you describe, there would have been no such encouragement. Could you explain how sending bikini photos fits into your notion that the fake persona mimicked an innocent Tory just trying to get ahead?

By reinterpreting events to suit an opinion, that opinion loses credibility.

FloraFox · 30/09/2014 11:58

I haven't seen the transcript of the messages just what's reported in the Mirror which suggests he took the lead on the photographs. What is your interpretation of the bikini photograph? What do you mean by "innocent"?

Someone using his position as a cabinet minister to pursue junior women, whether aggressively or not, is not fit to hold that position. Treating this as a one-off incident when there is clearly an attitude of sexual entitlement by some in politics and public office is simply looking away.

OP posts:
MyEmpireOfDirt · 30/09/2014 21:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MyEmpireOfDirt · 30/09/2014 21:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SevenZarkSeven · 30/09/2014 21:41

I've not seen the story apart from hearing a bit on the news last night I think it was, does anyone have any links?

SevenZarkSeven · 30/09/2014 21:41

Or I could google but I don't really want to go trawling through the red-tops to find out who said what and when Grin

FloraFox · 30/09/2014 21:50

According to the Mirror report, he followed "her" on twitter to DM her and take the conversation private and tried to arrange a meeting.

OP posts:
SevenZarkSeven · 30/09/2014 21:59

Just had a look at the two pieces on the BBC.

It depends rather on whether this man's sending her pictures and whatever else was prompted by the journalist.

At the moment I can't really see what happened.

If he responded to someone being normal with him, with explicit stuff then clearly that's way out of line.

If the journalist "started it" then that's a different kettle of fish.

Whatever happened he's 50-something and married with a whole pile of kids and he thought he was communicating with a 20-something so clearly not great behaviour.

scallopsrgreat · 30/09/2014 22:18

Flora I think I'm with you but I don't know the details of the case. Although I'm not sure if that is necessary. My feeling is that a man exposing his genitals to a woman over social media, in the context of the patriarchal society we live in, is always a feminist issue. It is always going to be a display of 'power'. So in that respect I couldn't care less who started it or who wanted what, where, when, how or why.

Hope that's partly what you are getting at??

PeckhamPearlz · 30/09/2014 22:50

My feeling is that a man exposing his genitals to a woman over social media, in the context of the patriarchal society we live in, is always a feminist issue. It is always going to be a display of 'power'. So in that respect I couldn't care less who started it or who wanted what, where, when, how or why.

So if a 'woman' sends a man an 'explicit photo' and then says "Now show me yours", if the man complies then he's always in the wrong is he? Hmm

PeckhamPearlz · 30/09/2014 22:59

Well now Flora, if you close one eye, tilt your head and squint a bit then I guess you can distort any situation so that it fits into the predetermined narrative that you've already decided in your head.

But it doesn't alter the fact that this whole story was driven by the journalist, who we now know to be Alex Wickham, and we now know that he contacted at least 9 conservative MPs. Unfortunately he forgot to mention this to the Mirror when he sold them the story - which is a bit of a problem for them now.

He first tried to sell it to the Sun and then the Mail on Sunday, but they both rejected it. When a story is rejected by both the Sun and Fail on Sunday, you know that it's got to stink to high heaven.

Now about that transcript. Normally when the papers get a 'scoop' like this they are very keen to publish every detail, showing how very clever they were.

In this case, the Mirror have been strangely quiet. Even their original article was strangely confused and evasive about the exact sequence of events. And now they're saying nothing but "it was in the public interest".

Of course the transcript will come out, at the very least as part of an IPSO investigation, and when it does, do you think that is going to show Wickham in a shining light? I don't think so.

There could also be a police investigation, because tricking someone into performing a sexual act by pretending to be someone you're not is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I imagine Newmark will be too embarrassed to make a complaint though. Hmm

For me the FWR relevant issue here is that Wickham considered he was entitled to use young women as a sex objects, without their consent, to attack another man who belonged to a political party he didn't much like.

Why don't we listen to what the women say?

Malin Sahlén

"It feels really uncomfortable. I have received lot of emails, text messages and phone calls from various countries on this today. It feels unreal. I do not want to be exploited in this way and that someone has used my image like this feels really awful, both for me and the others involved in this."

Original in Swedish here

Charlene Tyler

“I think grown adults can do whatever they like as long as both of them are over the age of consent. I don't think it's something to resign over."

“I hope the MP is okay. It makes me feel really awful that this will ruin his life."

“The fact that a newspaper was stealing my photograph is quite wrong. The newspaper’s taken it too far.”

And assuming that neither of these women provided the 'explicit' photographs, then presumably there will be other women not yet identified.

FloraFox · 30/09/2014 23:42

scallops I wouldn't necessarily say it is always due to patriarchy (although it is quite beyond me why so many men think it is a good idea to send such pictures to women). But this man had actual power in relation to this woman so I don't see how that could be anything other than an abuse of that power, regardless of who started it etc.

OP posts:
FloraFox · 30/09/2014 23:46

PeckhamPearlz the use of the photographs has nothing to do with the abuse of power by Newmark, I particularly don't think their views of Newmark's behaviour are any more relevant than anyone else's. Their complaints about the use of their pictures by the journalist are, of course, valid.

OP posts:
scallopsrgreat · 30/09/2014 23:48

In a patriarchal society there is a power dynamic and it is with men. One of the ways that dynamic is kept in place is through sexual violence by men against women.

I was highlighting the power dynamic already at play in society before any photo was sent. It doesn't have much to do with whether he was in the wrong. It is about what a photo of a man's genitals sent to a woman he doesn't know, represents.

I do however agree that what Wickham did with pictures of women was also highly disturbing (and another demonstration of the power dynamic at play).

scallopsrgreat · 30/09/2014 23:51

Sorry x-post with Flora there. My post was meant for PeckhamPearlz.

YY Flora. Agreed about the actual power too. He knew that (or thought he did) and felt safe (or safer) sending the photo because of it.

MyEmpireOfDirt · 01/10/2014 06:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MyEmpireOfDirt · 01/10/2014 06:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

FloraFox · 01/10/2014 09:10

order-order.com/

Guido Fawkes is hardly a bastion of left-wing anti-Tory bias.

OP posts:
FloraFox · 01/10/2014 09:11

Sorry posted too soon. Here is some of the background to the "entrapment".

OP posts:
MyEmpireOfDirt · 01/10/2014 10:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.