Brooks Newmark "Entrapment"

[FloraFox]

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?

More deflection.

The motivation of the journalist was to get something incriminating. Acknowledge this Flora. Why won't you? Is it because your whole agenda starts to fail?

For fuck's sake why, how can you not fucking understand this? Not only am I not a mind reader, I don't care what the motivation of the journalist was. It makes no fucking difference to the way Newmark acted. One is a journalist whose job is to get stories, the other is a Cabinet Office minister. One of those people's motivations and behaviour has a significant impact on the people of this country and the other matters not a fucking jot. Surely you can figure that one out.

Jesus wept. Why don't you go crayon over some other thread?

Where is this "every suggestion" coming from?

Furthermore, you practically accuse people of being rape apologists and then demand standards of behaviour? You're not for real you!

Because. The. Motivation. Of. The. Journalist. Was. To. Get. The. Photo.

Ffs.

For some background reading on how the method of the entrapment effects the behaviour of the entrapped, it's worth looking at the Tulisa vs Mahzer Mahmood case.

why the journalist was carrying out a sting against Brooks Newmark. He said it was based on rumours he had heard from young Tory activists. Maybe he is lying and he was casting a wider net for more senior Tories. However Guido Fawkes is a right wing blog, it seems plausible that it is not a general anti-Tory plot (as Roy Greenslade originally thought). As a journalist, at the very least I would expect that he would be hoping that he wasn't wasting his time and that he would get a good story out of it. That's his job and nobody likes to waste their time working on something that turns out to be fruitless.

Whether that motivation translated in practice to a specific objective to get a c0ck sh0t is an entirely different matter. Unless Newmark has form for that, it would seem a fairly specific objective with a high risk of wasted effort. If you think the journalist's motivation setting out was to get the picture, I would say that's a big leap.

How that motivation translated into a specific escalation of the communications and to what extent he lured Newmark into sending the photograph is another matter. So far, we only have the journalist's account so any assumptions you might make as to how the motivation translated into behaviour are not only speculation but they go against the available account that has not been denied by Newmark. In that account, Newmark initiated the private discussions and there is no suggestion in the report that the journalist asked him to send a picture of his penis. Newmark has not said the journalist asked him to send the picture but you are assuming he did. All specific details of the escalation from tweet to picture has not been published by the overall account of it that was published has not been denied.

Ultimately, in my view, none of this matters. It clearly does for you and you have filled in gaps in the detail to conclude that Newmark's behaviour was not exploitative but the journalist was. So far so typical of assuming the best of men's behaviour.

As I have said before, I don't care about the motivation of the journalist, I care about the behaviour of the Cabinet Office minister. At worst, he abused his power and attempted to abuse a young woman and at best, he abused his power. Either way, male entitlement that has a detrimental impact on women.

Insofar as it relates to the sting operation against Newmark, I don't care about the journalist and, from the information currently available, I don't think he was unethical.

empire I've already posted my view on that. There are at least two possibilities but both of them involve entitled male behaviour and abuse of power.

It's worth remembering that Tulisa was acquitted because Mahmood lied, not because of the entrapment. If he had not lied and she had agreed to supply cocaine, no matter what the inducement was for her doing that she would have been convicted, and quite right too.

There is no reason why entrapment is unethical in itself, although I agree there needs to be limits on entrapment by the state. If someone would agree to supply coke for £1m, that's just as illegal whether the offer of £1m is real or not. Otherwise, why wouldn't it also be a defence to a crime that the inducement was just too tempting? What is the significance of the inducement not being real?

In this case, if it is true that there were rumours of sleazy behaviour by Newmark but no victim willing to come forward (hardly surprising), how would this be brought to light? From what you're saying, it sounds like we just have to accept that men might abuse either their position or actual women because it would be unethical to set up a sting that was not genuine. That in itself is a feminist issue because of the weight given to women's rights not to be viewed as potential sexual partners while they are trying to establish their careers versus men's rights to pursue or take up any offers they might get.

The energy you expend in squirming away from a basic dynamic is remarkable. The exact manner by which the journalist lured BN and why BN allowed himself to be lured may well be speculation. That the journalist was heavily invested in attempting to get something incriminating is not speculation.

The motivation of the journalist was to get the photo.

Answering that with, "well it seems highly unlikely he was actually after something so specific as a cock shot with as paisley pajamas" is weasel.

The motivation of the journalist was to get the photo. This is a fact, not speculation. It is a fact that is at odds with the premise of your OP. What we have is 12 pages of you attempting to divert attention from that.

The point with Tulisa is that she would not have acted like that without the coercion of a false circumstance.

Christ you're a piece of work. We've had punters and MRAs on here who were more capable of carrying on a conversation than you. Do you actually have a feminist perspective on any of this, or actually on anything at all?

You've missed the point about Tulisa. No surprise there. It was the lies by the witness, not the false circumstance that led to the case being dropped. A false promise is not coercion.

Empire, I'm going to guess at the answer to that:

it's well established that powerful men have abused their position and sexually exploited vulnerable women. It's obvious that senior cabinet ministers should not be sending pictures of their genitals to their junior employees. Why do you think this is appropriate? You idiot! The Mirror has said that their story is a good one and I think we should believe them. You snob for doubting them! Do you ever notice how men are entitled? Eh? Dreadful isn't it? Can't believe you don't think so. Idiot.

My last post was to why.

empire Guido Fawkes has said the journalist followed the other MPs as part of cover. This is plausible as it would be weird if she only followed Newmark and only tweeted at him.

I don't see the connection between the nature of the tweets and it being fishing. You said upthread you wouldn't be examining the nature of her tweets if she was real but it does sound like you would. There seems to be a strong suggestion of "she led him on".

A fishing expedition would be a breach of the editors code and the journalist and the Mirror will get rapped for that if IPSO finds that's what happened. It still doesn't change what Newmark did though nor his belief that he would not get caught because of what he perceived as the power imbalance.

why don't you try to post something of actual value, like an engagement in a feminist discussion, preferably on another thread? It's really weird that you are so invested in attacking me.

"Newmark thought he wouldn't get caught because of the power imbalance." Quoted by FF as incontrovertible fact and shortly after a post attacking speculation.

Here's a fact for you; the journalist'a action were all based on a motivation to get into a text relationship with an MP. Sexual language was sent. A photo of a woman in a bikini was sent.

However, you're right. This is getting boring. You will never admit that your OP was wrong even though it quite plainly was. I won't post again on this thread. It's all yours.

empire what am I taking from your posts that isn't there?

You think GF are lying. I think, based on what has been published, that their response is plausible. I'm not in a position to say whether it is true.

Don't you think, though, that even if it was fishing, it doesn't change Newmark's behaviour or his perceptions of what was happening?