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?

"Yonic do you think that's the appropriate standard for behaviour in public office - whether there has been a crime committed?"

No, I don't.

"Sleazy behaviour towards young women by senior men in public office is totally unacceptable, whether or not it amounts to a crime and whether or not there was any level of engagement by the woman."

Yes, I agree.

The CPS refused to press charges against those men, which is about as clear cut an example of actual sexual activity as you can get. That blogger (who published the woman's photo BTW - did he get her consent?) is stretching a case which is considerably different from this one. We've discussed this on here before re consent in general as well as some specific cases (including the girl posing as a boy in the Scottish case). It's a huge leap to get to an offence under s. 4 in this case. However since the blogger says:

What conceivable public interest was served by tricking Mr Newmark in this way?

Did his behaviour towards the reporter have any bearing on his ability to do his ministerial job, or his job as a Member of Parliament?

he clearly doesn't think there is any public interest in ensuring cabinet ministers are not using their positions to get sex from young women. It's not surprising then that he would construe this as despicable behaviour towards a man who has committed "no crime". Again, can't we please have politicians whose behaviour is better than "not criminal"?

I can't say I have any sympathy for him, he's a sleezy twat. But he's been stitched up by very dubious journalistm. even The Sun passed on it.
This isn't a moral crusade by the journo, they're looking for a big headline.

What are you actually saying? Did you not say it was a crime to engage someone in sexual activity by deception, that the journalist might be guildty of this crime and provide the link to back you up? Am I supposed to take from that that you don't agree with the blogger?

Try saying what you mean then. The idea that a crime has been committed here is laughable. Why did you bring it up? You seem determined to deflect the behaviour onto the journalist and to minimise the behaviour of the public official.

Human nature right here:

• Come up with a bit of a bollocks theory before really thinking about it or doing some proper research.
• Get called on it.
• Deep-dive into justifying bollocks rather than just admitting error.

• Person comes onto feminist discussion to pronounce "not a feminist issue"
• Can't engage in actual discussion of issues
• Throws mud and seeks attention

As Buffy said up thread all the male behaviour in this incident was at the expense of women. Why anyone is trying to create some kind of nuance that BN wasn't as bad because he may have been tricked, I can't understand. Who cares? He certainly didn't care about exploiting women. Why bend over backwards to defend someone who sees women as sexual objects?

No one comes out of this looking good.

BN enjoys exploiting women, as does the journo.

The fact that it's entrapment doesn't really enter into it, surely?

The only people worthy of any sympathy are the women who's pictures were used without their knowledge??? to make a sleazy twat look sleazy.

This may have been a discussion had you taken onboard any of the points made by people that disagree with you. You clearly weren't interested in anything other than your view - as evidenced by initially knowing nothing about the story other than what had been reported in the paper the broke it. A red-top tabloid ffs!

Yes, this is a feminist board. Are you suggesting that we can hold any old guff up, proclaim it feminist, and we're all supposed to gather round to applaud? That seems a very bad idea to me - hence my remark about credibility.

What you have done is come up with nonsense and then, by trying to defend it, excuse some appallingly immoral journalism whilst equating entirely valid criticism with rape apology. It's a shame your hubris has not allowed you to see this.

CagedBird, whilst I disagree with Flora on some points, BN's actions are certainly ripe for discussion from a feminist POV - in particular his campaign position re getting more women into politics.

Wow! Last night this thread was pretty moribund, although Flora was keeping it amusing for me.

Come back tonight and it's burst into life!

^^

We've even got the authoritative Buffy involved

^^

why I have learned more about this case since I posted my OP. I don't believe this to be appallingly immoral journalism insofar as it relates to Newmark. I don't know who you are so I can't evaluate whether I care what you think about my credibility, although I suspect I don't. Since you haven't put forward anything much more than that you don't think it is a feminist issue then various pot shots at me, what do you expect me to take on board from that?

Whether or not the journalist asked first or sent first, a Cabinet Office minister asked for explicit pictures and sent explicit pictures to someone he thought was an ambitious junior woman within his sphere of influence. Minimising, dismissing or whataboutery deflects from the seriousness of this behaviour and contributes to a climate in which women are too afraid to speak up because their behaviour will be raked over the coals and the behaviour of men who abuse them will be diminished.

The situation is little more complicated than when I first posted; pretty much everything else is wriggling self-justification that hasn't been worth engaging with.

As you correctly said, you weren't really in possession of the facts at first, having only a deeply biased version if events. Am I being harsh on someone that doesn't change their opinion in the light of new information? Not really, because I didn't mean your credibility to me - I meant the credibility of a a feminist compliant about male abuse of power which you are now tarnishing through alignment to a case that is weak and flawed as evidence.

CagedBird

Assuming you view the works through a feminist lens, how do you judge BN through that lens?

My view is on Page 1 Y

So you are the aribter of feminist complaints?

You (who doesn't know me from Adam) could be right or I could genuinely believe that the outcry over the journalist's behaviour as it relates to Newmark is little more than deflecting and whataboutery. I could genuinely believe that women deserve more than senior men who send c0ck sh0ts to junior women they encounter. I might even genuinely believe that feminists should speak out against the dissembling and minimising by the male-dominated media so that real women who really do face this behaviour as we have actually seen in repeated recently discovered cases might do so in an environment where the man's behaviour is not dismissed while the woman's provocation of him is examined in depth.

Yonic - "not a feminist issue" is the answer.

Remind me...

BN.

Didn't he tell voluntary groups to stop being all political and to go back to their knitting?

This is clearly pointless. I just said that I thought you were applying feminist principles to a case that didn't merit it - and you then get on a high horse about having feminist principles. For exactly the same reason as Empire, I'm out. You don't listen.

Thanks, Flora.

CagedBird, why don't you think that his behaviour warrants feminist comment? Leaving aside whether the entrapment would stand up in court, which I doubt, there is something concerning about a man in a position of influence with a particular focus on a campaign to get women into politics, entering into, encouraging, responding and escalating sexual dialogue with a younger, less influential woman who originally contacted him, seemingly, on the basis of her interest in politics. I think that is a feminist issue.