This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/28/foolish-out-brooks-newark-sexting-resignation

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
So Brooks Newmark sent some explicit pictures – why should he resign? So Brooks Newmark sent some explicit pictures – why should he resign?
(about 3 hours later)
Brooks Newmark’s resignation was utterly predictable, yet totally inexplicable. Why exactly did he have to go? His statement read: “I have decided to resign as minister for civil society having been notified of a story to be published in a Sunday newspaper.”Brooks Newmark’s resignation was utterly predictable, yet totally inexplicable. Why exactly did he have to go? His statement read: “I have decided to resign as minister for civil society having been notified of a story to be published in a Sunday newspaper.”
It’s so uninformative, it’s almost charming: a story about what? Related to him in what way? He seems to be under the impression that if he never says, “I sent naked photographs of myself to a middle-aged man I thought was a young woman”, then propriety, simple manners, will stop us all from talking about it. In your dreams, sunshine. It’s so uninformative, it’s almost charming: a story about what? Related to him in what way? He seems to be under the impression that if he never says, “I sent explicit photographs of myself to a middle-aged man I thought was a young woman”, then propriety, simple manners, will stop us all from talking about it. In your dreams, sunshine.
Refusing to name the misdemeanour, Newmark naturally isn’t planning to elaborate on precisely what moral code he feels has been breached; indeed, his statement suggests the crime is “having been the subject of a newspaper article”. The real, practical reason he’s resigned is so as not to have to discuss whether or not he should resign. But there’s no reason for the rest of us to abide by his moratorium.Refusing to name the misdemeanour, Newmark naturally isn’t planning to elaborate on precisely what moral code he feels has been breached; indeed, his statement suggests the crime is “having been the subject of a newspaper article”. The real, practical reason he’s resigned is so as not to have to discuss whether or not he should resign. But there’s no reason for the rest of us to abide by his moratorium.
Newmark wasn’t harassing the “woman”; he was the victim of a sting operation. It is in the nature of those scams that you only ever hear one side’s humiliating impropriety; you never find out what the “journalist” said to draw them out. But if we know the journalist sent the first photo, we know that it wasn’t the MP’s idea. I don’t think fancying someone who seems to fancy you, even someone much younger who isn’t real, contravenes any feminist principle.Newmark wasn’t harassing the “woman”; he was the victim of a sting operation. It is in the nature of those scams that you only ever hear one side’s humiliating impropriety; you never find out what the “journalist” said to draw them out. But if we know the journalist sent the first photo, we know that it wasn’t the MP’s idea. I don’t think fancying someone who seems to fancy you, even someone much younger who isn’t real, contravenes any feminist principle.
If I were the party leader, I would worry about Newmark’s intelligence. Someone who will gaily embark on a sexting adventure – believing that a 26-year-old wants to see him naked, even though she plainly knows what he looks like clothed – does not have a very strategic mind. The rise, fall, rise and fall again of Anthony Weiner, the New York politician who sent photographs of his genitals to almost everyone, was much more three-dimensional.If I were the party leader, I would worry about Newmark’s intelligence. Someone who will gaily embark on a sexting adventure – believing that a 26-year-old wants to see him naked, even though she plainly knows what he looks like clothed – does not have a very strategic mind. The rise, fall, rise and fall again of Anthony Weiner, the New York politician who sent photographs of his genitals to almost everyone, was much more three-dimensional.
Weiner, a very early adopter of smartphone technology, was Clintonesque; he sexted of his own volition, and was later gulled into yet more sexting by conservatives who’d set up fake accounts. So even though the honeytrap technique was the same, at least it was designed to exploit pre-existing behaviour. Of course, I couldn’t possibly know, but I’m as sure as I’ve ever been of anything that Newmark was not taking naked selfies until the unnamed freelance journalist asked him to. Weiner, a very early adopter of smartphone technology, was Clintonesque; he sexted of his own volition, and was later gulled into yet more sexting by conservatives who’d set up fake accounts. So even though the honeytrap technique was the same, at least it was designed to exploit pre-existing behaviour. Of course, I couldn’t possibly know, but I’m as sure as I’ve ever been of anything that Newmark was not taking explicit selfies until the unnamed freelance journalist asked him to.
Newmark should have had some basic procedure for establishing the veracity of his correspondents. Let’s call it “the sense he was born with”.Newmark should have had some basic procedure for establishing the veracity of his correspondents. Let’s call it “the sense he was born with”.
In the midst of Ukip defections and splenetic Euro-rage, David Cameron is in no position to start policing his MPs for low IQ. Mark Reckless, remember, is the MP who had to apologise to the house in 2010 for being too drunk to vote. In normal times the leadership would be pleased to see the back of these jokers.In the midst of Ukip defections and splenetic Euro-rage, David Cameron is in no position to start policing his MPs for low IQ. Mark Reckless, remember, is the MP who had to apologise to the house in 2010 for being too drunk to vote. In normal times the leadership would be pleased to see the back of these jokers.
These times are not normal. Newmark’s departure is a genuine blow to the party. In order to have accepted his resignation, therefore, the prime minster must believe in a consensus that he has done something irredeemable, something way beyond “daft”.These times are not normal. Newmark’s departure is a genuine blow to the party. In order to have accepted his resignation, therefore, the prime minster must believe in a consensus that he has done something irredeemable, something way beyond “daft”.
The one thing we know about Newmark’s affair is that nothing happened. The MP is married and a father of five, and of course it isn’t ideal to conduct such a vigorous flirtation in those conditions, but I cannot see this as an all-out attack on family values. “What is this, the 50s?” his defenders ask (yes, they do exist – though they mainly seem to be defending the act of sexting rather than the sexter himself. They love the sin but not the sinner).The one thing we know about Newmark’s affair is that nothing happened. The MP is married and a father of five, and of course it isn’t ideal to conduct such a vigorous flirtation in those conditions, but I cannot see this as an all-out attack on family values. “What is this, the 50s?” his defenders ask (yes, they do exist – though they mainly seem to be defending the act of sexting rather than the sexter himself. They love the sin but not the sinner).
I don’t believe even the 50s would be as judgmental as these prurient times. Once the people of the past had wrapped their heads around virtual sex, I think they would see it as a niche but ultimately pretty trivial misdemeanour.I don’t believe even the 50s would be as judgmental as these prurient times. Once the people of the past had wrapped their heads around virtual sex, I think they would see it as a niche but ultimately pretty trivial misdemeanour.
Now, we’ve reached a point with politicians and their sexual morality that is so abstruse, so distant from the real codes we live by, that the result is a kind of moralising arms race: if in doubt, take the dimmest possible view. But everything is in doubt, so the disapproval roars thunderously.Now, we’ve reached a point with politicians and their sexual morality that is so abstruse, so distant from the real codes we live by, that the result is a kind of moralising arms race: if in doubt, take the dimmest possible view. But everything is in doubt, so the disapproval roars thunderously.
In what other job would a person who’d had an affair have to resign? Where else is sexual conduct considered anybody’s business but that of the parties involved?In what other job would a person who’d had an affair have to resign? Where else is sexual conduct considered anybody’s business but that of the parties involved?
In the outside world, human relationships are viewed with nuance and sophistication. It is tacitly agreed that honesty is better than dishonesty, that infidelity is painful and self-seeking, that it would be better if everyone honoured the promises they’d made, for ever; it is also understood that sometimes the heart wants what it wants and that erring is human. People are not shunned or shamed.In the outside world, human relationships are viewed with nuance and sophistication. It is tacitly agreed that honesty is better than dishonesty, that infidelity is painful and self-seeking, that it would be better if everyone honoured the promises they’d made, for ever; it is also understood that sometimes the heart wants what it wants and that erring is human. People are not shunned or shamed.
Politicians get no such licence. They can exhibit no personal dishonesty that doesn’t mar all their public utterances. They can’t really be human, and then they are despised for seeming so distant, so unrecognisable. They bring it on themselves with their unquestioning adherence to 19th-century norms; but we perpetuate it too, with foolish outrage that couldn’t even be tracked back to a coherent set of principles.Politicians get no such licence. They can exhibit no personal dishonesty that doesn’t mar all their public utterances. They can’t really be human, and then they are despised for seeming so distant, so unrecognisable. They bring it on themselves with their unquestioning adherence to 19th-century norms; but we perpetuate it too, with foolish outrage that couldn’t even be tracked back to a coherent set of principles.
Newmark is the man who said charities should stick to knitting. He was sneering and uninformed in his civil society role, and I would have given anything to see him leave. But not for this. This is what really degrades public life, being unable, en masse, to distinguish the petty from the meaningful.Newmark is the man who said charities should stick to knitting. He was sneering and uninformed in his civil society role, and I would have given anything to see him leave. But not for this. This is what really degrades public life, being unable, en masse, to distinguish the petty from the meaningful.