What a nasty, freaky little irk...

grumppa.

Try not to think too hard.

And we won't either grumppa.

Of what interest was this story to anyone but his wife? He responded to a come-on from a pretty girl and was stupid. What's new? He wasn't in a high security, highly sensitive post (Minister for the Big Society or some such). He wasn't a high profile government big hitter. Had you heard of him before this news item, I hadn't? He hadn't expressed strong views on the sanctity of marriage. He wasn't sleeping with the enemy and many men in all levels of society do stupid things like this.

Did any of you or anyone you know buy the Sunday Mirror as a result of this 'scoop'? I doubt it. It's time the Sunday Mirror grew up and realised that the only people made to look silly in this story is themselves.

Is it just me? I just don't see the attraction of sending anyone explicit photographs The more intimate parts of one's anatomy are not the most attractive to look at and DH and I seem to have managed a reasonably successful sex life without any photographic assistance. Sending something like that to someone you've never even met just seems lunacy.

He was also the charities minister who told charities to stick to their knitting. He was paid nearly a hundred thousand pounds a year by us to help society be nicer to each other. That was his job. Sending pictures to someone he thought was a twentyone year old was not very civic minded. If a man his age did that to my granddaughter, I'd be very upset.

What would you have thought if the reporter had said he was a 16 year old?

For a person with such a responsible job, I would expect him to have shown at least some maturity, common sense and, dare I say it, decency.

I think there is a difference between someone, for instance, having an affair (in which case, it is a private matter - unless he takes a moralistic stance in public) and someone sending explicit photographs of himself to a young woman he has never met. He must be incredibly egotistical as well as being stupid.

I wonder if the photo was sent late at night after a couple of glasses of wine?

I don't think there is any excuse for him sending the photo-glass of wine-moment's lapse- or anything else. I have friends working with teenagers who are battling to teach them that sharing intimate photos on-line is not a good idea at any time. The girls quite often think it is a requirement of a relationship, and are devastated when the liason ends, and the boy they thought loved them shares their pictures with others. I find it extraordinary that anyone would excuse his behaviour simply because he was set up by the Mirror. MPs used to have integrity,ability and morals-alas no more!

Excellent posts by you POGS and I agree.Also by*Hollydaze*and Jingl
Can't add much to them. Lots of men do what he did, there are so many sites out there, teenagers also take selfies of bits of anatomy and send them.Yes, silly of him [silly of anyone] but that's all.

He thought he was enjoying an online relationship with a woman [not a teenager] and 'she' [the reporter ] had requested the picture.
People are human.If they weren't, they would not be people [stands to reason.]

trisher You say you 'find it extraordinary that anyone would excuse his behaviour SIMPLY because he had been set up' really?? Entrapment , ie. causing a crime [though not a crime in this case] is a rotten thing to do.
This is a lapse of judgement caused by entrapment.Also that 'MP's used to have integrity, ability and morals' well, quite a lot still do, but in the past some didn't either! Nowadays, if you don't have those attributes, it will be found out, that's the difference.

I doubt if anyone's morals have changed. Just more opportunities and ready temptation.

It was a photo of a grown woman/women who was/were quite used to putting their photos online.

I do agree that he is not blameless though.

He wasn't set up by the Mirror. The journalst was a freelance and the story was offered to other papers, who were sensible enough to turn it down just in case they could be accused of entrapment.
However, if the Mirror had not published, do you think that would be better? He would still have been in government, and telling charities to mind their own business.

Dear rosesarered when I was young and I accused my big brother of making me do something I shouldn't my mother always asked how he had"made" me do it. Unless he had actually forced me, she said, I always had the choice of not doing it. That is why he was SIMPLY set up. As for the teenagers. The point is that people in public office should set good examples of behaviour and realise what isn't acceptable. Explaining to young people the difficulties involved and why it isn't advisable to share such pictures is hard enough without them being able to say, "Well important,older people like him do it,so why shouldn't I?"
As for the qualities of MPs-being found out or associated with such behaviour would once have ruined his career and seen him leaving parliament-not any longer. So being found out no longer really matters.

Well... the incident itself doesn't really matter that much does it?

Er, I am mumbling this because I feel mean passing it on.

However, read somewhere that thingie was considered by young women to be a bit creepy.

It was a journalist attached to a political group who 'set him up'.

I don't approve of the method at all although the police notoriously used it and then put the wrong man in prison for ten years or so.

Interesting, Petallus. How do you know the journalist was connected to a political group? He offered the story to the Sun and the Sunday Mail first. That does not sound very political to me.
By the way, Newmark has only resigned as a minister so far. He is still an MP. Not sure I would want him to be mine.