Members of Parliament and their members. A Rant about Cock Pictures

So a Minister has sent a picture of his todger to a journalist who he believed to be a young female researcher. He is married with 5 children.

Is he sleazy? Yes. Was he wrong to do it? morally wrong? yes. Was he stupid to send a digital copy of his cock over t'interwebs to a woman? yes

Twitter seem to agree, among the humour and cock pictures are some angry tweets about his stupidity and lack of morals.

And at first I agreed, after all what sort of creep, married with 5 kids sends pics of his shlong to young women online? but then I had a rethink, what if the MP was a young woman and the journalist had posed as a man? What if the entrapment was the other way round. And again I wasn't alone, lots of people though the entrapment was the disgusting part. That the newspaper and the journalist were to blame, after all, being sleazy is not a crime, betraying your wife, while pretty vile, is a person's own business.

And again I was swayed. I thought 'yes he's been a fool but so what. the newspaper was in the wrong even more'

But then my husband pointed out that we are in a country in a state of high alert for terrorism, we have parliament recalled for talks on war, and during all that we have MPs that think it's OK to send pictures of their John Thomas to female researchers on twitter because they believe on the strength of a few tweets that the woman is who she says she is.

Because a Minister needs to be more savvy. If a journalist can take the time to set up an account and create a false persona online just to get a willy picture, then what would others do to get things they need? Using a cock shot as blackmail would be a beginning but leading to what? secrets shared, information accidentally given or even given deliberately assuming that this new twitter friend was a researcher in the House of Commons so she must have clearance...it's all ok right? Because people online don't lie do they?!

So for me after all the outrage at the Sunday Mirror, and the laughter at Brooks Newmark's paisley pyjamas, after all the moral outrage on behalf of his family, I'm left thinking that the biggest question is why we allow MPs onto social media with so little training, they do not seem to understand the basic lesson that I teach my 14 year old.
"On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog"

On the internet no one knows you are a dog
Peter Steiner's cartoon, as published in The New Yorker

It seems to me that the government needs to ensure that MPs and all who work for the government and use social media need some proper security training. And that is the issue this has revealed.

1 comment:

  1. You've raised a few issues and yes to all those issues about it being morally wrong, disrespectful etc. However, I think you and your husband have hit upon the crux of the matter which isn't being reported, but will be the reason why he's resigned. If he can be so stupid into being fooled to show his todger, what else could he be fooled into doing or giving up? It highlights several issues really: MPs or people in power should have someone run or advise on their social media profiles; that it is too easy for someone who actually doesn't have very much common sense or intelligence to be elected as a representative of the people of this country; and that newspapers have learnt nothing in the last few years about invasion of privacy and entrapment.


Thanks for your comment, all comments are moderated, no links will be approved

Popular posts