UK: Protests over undercover police

[Joanne98]

Source: UKPA

Dozens of women protesters calling for an independent inquiry into the deployment of undercover officers have picketed a police headquarters in London.

Officers and staff arriving for work at New Scotland Yard, in Westminster, were confronted by a group of vocal activists.

The protest was sparked by further disclosures about the activities of rogue agent Pc Mark Kennedy who spent seven years posing as a green activist. It has emerged Mr Kennedy, now in hiding in the United States, had sexual relationships with several women during his mission.

Organiser Sophie Stephens said: "It's time for the abuse of women by undercover police officers to stop. If a person is pretending to be somebody else, if they are spying on you, then you absolutely cannot give your informed consent.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gOv36C-bn444jGKz4gn4eOCRiVqg?docId=B10445471295868260A00

[ThomCat]

1. Holy Shit!

Yes, lying and acting under false pretenses, forming false relationships with woman that resulted in them having sex because of acts of fraud absolutely should have had him in jail.

:wtf:

How can any police department support the idea that having a badge gives them a right to break laws?

"Inquiries have been announced?" How often do police departments respond to scandals by announcing that there will be an investigation, but of course they will be the ones investigating themselves. What are the odds that they will find themselves guilty of having done anything wrong that warrants any criminal charges?

Why were they wasting 7 years infiltrating and spying on a green organization anyway? How is that a justifiable use of undercover personnel?

Is a group that probably just promotes awareness of global warming, lowering carbon footprints, local and organic farming, vegetarianism and environmental awareness really something the police need to be spying on? Come on? Pick up their damned newsletter and read their calendar to see what they are about!

But to waste all that time and public money to infiltrate and spy on them by sending in an agent provocateur in their for 7 years? And to allow him to form fake relationship that includes even having sex with every possible woman he could get into bed with under false pretenses?

:wtf:

This guys is a damned sexual predator! He belongs in jail for a hell of a long time.

[SkyDaddy7]

2. Cops get to do what they want...

regardless of what country they work in! I am sure this is common practice here in the US as well. Of course, the cops & their defenders will will say this never happens in the US & if it did it is wrong. But confronted with an actual incident the story would change to he was following proper protocol.

Cops never do wrong except in those very very rare cases when they are caught on video tape...And even then cops rarely get punished. Sometimes they might "resign" not get fired so they can go the next county over & get hired & go right back doing what they were doing.

Remember...Punishing cops for breaking the law will hurt and possibly destroy moral! Or at least that is what police chiefs, Judges, prosecutors & politicians say. Not only that but the public rarely votes guilty when it comes to jury trials & when they do judges give very light sentences.

And now law enforcement is fighting hard to outlaw filming cops & otherwise trying to "police the police".

Oh well.

[ThomCat]

4. You are right.

:(

Just yesterday we were talking on a thread about an ex cop convicted in Chicago of torturing confessions routinely and systematically out of innocent people for years. YEARS!

He just got 4.5 yrs in jail.

There are people in jail for longer than that for shoplifting or minor drug possession! Especially if they have the misfortune to be convicted of being a minority too.

But he's white, and a cop, so everything he did gets bundled together as if it was just one charge (not hundreds of violations of law that could have really put him in jail for life) and apparently it's just obstructions of justice, not torture, not filing false charges, falsifying documents, false imprisonment, or anything that could have been more serious.

Go for the least serious possible interpretation/charge and minimize it, and only go for it once, so this guy gets 4.5 years in jail.

It's wonderful the benefits you get being a cop even when you're caught being viciously corrupt. x(

[SkyDaddy7]

3. Cops get to do what they want...

regardless of what country they work in! I am sure this is common practice here in the US as well. Of course, the cops & their defenders will will say this never happens in the US & if it did it is wrong. But confronted with an actual incident the story would change to he was following proper protocol.

Cops never do wrong except in those very very rare cases when they are caught on video tape...And even then cops rarely get punished. Sometimes they might "resign" not get fired so they can go the next county over & get hired & go right back doing what they were doing.

Remember...Punishing cops for breaking the law will hurt and possibly destroy moral! Or at least that is what police chiefs, Judges, prosecutors & politicians say. Not only that but the public rarely votes guilty when it comes to jury trials & when they do judges give very light sentences.

And now law enforcement is fighting hard to outlaw filming cops & otherwise trying to "police the police".

Oh well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. You're saying that anyone who tells a lie about themselves before sex belongs in jail?

"Yes, lying and acting under false pretenses, forming false relationships with woman that resulted in them having sex because of acts of fraud absolutely should have had him in jail. "

So someone who says they're single when they're married should be locked up? How about if they say they're not in another relationship, when really they are? What if someone says they have a high-paid job, when really they get moderate pay?

"How can any police department support the idea that having a badge gives them a right to break laws? "

Which laws, specifically, cover this? You seem to be talking about laws that apply to everyone, not just to the police. I agree that spying on the environmentalists was a waste of public money, but I don't see that "criminal charges" are likely to be involved.

[ThomCat]

6. Yes. If you lie about who you are for the sole purpose of convincing

someone to have sex with you, how could that be anything other than a sex crime?

You are committing fraud for the sole purpose of convincing someone to have sex with you under false pretenses, knowing damned well that the person would not have sex with you if you had told the truth.

Yes, if you do that, you should be in jail.

[harmonicon]

7. unfortunately, I suspect that describes about 90% of sexual encounters. nt.

[ThomCat]

8. I sure as hell hope not.

I've never, ever had to lie to have a sexual encounter or relationship.

I have never heard of any of my friends having to lie to have a sexual encounter or relationship either. Not since college, and I didn't remain friends with the guys who would lie when I heard about it back then.

If you think lying in order to have sex is so common, who the hell are you hanging around with?

[harmonicon]

10. lying to different degrees, I guess.

I live in a university town, and it seems like the majority of places that the kids go on nights out exist only for them to find sexual partners. I've never once gone home with someone I've met at a bar, but I see it happen all the time here. Most people certainly don't lie about things like their names most often, but lies are definitely told in regards to how someone feels or what their interests are to get someone in bed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Again, I ask you for the law you think is being broken

It may be morally reprehensible to lie to someone, with the hope of later having sex with them, but it's far from unknown. Just lying to someone is not, legally, "committing fraud". And, in this specific case, it was not "for the sole purpose of convincing someone to have sex with you"; it was also to continue to keep their cover story believable. And people lie to others to get them to admire them, as well as for the sex.

Are you suggesting there should be a law that possible lies and exaggerations must all be specified before a couple can have sex? How deep would they confessions have to go?

[ThomCat]

11. Rape

Given the definition of rape is having sex without the informed consent, and committing fraud to have sex denies a women the opportunity to ever give informed consent, that would be rape.

The fact that she consented to have sex with someone else (who isn't really you) doesn't mean informed consent was given to have sex with you.

I thought that was obvious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. No, it's not rape

If you tell someone you're single, when you're married, do you really think that is legally rape? If you have sex with someone without knowing their job, or their name, have they raped you? People do not need to have given their entire life history for someone to be able to consent to have sex with them.

Not only is it not 'obvious', I'd say it's obvious that the law does not function the way you seem to think it does. In English law, the word 'informed' does not appear in the definition: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/4-5/69/section/1

The person must be capable of consent to sex - so they have to be conscious and able to reason. But it does not say anything about being completely informed about the background of the person they have sex with.

[ThomCat]

13. So how would you prosecute this?

As a simple fraud case? Sexual misconduct?

If I found out that someone had sex with my sister, and had totally fabricated his identity and history to do it, convincing her that he was someone he wasn't, convincing her to give consent under fraudulent circumstances, I would sure as hell consider that rape.

If he created a situation where she could not possibly know the truth about who he is or why he wanted to have sex with her then informed consent is impossible. To say that she gave informed consent is meaningless in those circumstances. That is blaming the victim for having believed lies.

I do not believe in blaming the victim, ever.

Rape laws do accept that when person has been rendered incapable of giving informed consent then it is rape. Usually this means through the use of drugs or alcohol or when the person is unconscious. But deceit is a damned good way of making someone unable to give informed consent too.

To insist that someone is able to give informed consent when she has been deliberately denied information through deliberate fraud is to hold the victim guilty of the fraud that was committed against her. That is immoral.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I linked to the legal definition for England (ie this case); 'informed' does not appear in it

You keep talking about 'informed consent'. You then assume that 'informed' means 'informed about a certain amount of someone's background' (a level which you are still failing to define in any way). But that's not what sex is about. It's about whether you want to have sex with that person. You do not need to know someone's name, job, or history for that.