Under-cover cop (literally)

joe-90

joe-90

Joined
28 Oct 2005
Messages
31,281
Reaction score
1,997
Country
United Kingdom
So Mark Kennedy is suing the Met for £100K. His girlfriend is probably suing for a heck of a lot more.

So should undercover cops even be infiltrating harmless political activist groups? If they are - should they be having sex with them? Or is it rape by deception?

http://notafraidofruins.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/16/

"I don’t know why any of these men chose to have sexual interactions with activists. Maybe it was part of the job, to gain their trust and that of their comrades. Maybe it was because they wanted sex, comfort, emotional support or whatever else it is people get out of relationships.

Regardless, this raises some questions about sex and consent. For consent to be meaningful in sex, the person has to know who it is they are consenting to have sex with. If a woman consents to sex with a man because he’s convinced her that he is a radical activist who is dedicated to the same struggles that she is, but actually he’s an undercover police officer who is dedicated to undermining those struggles, then that really isn’t meaningful consent.

Sex without consent is rape. Sex where consent is obtained through deception is called rape by deception."


So where do you peeps stand on this one?

I reckon it's a disgrace and 'rape by deception'.
 
Sponsored Links
There are trillions of 'incidents' where people are duped into believing someone is one thing when they are actually another.

I used to tell girls i was a racing driver or a millionaire or summat and we would hop in the sack. Ho hum.

Whether they were gullible enough to believe me, or indeed, whether the story that they themselves were a 'model' or an 'actress' probably was not true. Who cares.

Some people even pretend to be doctors and nurses.....whatever floats yer boat. :p

Surely it would arouse a greater suspicion if he did not have sex....?
good move i say.
 
So where are the prison sentences that this covert operation nailed? There were none. They were political activists - not drug dealers or terrorists.

BTW if I pretend to be a doctor and fool some woman into dropping her knickers - I'd go to jail. You'll have to introduce Dr Joe-90 to your missus. :mrgreen:
 
I think your way off track Joe. If undercover officers have to be convincing, then relationships will happen. As noseall says, it would look pretty unconvincing for an undercover cop to not have sexual relationships with a woman/man, he/she was trying to gain the confidence of.
If it's rape by deception, then thousands of married men must be just as guilty (as must thousands of single men. (drop em love and I'll marry you)

Could be that undercover cops should perhaps be supplied with a ready made wife/husband (so there's no need for them to enter a relationship with another woman/man)

Anyway, although you lot think I'm just a lowly joiner, I'm really an undercover MI5 agent on a top secret mission. Now I have revealed this, I'm just gonna have to kill you all. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
 
Sponsored Links
I agree with Joe, JJ...

For one simple reason - it was state sanctioned!
 
Exactly. If you can't trust the state to be honest then who can you trust?

And what use did it all do anyway? They are a bunch protesters - not a hardened criminal gang.
 
I think you'll find Joe that the government now calls protestors 'domestic extremists', thus allowing them free reign to 'f*ck over' anyone they like - often literally!
 
joe-90 said:
Exactly. If you can't trust the state to be honest then who can you trust?

And what use did it all do anyway? They are a bunch protesters - not a hardened criminal gang.
Click to expand...

Hmmm , Here's a bunch of lads http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21634409
who's only crime was to discuss something in private (much as these protest groups do). Would you agree the police were right to arrest them? (ellal, your excused from answering this as we know you'll say they shouldn't have been arrested) ;) ;)
 
Yeah but who did they sleep with?
 
Why is it whenever the police are caught behaving like common criminals we always get told it's to prevent terrorist attacks which will kill hundreds?

These cops have admitted they sleep with people to provide a cover story. Doesn't that involve grooming?

And where is Mr Bean to tell us we are all destroying the society the cops are fighting to protect, and that we should be grateful for the hardships that the cops have to endure to keep us safe in our beds at night.
 
joinerjohn said:
Hmmm , Here's a bunch of lads http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21634409
who's only crime was to discuss something in private (much as these protest groups do). Would you agree the police were right to arrest them? (ellal, your excused from answering this as we know you'll say they shouldn't have been arrested) ;) ;)
Click to expand...
Funnily enough that's the same argument used by the government...

Lump together terrorists with peaceful domonstrators, and then try and silence anyone who tries to point out the obvious differences...

And why shouldn't they carry on that practice, when its easy for them to fool the gullible... ;)
 
I think calling it rape is abit much, and kind of cheapens the word (as opposed to someone who is properly raped by force).

But certainly fraud and deception, and I think it's a bit of a reach to argue that sleeping with someone is required to gain their trust.

I mean seriously, who the **** thinks like that, so you sleep with your friends to gain their trust?
 
Not to gain person A's trust, but those around person A who would reason that he must be legit as person A has trusted him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top