Dispatches - women conned into sexual relationships/having
children with the police
Is anyone watching this? I'm finding it unbelievably shocking
Interesting reaction from one uncover policeman when the interviewer suggested it wasn't consensual as the women weren't able to give informed consent.
Unbelievable that these relationships lasted YEARS and has been a police tactic for the best part of 20 years.
Is this the story about the environmental activists and that mark whatsit?
What was the reaction of the undercover policeman. My guess is that it hadn't crossed his mind that it wasn't consensual even though these women wouldn't have touched a copper with a bargepole under usual circs.
Yep, he said exactly that - it have never occurred to him that it wasn't really consent, but that he agreed that it wasn't really consensual and they wouldn't have had sex with him if they'd known.
8 women were bringing a case against the police for the distress they'd suffered - some of them had had 6 year relationships with these "men". One who had a child with an undercover (who dumped her once she'd had the baby and wanted to spend more time mothering than protesting) said she felt she'd been raped by the state. One woman wasn't even involved with activism - she seems to have just been used to add to the cover story.
That's before we even go into the Stephen Lawrence stuff.
Funny how I was able to guess that
I didn't realise that one of the women had a child with an undercover policeman. Is he supporting it, is the state supporting it, what is the state of play there? She is due a truckload of compensation, child pension rights etc etc. <shakes head>
The latest stephen lawrence revelations are just horrendous. But is anyone surprised any more? I think the green activists were another force (?) but the MET are fucked over reputation wise. Of course lots of people had problems with them before - ethnic minority groups, rape victims and so on. But now, it's just scandal after scandal so much so that surely everyone needs to take note.
Also occurred to me that the police seem to be red hot keen on investigating victims. Just makes you think, staying out of their way if at all possible is the best thing to do. How do they expect anyone to trust them?
I guess the police are working for straight, white, wealthy men, the same as everyone else
No, once she stopped being useful he had nothing to do with the child - I think he is an adult now.
Christ almighty. That is. Well. Wrong. But not at all surprising.
I wish them all a positive decision and a hefty payout. And if any of them decide to put any of that towards environmental activism then that would be a lovely up yours to the authorities, although nothing compared to what was done to them.
I watched this and as much as its creepy and morally wrong, the term 'raped by the state' was hysterical to say the least.
There are hundreds women who will go to the club and have sex with someone after like an hour and not even know their name, in that case the person doesn't know their job is either , is that rape too?
Err, no,Pete, not if those men in a club aren't employed by the state to pretend to be something they are not in order to infiltrate an activist group.
A one night stand you don't really care what someone does, it's just sex. That is what you are consenting to.
A long term relationship is a different matter. If you are consenting because you share the same values then you find out it was all a sham then you didn't have informed consent.
Oh FFS that's like saying that a rapist can go to a nightclub and have consensual sex with a woman, so why would the women he raped and who didn't give consent have any compaints?
I don't think there's any doubt that these brave women will get paid out and win their case, especially as the whistleblower undercover officer himself got a pay-out for losing his identity and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. But what's needed is a complete overhaul of the system that allowed this. Allegedly, officers were instructed by their superiors to wear a condom and not to fall in love . No instructions about not forming intimate relationships in the first place and how this would be a breach of informed consent. No guidance about how having sex and relationships would destroy their marriages even more than the job was already going to, seeing as the officer tonight said that he was allowed to see his wife and family only one night a week.
It's the cynical use of women that is so appalling. Regarded as merely collateral damage because getting them into bed and telling them lies was regarded as the quickest, most efficient way of being accepted as a legitimate activist within the group infiltrated.
To me, this is a prime example of how if an abhorrent practice gets normalised, some people find it incredibly easy to ditch their ethics and values and persuade themselves that there's a greater good involved. I don't imagine any of those officers while at Hendon believed that one day they would be paid to lie to members of the public, have sex without informed consent, cheat on their families and told that this was all normal and acceptable, to the extent that they convinced themselves that this was necessary to do their jobs. Horrendously though those men behaved, they are in fact also victims of this practice. Even before the ex-cop said tonight that he'd got PTSD, it was obvious he was not a well man.
If "raped by the state" is how that woman feels, who are you to say she is "hysterical" (nice choice of word there too).
Her son and everything he missed out on is a permanent reminder of what happened to her too.
It seems like these men deliberately targetted much younger women and exploited that inherent power imbalance too.
One of those women (Belinda?) was not even involved in activism, she sexually exploited entirely to add to the policeman's cover story so he looked normal that he had a girlfriend.
Pete your comment is ridiculous. There situation was not comparable to a one night stand. These women were spending years of their lives with these men believing it was going somewhere.
It's all pretty sick if you ask me
There is some relevant case law about this sort of situation, if my memory of my criminal law classes is correct.
It's not exactly the same, but, IMHO, similar enough.
The case concerned a man, his wife and the man's friend. The wife agreed to have sex with her husband. The man told his friend his wife agreed to have sex with him (friend). The wife was In bed, in the dark and the friend went in and had sex with her, the wife then realised it was not her husband.
The husband was convicted and the friend cleared. The friend genuinely believed she had given consent so was not guilty of rape, the husband knew the wife's consent was only for him, not the friend, so was convicted.
I think this case (and I wish I could remember the name of the case, but I can't right now) shows that informed consent includes knowing the true identity of the other party, not just the fact that someone has consented to have sex.
This is also similar to the alleged (I am not disbelieving, I am just using the term in a legal context) rapes the Swedish courts want to try Julian Assange for. In those cases the women consented to sex with a condom, he is alleged to have removed the condom without their knowledge, therefore, in the view of the women and the prosecutor, the consent was invalid.
But there are many men who are target women who do not explain there real motives and then just fuck off when they have used them up,
married men, conmen etc
This isn't just specific to police.
I watched it and basically they were saying 'I wouldn't have slept with him If I had known he was a policeman'
Err how many criminals could have slept with Law enforcers without knowing it think about it?
Are you saying those women are criminals?
Pete you really can't tell the difference between a man lying to and manipulating a woman into a long term relationship just because he's a shitbag and the situation where a man does all that as his paid job and that job is working for the POLICE and therefore the STATE???
I can't sort out where I'd want to see a legal line drawn here. What the police spies did seems wrong, but should we say everyone who lies to a potential lover is a criminal?
i.e. Someone who claims to be single but is actually married
Someone who claims to be rich but is actually poor
Someone who claims to be in a rock band but is actually just a hanger-on
I'm not condoning any kind of deception, but what's the line between treating someone badly, and a crime?
As far as I know, the women are bringing their case against the police rather than individuals facing criminal charges.
This is a systemic issue rather than the individual policemen involved - they were clearly encouraged and supported in the levels of deception they went to... they were not 'rogue agents' and even if they were then the police are still culpable for losing control of their own staff!
How is this only a woman's issue? There are female officers doing it too! I'm gobsmacked this sort of thing goes on, and I hope new guidelines are implemented to prevent this sort of thing in the future.
Did anyone say it was only a woman's issue (other than the programme was about women - perhaps take it up with them if you think they have been misrepresenting)? But discussing consent in realtion to women and sex/rape is definitely a feminist issue.
Was it not rape when it was done to men? Don't answer that I know legally it would have been impossible to have been, merely sexual assault in those cases. Point is if it had happened to me I would have been equally distraught as these women are.
I really don't like to think rape is a feminist issue, (but i accept how it has to be for the time being) it's a societal one. People should be free to walk the streets (and indeed be in their homes) without fear of an assault of any kind, and be protected and shielded by law from such. I'm at a loss why rape has to be a "woman's" issue, and why we can't all just decide it shouldn't happen at all and come down like a tonne of bricks on criminals that do it.
For me this issue on what the police did is such an invasion on civil liberties, that a bunch of protestors were infiltrated in such an underhanded and seedy way, and as far as I am aware no prosecutions have resulted from intelligence gained from those targeted. It brings the Met into disrepute, is a colossal waste of money, and most of all I feel for the child produced from one of these sanctioned dalliances. A law enforcement agency simply hasn't the ethical right to manipulate and spy on its citizens in this manner.
You are right Dervel. It is an issue that affects women far more than men but in fact the "issue" is with men. They should stop raping us.
But you know what, that shouldn't stop feminists and women being able to discuss it.
And yes I am aware that not all men rape <sigh>
The point is Tei that these weren't just dodgy blokes who left the wife at home, pursued younger women, then lied to them about their whole identity for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years including fathering children before disappearing once they weren't useful anymore just because they wanted sex. These were agents of the state, using these women and children to add to their cover stories.
How would you feel if, say, your boyfriend of 2 years who has just moved in with you turned out to only be interested because the state was investigating your neighbour for fraud, and wanted to have someone in your house?
If they had pulled this level of deception to get money I think it probably wold be illegal, wouldn't it?
Oh, I agree with that concept. I would say that it's an issue that's best regarded as fraud committed by an official agency, and the victims would be entitled to sue them, though it's the kind of damage that doesn't translate well into money.
Remember also that case of the man suspected of murder, where the police tried to trap him into a confession by getting a policewoman to create a romantic interest. That stopped short of sexual contact, but on the other hand creating the personal link was deliberate on the part of the police.
No of course I'm not , hangs head
I agree the have been betrayed and wronged, possibly more the children who came out of these relationships ,but I think 'raped by the state' is OTT
They were not told to sleep with these people, they were just as free not to it was the mans personal choice.
Who are you to say that the feelings of the woman involved are "hysterical" and OTT? That comes across as incredibly arrogant.
I imagine you would feel horrifically violated which is how rape victims feel, I don't know that you can tell anyone their feelings are OTT.
Like TieTua said though not sure I would want lying to be illegal etc as where would you draw the line?
However if the police are doing it in that particular situation where they have private personal information about the women involved is it different to a therapist trying to have sex with a patient? That would lose them their job right? So why wasn't it banned by the police?
I don't see why a woman in that situation shouldn't describe how she feels in whatever terms she feels appropriate.
A man was paid by the state, and as part of her job, to engage in a relationship with her, lie to her, sleep with her, get her to trust him, get her to bear his child, then to leave her and not look back. He was paid to violate her trust, fuck her, live with her, have a baby with her, and then leave. And it wasn't just lies, it was lies that he was being paid to tell.
It is a horrendous violation. And sure some bastards lie to women to get in their pants, harder to lie in a longer term way although some men manage it. These men, however, were trained by the state to lie convincingly and were paid to do so. Paid to pretend to care about a pregnancy and child and then just walk away when they no longer served their purpose to the state.
She can say whatever she likes IMO.
And all this for some environmental activists
"A fourth, named Anna, previously told the Guardian she felt "violated" by her sexual relationship with Kennedy, which lasted several months.
Kennedy's longest relationship was with a woman who used the pseudonym Lisa when giving evidence to the committee. She was with him for six years and said she was left questioning how many other officers were prying into her personal affairs. She said: "Who else was participating in the relationship that I believed was just me and one other person?Who else was seeing every text message that I ever sent him? Who was listening in to our most intimate phone calls? Who made the decisions about my life, where I was allowed to go, who I was allowed to see which I thought was my free will but actually was being manipulated by this person who was being controlled by other people?""
It's just utterly grim isn't it.
nicetabard if that were posted in relationships, he would most certainly be called an abuser.
Join the discussion
Please login first.