Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Female targets of undercover police officers to sue

38 replies

thunderboltsandlightning · 17/12/2011 12:43

I think the subtext here is the belief that some men hold that it's OK for men to get sex any way they want from women, including lying through their teeth. This time they were being paid by the state to do it though, so there may be larger repercussions than simply angry hurt women:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/16/lovers-undercover-officers-sue-police

"In legal papers sent to police chiefs, the women outline the scale of the alleged deception, saying that the relationships with five named men spanned from 1987 to last year. It is the first time that two of the men have been accused of being police spies.

The allegations contradict claims by police chiefs that their undercover officers are not permitted "under any circumstances" to sleep with people they are spying on.

Police chiefs claim it is "grossly unprofessional" and "never acceptable" for undercover officers to have sex with people they are targeting. The women were involved in the campaigns being infiltrated or loosely connected to them.

Mark Kennedy, the undercover policeman who infiltrated the environment movement for seven years, is said in the legal papers to have had relationships with three of the women.

One woman says she had a relationship with him between 2004 and 2010, while another says their relationship lasted between 2003 and 2005. A third says she had a relationship with him between February and September 2005.

Kennedy says he only slept with two women during his years pretending to be an environmental activist.

According to the legal papers, many of the women "became deeply emotionally attached, fell in love" with the undercover policemen, believing "they had met a true friend with whom they might share a long-term future".

"It appears that [the men] used techniques they had been trained in to gain trust and thereby created the illusion that they might be a 'soulmate'," to many of the women, they say.

Alleging that they have been assaulted, the women say "there is no doubt that the officers obtained the consent of [these women] to sexual intercourse by deceit"."

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
EmmaGoldmanSachs · 19/12/2011 18:38

"The point, as if it wouldn't be obvious to most, is that people deceive others all the time for sexual ends. "

Its a very different thing though - this is about the State using these men to obtain information from targets, in part by forming relationships with them.

Its not at all the same as if, for example, a man (or woman) hides a second family from their spouse, or in other way pretends to be something that they are not. In that situation it is purely about personal deceit and unfaithfulness.

Here, it is effectively the State in these women's bedrooms (and men's - I believe there have been women police officers who have done the same thing).

moonferret · 18/12/2011 21:14

ninjasquirrel I'm afraid you're talking rubbish. The "gold digger" comparison is different, but similar. The point, as if it wouldn't be obvious to most, is that people deceive others all the time for sexual ends.

And people have kept secrets from partners for far more than 9 years!

Full credit to him, I'd have done the same.

ninjasquirrel · 18/12/2011 20:44

Moonferret, you really are talking out of your arse. Where do gold diggers come into it when someone forms a relationship believing someone is a genuine supporter of a political cause and they are actually an undercover police spy? Cheeky chappy? WTF?

The women who want to sue aren't just doing it over a random shag, the article says 'relationships of up to 9 years'. The employers obviously didn't care very much about screwing up people's lives to turn a blind eye to that.

OldLadyKnowsSantaClaus · 18/12/2011 20:32

There is no court case. Just a letter from the lawyer working for the women.

AnaisB · 18/12/2011 20:26

He was being paid while he did it and he did it to aid his work.

moonferret · 18/12/2011 20:25

thunderboltsandlightning Courts do sometimes reach incorrect verdicts, didn't you realise?! Blimey!

AnaisB It wasn't something he was paid to do, it was something he chose to do, in addition to whatever else he was doing. And as jealous as I am, who can blame him?

AnaisB · 18/12/2011 20:21

moonferret it makes a fundamental difference that the men were undercover. As such they were at work and had sex with the women as part of their state salaried employment.

I'm also not sure which article of the Human Rights Act they will be accused of infringing. Maybe the right to private and family life?

Original poster
thunderboltsandlightning · 18/12/2011 20:16

I'd have said it was you who was hitting high marks on the bollocksometer moonferret.

And the courts are going to prove you wrong.

OP posts:
moonferret · 18/12/2011 20:12

And also, if a woman sleeps with a man just on the basis of what job or money she believes he has, she deserves any disappointment arising from that.
In no way does is make him a "predatory shit chancing his luck", moreover he's a cheeky chappy stinging potential gold-diggers and having fun in the process. Not something I'd do, but "fair play" to any men who do.

moonferret · 18/12/2011 20:07

No, you're talking nonsense regardless of what any court says.

Original poster
thunderboltsandlightning · 18/12/2011 20:04

The court decides whether I'm talking nonsense or not. Once again these men were paid by the state to lie to women. That's a big difference from some predatory shit chancing his luck.

OP posts:
moonferret · 18/12/2011 19:58

thunderboltsandlightning I think you're the one who hasn't worked that out!

Men (and women) "deceive" each other all the time when it comes to sex. What difference does it make that he was "undercover" at the time?

So if (as a man) I go out and tell women that I'm a Dr/footballer/lawyer/lottery winner (I'm none of these in reality) and she sleeps with me as a result (as many would), should they have a case too?

You're talking nonsense, they have no case at all. Although it's outrageous the state are infiltrating such groups in the first place.

Original poster
thunderboltsandlightning · 18/12/2011 19:52

The state paying men to deceive women and have sex with them in order to gain intelligence is absolutely disgusting, and any civilised society should offer redress to women in that situation.

OP posts:
Original poster
thunderboltsandlightning · 18/12/2011 19:50

Moonferret obviously hasn't opened his eyes to how power really operates in this country.

It's also not up to him luckily whether they have a case or not. They have lawyers who say they do and it will be tested in court.

OP posts:
moonferret · 18/12/2011 19:49

thunderboltsandlightning has clearly believed a lot of propaganda, judging by the second line of that post!

And no, they shouldn't have ANY case, criminal or civil.

Original poster
thunderboltsandlightning · 18/12/2011 19:46

I think it's a civil case not a criminal one, under the Human Rights Act.

Environmental protesters are a threat to property. That's what the police will be defending.

OP posts:
edam · 18/12/2011 19:33

I couldn't make out from the Guardian story what laws the women argue the police officers broke - anyone know?

Horrifying cases from every angle. But one is that it's a wicked waste of resources to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds harassing entirely legitimate protesters while claiming there wasn't enough money to place, for example, the 7/7b bombers under surveillance.

There really is something very wrong with democracy when pursuing a cause is treated as if it is terrorism. Makes me very uncomfortable when you get officers talking about the Occupy St Pauls group as if they are terrorists, policed by anti-terrorist officers or using anti-terrorist legislation. We have enough real threats to life and limb, I'd rather the police focused on them, thank you very much.

Takver · 18/12/2011 19:23

Here's a report re. the numbers - despite the fact that whenever this issue comes up there are official announcements about how it is 'totally unacceptable'. (And another one from the Telegraph)

Somehow it seems to me that in most jobs if something was 'completely unacceptable' to the management (ie, like sleeping with their targets), then they would stop staff doing it . . .

moonferret · 18/12/2011 19:23

That case was hilarious. Not only was he being paid well over the odds (all police are), but he was getting to do next to nothing AND having a ready supply of women to have sex with. What a dream! In my view, the women are entitled to nothing. OK, so he wasn't exactly who they thought he was, but then most of the women I've slept with weren't either!
Society got what it deserved, they should in no way be wasting money "infiltrating" such groups!

Takver · 18/12/2011 19:18

It is also worth bearing in mind that the line 'this is just an individual officer breaking guidelines/the rules' is an absolutely standard one for police forces in general and the Met in particular.

Like all the police officers not wearing their numbers are just 'individuals who failed to follow guidelines'.

And the police officers who search children and take away their crayons are simply 'individuals who misapplied the legislation'.

Its strange how all these individual officers who 'break guidelines' tend to do so in a way which is very useful to the force as a whole.

TheLightPassenger · 18/12/2011 10:52

Thanks to linking to this interesting article. I imagine much of the work domestic and foreign intelligence services do (honey traps, etc) would also be morally rather questionable.

Original poster
thunderboltsandlightning · 18/12/2011 10:27

It's not clear that this wasn't a policy or at the very least a policy to turn a blind eye. The court case will uncover that. Given the extent of the wrongdoing it appears to be institutional.

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDragon · 17/12/2011 14:10

I never said it wasn't the individual - I do see you are obviously keen not to have the whole police force blamed, but I don't think anyone is trying to do that, either. It's just that when several members of a profession do something wrong and abuse the tools that profession equipped them with, you can't deal with it as if they were doing it in their spare time.

I find it really worrying that, as you say, we can't contextualize the number of allegations. Sad With luck, after this, steps will be taken to re-train or reinforce the rules.

scaevola · 17/12/2011 14:04

It's not random - it's totally predictable if sexual intercourse on the strength of a lie is rape. Or perhaps all those who say "he told me he wasn't married /had separated/etc" are liars?

LRD: SWYM about having additional resources in the shape of a cover story available; but it's still the individual who is abusing them. I doubt the police publish anything about the number of officer working undercover, so we have no idea how to contextualise the number of allegations.

nailak · 17/12/2011 13:57

These women spent years of their lives being decieved, they had long term relationships, one was 6 years! They must have had hopes and dreams for the future with a partner they thougt loved them, but in reality it was a farce. They wasted all that time and effort it takes to sustain a relationship. The policemen were paid to do a job, which involved having sex with women. How can this be legal?