Informed consent and the undercover policeman

[QueenOfFlamingEverything]

Mark Stone slept with several women from the activist community, some of whom are now considering civil action against the police.

I presume it was consensual and these women had the freedom and capacity to consent.

You can be fraudulent to gain consent -there is a case where a women consented to sex because she believed the man who had got into her bed was her husband but I struggle to understand where consent is relevant due to occupational status.

Which female spies have got the blame for having sex with people they are spying on?

Will try to find the stated case and agree that fraud can be relevant but not sure it is relevant in this case.

may be grounds for case say the guardian and a lawyer

sorry dreadful typing am feeding baby not illiterate

Fraudulent Consent - R v Elbekkay 1995 - the victim had sex with D who was impersonating her boyfriend. D was liable for rape because the victim's consent was obtained by fraud as to the identity of the partner.

There's a bunch of case law on this (mostly quite old) and I'd be staggered if it stood up. The deceit has to be much more fundamental that that to constitute rape, otherwise we'd be edging into the realms of "he said he loved me, he said he'd had a vasectomy, he didn't tell me he was married".

The guardian article is about a civil action for negligent misconduct against the police, a very different kettle of fish.

The person should know the identity of the person for consenting purposes but it seems it is only relevant if the person pretends to be husband, partner.

Case law is law that has challenged traditional interpretations -it is valid until the next challenge.

I think it is insulting to women to believe that obtaining consent is to be based on someone's occupation. Surely that is treating women as mindless loons who sleep with men based on political leanings.

It doesn't make it OK, just like it's not OK to lie about your marital status or sexual health or any number of things. But it's not a very serious criminal offence carrying a (theoretical) life sentence.

This is ridiculous. It's not rape because he lied about his job!

@ reality

Actually, I think being undercover like that is very different to lying about your occupation - it's assuming an entire false persona with funding and support from an organisation. I think that's hugely different to just lying where there's also a 'responsibility' (for want of a better word) on the person hearing the lie to judge if it's true/likely to be true/if they care if it's true.

I think it's a huge abuse of power to start a sexual relationship with someone while using the resources of whatever organisation you work for to pretty much be someone else. I haven't decided if I think it's rape, not know the details of the case, but I think it should have serious consequences.

I agree morally, it is very wrong -just not sure it is rape.

There are an awful lot of women currently posting over on Relationships who have recently discovered that their husbands of many years (and fathers of their children) have been leading a double life. Internet porn, online dating, shagging secretaries, EA's with exes, debts, gambling, weed addiction, you name it, - if it's available, someone will take advantage of it. And lie about it to their nearest and dearest.

Really don't see why the scenario in the OP is worse. You might feel like a complete muppet, but it ain't rape.

Blimey, I inadvertently shagged a right-wing public-school bastard at Uni. By accident. Honestly. Came on during our one-night stand and he wanted me to launder his sheets for him the next morning. Honestly! Ungrateful swine.

Now this is an interesting story which is somewhat related in that the woman concerned pretended to be a man in order to pursue sexual relationships with other women. She is being charged with: "obtaining sexual contact by fraud" according to this article.

Which it seems to me, is exactly what this undercover police officer did. Presumably none of the women would have gone to bed with him, if they'd known he was a police officer.

It is interesting but I still think you can be fraudulent about gender or sexuality but not a career.

Why?

Why is one deception fraud but the other not?

Has bigamy been de-criminalised?

Has one of the parties married someone when married to someone else? Not sure bigamy is relevant here.

It is to do with consent - it is not unlawful to lie about your occupation to gain consent.