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 think the whole idea of going under cover for 7 whole years, is a bit dodgy, isn't it?

OTOH is it necessary in anti-terrorism work etc.? Does it happen a lot? And if so, what are the guidelines viz relationships?

It would be horrific to discover that the father of your child, for example, was someone completely different to who they said they were.

Did his undercover job end because they decided his job was done (this trial was coming up), or because they realised he was going native?

It is a bit complex, more complex than usual. Undercover work is such a murky business, particularly longterm undercover work: the man may have felt as though his avoidance of sexual relationships was making other people suspicious; he may have been genuinely attracted to the woman/women he had sex with.

TBH assuming there is no suggestion that any of his sexual encounters involved force or undue coercion, I think it's perhaps disproportionate to get that hung up on the fact that he lied to the women he had consensual sex with: everyone involved with this man will be feeling bitterly betrayed and hurt, they were all taken in by him, many if not all of them will have trusted and liked his persona on a fairly deep level whether they shagged him or not, but there is no reason to make the consensual sex a bigger deal than it is, or to make the women he had sex with feel more stupid/gullible/sluttish than anyone else he dealt with.

Stuffinggoldbrass, I think possibly even more complex than that. All of the three undercover police recently exposed have been reported as having sexual relationships with activists - 'Lynn' and 'Marco' as well as Mark Stone/Kennedy.

I think given that it seems reasonable to assume that it is an accepted tactic by the police, indeed it makes sense from the point of view of the state I guess if they are looking for these people to build relationships in the wider sense.

Given that people are generally a little suspicious of someone who appears to be longtime celibate, unless that person has a good, freely-aired reason for so being - and also given that most people would not like to be forbidden to date/have sex for seven years, it's not really surprising that these undercover operatives do have sexual relationships.
But, having thought about it some more, I really, really don't think it's right to call this rape in any way. But there's something quite deeply distasteful about the whole 'deep cover' thing anyway, you'd have to be a sociopath to be able to do it convincingly, or if you aren't a sociopath when you start, you'd probably turn into one (unless you 'go native').

These women have my full sympathy. I would be gutted to discover I had accidentally slept with a police officer. Can't decide if it is better or worse than sleeping with a Tory .

However, it isn't rape is it. Or rather, if it was rape, where could you possibly draw the line? Many, many people tell outrageous lies to get their leg over. Almost every one tells little ones.

Yes I don't think it's rape.

It is obtaining sexual contact by fraudulent means though.

It's one of those areas where there's a discussion to be had about how far the law needs to be involved in people's sexual relations. How fraudulent must one be, in order for the law to step in? If only a little bit fraudulent - ("you told me you only sleep with blondes so I dyed my hair blonde but actually I've got brown hair/ you told me you don't shag smokers so I gave up for 2 days so I don't smell" versus "You know I told you I was a man? Well er...")

Definitely a difference (well there is to me) between

a) discovering you have slept with a police officer who lied in order to get off with you

b) discovering you have slept with a police officer who has been using the relationship to extract information about you and all your friends and feed it to his superiors, and who has been paid for doing this.

HerBeX I don't think there is a criminal (or civil) offense of obtaining sexual contact by fraudulent means that would apply here is there?

My understanding in the case of the women who was conned into sleeping with her husband's brother was that the deception meant she had not given consent and so it was rape.

I wonder about this (this case, not the husband's brother one). It does seem like a huge betrayal of trust. But I don't see the criminal aspect?

There are surely many women who wouldn't consent to sex with their husbands if they knew he was having an affair. I see that as a worse betrayal personally. But I don't think that's behaviour that should draw a state sanction - just a social one.

SP, I don't know, I wasn't aware of such an offence, which is why I was a bit confused by that link I posted earlier down the thread (the one where the woman is being prosecuted for pretending to be a man). The article doesn't make it clear, what offence she is being proscuted for.

As said previously, it is certainly immoral but it is not a criminal offence.

HerBex That case is in Scotland, which is a separate legal system from England and based on somewhat different principles.

Ah, that explains it.

So if she was in England, she would not have committed an offence then?

I don't know. I suppose she could be charged with sexual assault on the grounds there was no consent because of the deception - as with the rape case. Whether she would be found guilty is another matter. (Of course she may not have committed a crime in Scotland - it's just a charge at the moment isn't it?)

Yes looks like it

Apparently this was a 'tactic' sanctioned, even encouraged, by police

These men are scum

I have a personal interest in this as I know some of those involved and had unwittingly met one of the officers whilst he was undercover. Its been on my mind a lot of late, especially the issue of 'consent' and just how informed the women involved were.

From the article - "Climate campaigner Sophie Stephens, 27, who knew Kennedy, said there was fury among women who felt violated by the state: "We know women have been abused by men posing as policemen and it's becoming clear this was state-sanctioned."

It makes me feel quite sick tbh.

So there was a stipulation by senior commanders that undercover operators be married, and they were expected to be promiscuous as part of their work. Sex being used to help officers blend in, and "as a tool to glean intelligence".

That is a whole lot different to encounters the various operatives happened to have.

Why do they seem to be infiltrating organisations that don't to my mind seem to represent the type of threat the warrants all this expensive long term covert activity?

Reclaim the streets & green organisations?

I mean, come on. I know that these organisations like any can attract nutters and there is a slight possibility they will do something big, but I would have thought that there were other rather bigger and more dangerous fish to fry...

Unless the police are actually heavily involved in all organised crime outfits, gangs, scary political parties, religious fanatics etc etc - and if that's the case then our country is a different place to what I thought it was TBH.

Also what takver said re if they were sleeping with these women to obtain info then that is just horrendous.

Yes, infiltrating such organisations does not seem the most cost effective, or logical way, to find nutters.

I was assuming that they were using these harmless organisations as a practice run for operatives meant for organised crime etc - but seven years? The cost must be astronomical.

And there is moral hazard - these people must be tempted to justify their undercover employment in such a safe and cushy placement by turning agent provocateur. How else can they show that they are meeting targets? They will be in contact with many impressionable and idealistic people.

AFAI can see its a fucking joke, tho a particularly unfunny one. I mean honestly. RTS was hardly a major threat to national security, not compared to what else is out there, and environmental groups are pretty peaceful IME if sometimes disruptive or the cause of inconvenience.

This just serves to reinforce my belief that the police are tools of the state, which is in turn the sockpuppet of capitalism and big business - which is where RTS and climate change campaigners et al pose the biggest threat.