Female targets of undercover police officers to sue

[thunderboltsandlightning]

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"."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

"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).