Met pays substantial compensation to women who were manipulated into false relationships.

[Elendon]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/20/met-police-apologise-women-had-relationships-with-undercover-officers

Clearly, these women were manipulated into sexual relationships involving the birth of children, in order to 'infiltrate' a group. There is so much that is wrong about this, I really don't know where to begin.

However, I will say this, it just galls me that some people believe that women are not manipulated in this way.

That was a horrible thing to do, and I am glad the women get compensation.

What do you mean, some people believe they weren't being manipulated? It is pretty obvious they didn't sign up for marriage with an undercover cop who just used them as means to an end.

I was thinking about starting a thread inspired by this case. In recent months/years I can think of several cases of people found guilty of rape as they have misrepresented themselves to the women they had sex with (a man who was much older than his dating photo - although it was of him, a woman pretending to be a man, a Muslim man who was found guilty of rape because he pretended to be Jewish). So I've been thinking, when does misrepresentation of yourself invalidate consent? If it can, then were these women raped? Can't think of a greater misrepresentation than pretending to be someone else for years on end. But then degrees of smisrepresentation are common in relationships, so when does it cross a line?

What a terrible thing for the police to do.

I mean that some people believe that women cannot be manipulated in this way because they are adult humans with minds of their own.

I mean that some people believe that women cannot be manipulated in this way because they are adult humans with minds of their own.

... and psychic? Well, that explains why we are also expected to be able to tell rapists from totally harmless nice guys. Clearly, we are all able to look into people's heads ... except me. I probably should try harder.

This is one of the women who was lied to.

Years ago, when I was quite involved in green activism, I worked with the McLibel team, and knew her. She's lovely not that that matters. The thing that really spooky is that I probably also met the police officer that raped her. And no, rape isn't hyperbole in this case, there is no way that any of us at the time would have considered sleeping with a police officer. Police officers were the ones that beat the crap out of us in the back of unmarked vans when they arrested us at demos.

Just for clarity, I don't feel the same way about the police now, despite seeing them using the same tactics at marches and demos even now.

I, too, have found this case shocking. One thing that annoys me in the reporting of it is that most reports state that it happened to several women and then emphasise that one of the relationships led to the birth of a child. I think this annoys me because it implies that this is the worst thing - a child has been born out of deception and, presumably, will be affected emotionally and financially - as if this is the detail that really ought to convince us that it was unacceptable. It's as if women being deceived is not bad enough, that's to be expected really - but children, well then that's emotive.

I think it's rape, too.

@Barbarian: The line is there when someone lies about themselves knowing full well that is the only way someone would agree to have sex with them.

Allegedly, the average person tells small lies all the time. No one really cares about those.

And I suppose "She didn't tell me she loves broccoli!" wouldn't stand a chance in court, because that's clearly not connected in any way to any sort of moral or ethics or health issues.

A judge would have to use common sense.

I met one of these men in his current guise. He was a smarmy arse.

Also wondering how this is different to the recent case of rape by deception.

I don't think it is Maud. These women were repeatedly raped by men who knew that's what they were doing.

Vestal, I believe they were manipulated and victims, it's just that some people believe otherwise. And no one can possibly predict the outcome in a relationship, as is quite evident from looking at the Relationships board.

It is deceit and manipulation (and abuse of power). Just shocking on all counts.

And rape.

Yes, if it was me, I'm pretty certain I'd feel like I'd been raped. It would cause quite a revolution if it came to court though, wouldn't it? All those people who lie about being married would be worried.

@Elendon: That's clear. I was just a bit suprised there are actually people who think women cannot be lied to.

(And I hope a special spot in hell is reserved for those who claim that "feminists depict women as stupid and weak" ... I had recently someone trying to tell me that I am doing this by pointing out that female prisoners are vulnerable and should therefore not be forced to share housing with males (transwomen) )

Barbarian, I suppose we would have to build a whole new set of prisons to house all those criminals ... but we should do that anyway, there are way too many date rapists running around free. (Some space might be gained by legalizing marihuana use, but I doubt it'd be enough)

The Jewish/Muslim case was deeply questionable (and very sad) for a whole range of reasons. And not under English law of course.

In some ways "I thought I was sleeping with an eligible bachelor with a view to marriage but in fact he was married and just looking for sex" sounds almost Victorian in its assumptions about men and women, which worries me. But I can see that for some women being the victim of sustained misrepresentation by a cheat if you thought you'd be spending the rest of your life with him would be as serious a deception as that of the undercover policemen. You would need an entirely new set of case law to decide where the boundaries lay.

Then let's hope Harriet Wistrich is able to make that happen.

In some ways "I thought I was sleeping with an eligible bachelor with a view to marriage but in fact he was married and just looking for sex" sounds almost Victorian in its assumptions about men and women, which worries me.

The problem is, while the assumptions have changed, the reality of being a woman in patriarchy has not changed that much.

Nowadays, one can force the married man to pay child support, but it is a battle a woman doesn't knowingly sign up for when she has sex with a man she thinks is interested in a committed relationship. (Look at the contraception failure thread in _Chat before you mention contraception)

Likewise, a woman is not required to have a chaperone nowadays, but when a woman is alone with a man and he rapes her, she will be victim-blamed for being alone with him / drunk / flirty.

I think we would very much profit if a man was legally required to make a statement on his willingness to pay child support prior to sex, and then stick to it. (Lots and lots of men would probably not get sex anymore, but hey, that's not my problem!)

Glad about the compensation .

And I probably read too much crime fiction but doesn't having sex with someone when undercover compromise any evidence you get from them?

They didn't necessarily want intelligence about the women, but used them as an 'in' to the group to gain intelligence about other members. So, the nice chat you had about going to a meeting on Thursday to discuss the demo on Saturday would be reported back with dates, times, locations etc etc. Then the police would turn up, start trouble, arrest people and batter the fuck out of them for shits and giggles.

I just heard Rav an ex-police officer turned TV presenter comment that he could see how this happened and how it's difficult job etc on ITV show with Gabby Roslin (who had the decency to look shocked.)

He also thought some of the women must have realised the blokes were police.

EnaSharplesHairnet fucking love the name btw Then Rav is a dickhead.

Sadly despite two women looking uncomfortable he was not really challenged.

He really thought it was excusable.