Can't wait to see what the noted feminists of Languish have to say about this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/16/lovers-undercover-officers-sue-police
QuoteFormer lovers of undercover officers sue police over deceit
Women launch legal action claiming they suffered emotional trauma after being deceived into forming relationships
Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 December 2011 17.21 GMT
Eight women who say they were duped into forming long-term loving relationships with undercover policemen have started legal action against police chiefs, alleging that they have suffered intense emotional trauma and pain.
The women say the men "deliberately and knowingly deceived" them into forming intimate relationships of up to nine years by concealing their real identities.
They say the men, who had been sent to infiltrate protest groups, were using them "physically and emotionally" to obtain intelligence about those campaigns.
In an unprecedented move, they are now threatening to sue police chiefs as they say that the "deeply degrading" deceit caused them psychiatric and psychological injuries including depression, trauma, anxiety, anger and a difficulty to trust people again.
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 disclosure of the planned legal action heightens the controversy over the police's undercover operation to spy on political movements over the past four decades.
It caps a year in which the unmasking of Kennedy, by activists, has led to the exposure of five other undercover officers who infiltrated political groups. A sixth had gone public last year.
In the past year, police chiefs have also faced allegations that they corrupted the legal system by authorising undercover officers to give false evidence in court and spy on private meetings between defendants and their lawyers, and failed to disclose vital evidence which wrongly convicted protesters.
Police chiefs have also been criticised for wasting taxpayers' money on mounting huge operations to monitor campaigners involved in peaceful and legitimate protests.
But many believe the most damaging allegations centre on the long-term, sexual relationships between the undercover policemen and campaigners they were snooping on.
The eight women have come together to take legal action against the Metropolitan police, which ran one of the covert surveillance units and is now responsible for its apparent successor. Their lawyer, Harriet Wistrich of London law firm Birnberg Peirce, has sent legal papers to Scotland Yard as a prelude to a full-scale human rights lawsuit.
In the papers, she outlines their case against police chiefs for assault, deceit, negligence and misfeasance in public office. They want police chiefs to pay compensation and disclose full details of the undercover policemen's activities, which she says had no lawful justification.
In the papers, she also says that two of the women had relationships with Jim Boyling, who infiltrated environmental and animal rights groups in the 1990s.
She says that another woman "had a relationship with a man known as Mark Cassidy between 1995 and 2000". Another woman was "in a relationship with a man known as John Barker between 1990 and 1992," she says.
The fifth man to have a relationship with one of the eight women is named as Bob Lambert, who infiltrated animal rights and environmental campaigns in the mid-1980s and went on to be key part of the secret operation in the 1990s.
In the legal papers, Wistrich also says that "some of the officers were married and had children under their real identities, a fact completely hidden" from the women.
The women are not named as they intend to ask the court to grant them anonymity to protect their privacy.
The Metropolitan police said it was considering a letter from the women's lawyers, adding that eputy Assistant Commissioner Mark Simmons was conducting a review of covert deployments between 1968 and 2008.
"This is a complex process due to the elapsed time, the nature and volume of material and the inherent sensitivity of the issues," it said.
So basically, they want to be able to sue these cops for doing what non-cops do to women all the time?
If they didn't claim to be Jewish why would the court care?
There are "noted feminists" on Languish?
I thought we had a bunch of male chauvinists, a bunch of homos, a few chicks who hang out with weirdos and a small group of guys who don't actually hate women, but never noticed a feminist.
In short: Tim fails at not failing again.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2011, 05:19:42 AM
There are "noted feminists" on Languish?
I thought we had a bunch of male chauvinists, a bunch of homos, a few chicks who hang out with weirdos and a small group of guys who don't actually hate women, but never noticed a feminist.
In short: Tim fails at not failing again.
:-)
An apt summary, Martinus.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2011, 05:19:42 AM
There are "noted feminists" on Languish?
I thought we had a bunch of male chauvinists, a bunch of homos, a few chicks who hang out with weirdos and a small group of guys who don't actually hate women, but never noticed a feminist.
In short: Tim fails at not failing again.
Might want to get your sarcasm detector checked.
Beyond any other considerations, I don't think "emotional trauma" is something that should be actionable in the first place.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 17, 2011, 05:46:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2011, 05:19:42 AM
There are "noted feminists" on Languish?
I thought we had a bunch of male chauvinists, a bunch of homos, a few chicks who hang out with weirdos and a small group of guys who don't actually hate women, but never noticed a feminist.
In short: Tim fails at not failing again.
Might want to get your sarcasm detector checked.
:face:
I'm not sure I like the idea of rape by fraud very much--and this is essentially a tort version of that. But this is definitely a case that suggests to me it has a place and function. This is fucked up, and even from a purely self-interested point of view, I don't want to live in a world where women suspect potential sexual partners are spies.
And all the libertards on the board should, after no more than a moment's consideration, be concerned about living in a world where the government can literally fuck people.
I think what troubles me the most is the total nature of the deception that appears to have taken place. Let's look at that case in Israel where the Arab guy was fucking a Jewish girl under the pretense that he was Jewish too, deemed rape by fraud by an Israeli court. That guy actually went to jail, which is a severe overreaction. But should have been civilly liable? I think that seems fair. And damages should have been slight, maybe even nominal, as a Jewish girl should have been only mildly concerned over fucking an Arab (Siegebreaker's wife, for example, seems perfectly fine).
The difference is that that incident was not such a total deception, but more along the lines of lying about income (guilty) or military service (guilty). Whereas this involves lying about the very nature of the relationship itself for years on end.
The latter seems potentially very damaging to me. And it's all the worse when the statedoes it. I know Ton was being glib, but yeah, that sounds right to me.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to stick my cock in you."
Quote from: dps on December 17, 2011, 06:08:27 AM
Beyond any other considerations, I don't think "emotional trauma" is something that should be actionable in the first place.
It depends how you define emotional trauma, I guess. A lot of pretty much actionable matters have a strong emotional trauma element to them. Intimidation, stalking, invasion of privacy defamation etc. all have a strong emotional trauma component to them (and, depending on circumstances, it may be even the main element).
Plus there is also an argument that while ordinary people can be assholes to each other, the state's agents paid with tax payers money can't, at least not to the same extent.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 06:36:21 AM
I'm not sure I like the idea of rape by fraud very much--and this is essentially a tort version of that. But this is definitely a case that suggests to me it has a place and function. This is fucked up, and even from a purely self-interested point of view, I don't want to live in a world where women suspect potential sexual partners are spies.
And all the libertards on the board should, after no more than a moment's consideration, be concerned about living in a world where the government can literally fuck people.
I think what troubles me the most is the total nature of the deception that appears to have taken place. Let's look at that case in Israel where the Arab guy was fucking a Jewish girl under the pretense that he was Jewish too, deemed rape by fraud by an Israeli court. That guy actually went to jail, which is a severe overreaction. But should have been civilly liable? I think that seems fair. And damages should have been slight, maybe even nominal, as a Jewish girl should have been only mildly concerned over fucking an Arab (Siegebreaker's wife, for example, seems perfectly fine).
The difference is that that incident was not such a total deception, but more along the lines of lying about income (guilty) or military service (guilty). Whereas this involves lying about the very nature of the relationship itself for years on end.
The latter seems potentially very damaging to me. And it's all the worse when the statedoes it. I know Ton was being glib, but yeah, that sounds right to me.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to stick my cock in you."
I think there is also a problem here that this is not done to investigate a crime, but to spy on citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
To me, a government agent pretending to be your boyfriend/girlfriend for years on end, to get private info out of you during pillow talk is somehow worse than the same agent taping your phone or reading your e-mails.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2011, 06:51:33 AM
I think there is also a problem here that this is not done to investigate a crime, but to spy on citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
Agreed.
I don't understand why the Met had so many undercover agents in environmental protest groups. It seems to me an absolutely insane use of police time.
QuoteI'm not sure I like the idea of rape by fraud very much--and this is essentially a tort version of that.
I think the most plausible is the human rights action. I think they're suing under the prohibition on inhumane and degrading treatment and the right to family life and privacy.
Some people pick the wrong men. Too bad.
Do undercover cops get paid for 24 h a day btw? If he wasn't on the clock when he banged her then tough luck.
See? This sort of thing is why every lawyer must be killed.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 06:36:21 AM
And all the libertards on the board should, after no more than a moment's consideration, be concerned about living in a world where the government can literally fuck people.
Maybe libertarians would be concerned, but I don't mind. If you don't have enough food, the government gives you foodstamps. Why can't it do the same thing with sex?
I shouldn't even really be surprised.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 06:36:21 AM
And all the libertards on the board should, after no more than a moment's consideration, be concerned about living in a world where the government can literally fuck people.
When these government agents start using mind control, then people should start worrying about that.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2011, 05:19:42 AM
There are "noted feminists" on Languish?
I thought we had a bunch of male chauvinists, a bunch of homos, a few chicks who hang out with weirdos and a small group of guys who don't actually hate women, but never noticed a feminist.
In short: Tim fails at not failing again.
I'm a noted feminist. :)
What I think about this, I don't know... something about the deception inherent in all romantic love and the inadequacy of an overgrown idea of "consent" as the litmus test... something about it being no surprise that the state would try to exploit this incoherence to increase its surveillance of the population...
When I read the article I didn't think that laying pipe was part of the policy, rather that during the course of their undercover work the coppers took advantage of what was offered to them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2011, 03:59:40 PM
When I read the article I didn't think that laying pipe was part of the policy, rather that during the course of their undercover work the coppers took advantage of what was offered to them.
This. I'd always been under the impression that "getting too close" was a pretty clear no-no in undercover work.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2011, 03:59:40 PM
When I read the article I didn't think that laying pipe was part of the policy, rather that during the course of their undercover work the coppers took advantage of what was offered to them.
Then it's even more of a cause for a legal action then. I don't know about the US, but at least in Europe when a cop on duty causes you harm while acting outside of rules of conduct, you can sue the state.
How much immunity from normal laws do undercover cops enjoy?
Quote from: The Brain on December 18, 2011, 04:34:14 AM
How much immunity from normal laws do undercover cops enjoy?
In theory at least, none that I'm aware of in most U.S. jurisdictions. In the UK? No idea.
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2011, 06:18:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 18, 2011, 04:34:14 AM
How much immunity from normal laws do undercover cops enjoy?
In theory at least, none that I'm aware of in most U.S. jurisdictions. In the UK? No idea.
They have to commit some crimes to successfully infiltrate a gang though don't they? :huh:
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2011, 06:18:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 18, 2011, 04:34:14 AM
How much immunity from normal laws do undercover cops enjoy?
In theory at least, none that I'm aware of in most U.S. jurisdictions. In the UK? No idea.
Dude, I've seen TV. The cops don't get charged with buying/selling sex in the prostitution undercover operations.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure undercover operators are immunized from a lot of their behavior, e.g. trafficking drugs, not to mention RICO liability.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2011, 05:19:42 AM
There are "noted feminists" on Languish?
I am a noted feminist on Languish. In fact, I am the only true feminist on Languish. And I dare any to disprove it.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 04:31:16 AM
Then it's even more of a cause for a legal action then. I don't know about the US, but at least in Europe when a cop on duty causes you harm while acting outside of rules of conduct, you can sue the state.
Yeah, sorry, don't think heartbreak qualifies.
It does if you're a worthless, anarchist piece of shit like Martinus.
Kill all lawyers. Kill every lawyer you see. That's the only way to create a truly equitable society.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2011, 12:19:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 04:31:16 AM
Then it's even more of a cause for a legal action then. I don't know about the US, but at least in Europe when a cop on duty causes you harm while acting outside of rules of conduct, you can sue the state.
Yeah, sorry, don't think heartbreak qualifies.
Marty would sue for the legal enforcement of mandatory Birkenstocks.
Money you should get into this line of work, it would suit you and you're shrewd enough to play both ends against the middle.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2011, 12:19:23 PM
Yeah, sorry, don't think heartbreak qualifies.
Emotional trauma in general shouldn't qualify?
Only if it's of a sort that would be illegal if a normal schmo did it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2011, 12:19:23 PM
Yeah, sorry, don't think heartbreak qualifies.
I don't see how heartbreak even comes into the equation. One of the coppers shagged 3 granola chicks in 7 years. There's no mention of false marriage promises, or false true love promises, or anything that we usually associate with heartbreak.
The basis of the plaintiffs' case seems to be that for them shagging a copper, or shagging anyone who's not sincerely comitted to their crunchy cause is so abhorent that when they found out the truth it caused them deep emotional distress.
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2011, 12:32:48 PM
Kill all lawyers. Kill every lawyer you see. That's the only way to create a truly equitable society.
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2011, 02:51:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2011, 12:19:23 PM
Yeah, sorry, don't think heartbreak qualifies.
I don't see how heartbreak even comes into the equation. One of the coppers shagged 3 granola chicks in 7 years. There's no mention of false marriage promises, or false true love promises, or anything that we usually associate with heartbreak.
The basis of the plaintiffs' case seems to be that for them shagging a copper, or shagging anyone who's not sincerely comitted to their crunchy cause is so abhorent that when they found out the truth it caused them deep emotional distress.
It's not a contract claim, it's a tort claim. The existence of a promise is not an element of fraud.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 18, 2011, 03:37:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2011, 12:32:48 PM
Kill all lawyers. Kill every lawyer you see. That's the only way to create a truly equitable society.
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I offer a compromise: kill half of all lawyers admitted to practice you see. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 18, 2011, 03:37:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2011, 12:32:48 PM
Kill all lawyers. Kill every lawyer you see. That's the only way to create a truly equitable society.
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I offer a compromise: kill half of all lawyers admitted to practice you see. :)
Negative. That just means that different bloodsuckers will be trying to destroy society. They must all be purged for mankind to heal.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 03:43:49 PM
It's not a contract claim, it's a tort claim. The existence of a promise is not an element of fraud.
"It" in this context is heartbreak.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2011, 02:51:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2011, 12:19:23 PM
Yeah, sorry, don't think heartbreak qualifies.
I don't see how heartbreak even comes into the equation. One of the coppers shagged 3 granola chicks in 7 years. There's no mention of false marriage promises, or false true love promises, or anything that we usually associate with heartbreak.
The basis of the plaintiffs' case seems to be that for them shagging a copper, or shagging anyone who's not sincerely comitted to their crunchy cause is so abhorent that when they found out the truth it caused them deep emotional distress.
From what I've seen of granola chicks the copper might need to get hazard pay.
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2011, 12:32:48 PM
It does if you're a worthless, anarchist piece of shit like Martinus.
Kill all lawyers. Kill every lawyer you see. That's the only way to create a truly equitable society.
You say that now, but remember I am part of the thin black line that separates us from anarchy and mayhem.
And I have to say that deep undercover coppers are pretty much mythical in my practice. I've seen a handful of files where undercover stings are utilized, but never any that went beyond a few days. I actually have no idea what the rules are, but I'm 99% sure that they aren't supposed to have sexual relations while undercover.
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2011, 04:12:58 PM
And I have to say that deep undercover coppers are pretty much mythical in my practice. I've seen a handful of files where undercover stings are utilized, but never any that went beyond a few days. I actually have no idea what the rules are, but I'm 99% sure that they aren't supposed to have sexual relations while undercover.
The article says it's not allowed. They say it's 'never acceptable' and 'grossly unprofessional'. He was more than undercover, according to the environmentalists he was with, apparently he was an agent provocateur - again, I believe, not allowed - and he's said everything he did his bosses knew about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2011, 04:44:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2011, 04:12:58 PM
And I have to say that deep undercover coppers are pretty much mythical in my practice. I've seen a handful of files where undercover stings are utilized, but never any that went beyond a few days. I actually have no idea what the rules are, but I'm 99% sure that they aren't supposed to have sexual relations while undercover.
The article says it's not allowed. They say it's 'never acceptable' and 'grossly unprofessional'. He was more than undercover, according to the environmentalists he was with, apparently he was an agent provocateur - again, I believe, not allowed - and he's said everything he did his bosses knew about.
Yes, I believe this is an operation fiction, they're not intelligence gathering, but are mainly agent provocateurs.
I wouldn't be entirely suprised if in a couple of years we find there weren't one or two of them involved in that student demonstration in London which trash the Tory election HQ. :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2011, 04:04:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 03:43:49 PM
It's not a contract claim, it's a tort claim. The existence of a promise is not an element of fraud.
"It" in this context is heartbreak.
Wrongful seduction, waste of years' worth of affection and the fact it's been undertaken by their own government = more than heartbreak.
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2011, 04:12:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2011, 12:32:48 PM
It does if you're a worthless, anarchist piece of shit like Martinus.
Kill all lawyers. Kill every lawyer you see. That's the only way to create a truly equitable society.
You say that now, but remember I am part of the thin black line that separates us from anarchy and mayhem.
And I have to say that deep undercover coppers are pretty much mythical in my practice. I've seen a handful of files where undercover stings are utilized, but never any that went beyond a few days. I actually have no idea what the rules are, but I'm 99% sure that they aren't supposed to have sexual relations while undercover.
Maybe you're just not trusted with that information. :ph34r:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 05:25:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2011, 04:04:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 03:43:49 PM
It's not a contract claim, it's a tort claim. The existence of a promise is not an element of fraud.
"It" in this context is heartbreak.
Wrongful seduction, waste of years' worth of affection and the fact it's been undertaken by their own government = more than heartbreak.
Nope.
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2011, 04:12:58 PM
You say that now, but remember I am part of the thin black line that separates us from anarchy and mayhem.
But you're also part of the black cloud whose every action is taken to maintain your position and power.
Well, at least we're all agreed that BB is black.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2011, 06:20:18 PM
Well, at least we're all agreed that BB is black.
His love of the outdoors has given him a pleasant tan.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 05:25:22 PM
waste of years' worth of affection
Isn't that part and parcel of heartbreak?
Quote from: garbon on December 18, 2011, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 05:25:22 PM
waste of years' worth of affection
Isn't that part and parcel of heartbreak?
It's part and parcel of having a social life.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2011, 06:19:38 AM
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2011, 06:18:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 18, 2011, 04:34:14 AM
How much immunity from normal laws do undercover cops enjoy?
In theory at least, none that I'm aware of in most U.S. jurisdictions. In the UK? No idea.
They have to commit some crimes to successfully infiltrate a gang though don't they? :huh:
Yeah. That's why I said, "In theory". Even at that, though, I don't think that technically they're immunized, but what prosecutor is going to charge them for, say, a burglury that they take part in in order to infiltrate a gang?
EDIT: In thinking about it, even in the absense of immunity, it's probably looked at that they lack criminal intent for the acts that they commit as part of their undercove operation.
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2011, 07:14:14 PM
Yeah. That's why I said, "In theory". Even at that, though, I don't think that technically they're immunized, but what prosecutor is going to charge them for, say, a burglury that they take part in in order to infiltrate a gang?
I hope they don't run any operations like that in a place where idiotic left-wingers have elected a hippie district attourney.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 17, 2011, 01:57:05 PM
something about the deception inherent in all romantic love
It certainly is often present but how is it inherent 100% of the time?
Quote from: garbon on December 18, 2011, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 05:25:22 PM
waste of years' worth of affection
Isn't that part and parcel of heartbreak?
Nope. Unless you consider all social interactions which end, that is, all social interactions, a waste.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 18, 2011, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 05:25:22 PM
waste of years' worth of affection
Isn't that part and parcel of heartbreak?
Nope. Unless you consider all social interactions which end, that is, all social interactions, a waste.
I'm not sure how that can be teased apart enough to make this situation unique. There's no real way to tell how much affection became genuine - anymore than a man who sticks with someone because they make for a good lay. If I go with what you're saying - it was only a waste because the women have chosen to view it as such. ^_^
I don't view it as particularly different from a guy who has two different families in two different states (unbeknowst to either one), and I think we can imagine how wasteful--how "inefficient"--that sort of relationship might be. And that has criminal penalties. Here we're only interested in civil penalties. I think they're appropriate.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 07:33:55 AM
I don't view it as particularly different from a guy who has two different families in two different states (unbeknowst to either one)
My great grandfather did that. :cool:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 07:33:55 AM
I don't view it as particularly different from a guy who has two different families in two different states (unbeknowst to either one), and I think we can imagine how wasteful--how "inefficient"--that sort of relationship might be. And that has criminal penalties. Here we're only interested in civil penalties. I think they're appropriate.
Again you seem to premise your position on the assumption that the granola chicks were interested in some sort of long term commitment.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 17, 2011, 04:02:59 AM
Can't wait to see what the noted feminists of Languish have to say about this.
Quote
The women say the men "deliberately and knowingly deceived" them into forming intimate relationships of up to nine years by concealing their real identities.
"Isn't that like all relationships?" Is that what you were looking for from our noted feminists?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 07:33:55 AM
I don't view it as particularly different from a guy who has two different families in two different states (unbeknowst to either one), and I think we can imagine how wasteful--how "inefficient"--that sort of relationship might be. And that has criminal penalties. Here we're only interested in civil penalties. I think they're appropriate.
See, and this is why you have to die. You can't help yourself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2011, 07:52:12 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 07:33:55 AM
I don't view it as particularly different from a guy who has two different families in two different states (unbeknowst to either one), and I think we can imagine how wasteful--how "inefficient"--that sort of relationship might be. And that has criminal penalties. Here we're only interested in civil penalties. I think they're appropriate.
Again you seem to premise your position on the assumption that the granola chicks were interested in some sort of long term commitment.
QuoteOne woman says she had a relationship with him between 2004 and 2010, while another says their relationship lasted between 2003 and 2005.
If you want to impute atypical motivations on the part of the "granola chicks," I guess that's your bag. I'm not saying that in no wise could they be trumping things up--I've not read the complaint, there has been no trial--but for my purposes here I'm taking the allegations as true.
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 08:24:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 07:33:55 AM
I don't view it as particularly different from a guy who has two different families in two different states (unbeknowst to either one), and I think we can imagine how wasteful--how "inefficient"--that sort of relationship might be. And that has criminal penalties. Here we're only interested in civil penalties. I think they're appropriate.
See, and this is why you have to die.
Oh, there are a number of reasons.
Quote from: Brazen on December 19, 2011, 08:02:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 17, 2011, 04:02:59 AM
Can't wait to see what the noted feminists of Languish have to say about this.
Quote
The women say the men "deliberately and knowingly deceived" them into forming intimate relationships of up to nine years by concealing their real identities.
"Isn't that like all relationships?" Is that what you were looking for from our noted feminists?
Bitches were asking for it. They were alive, weren't they?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 07:33:55 AM
I don't view it as particularly different from a guy who has two different families in two different states (unbeknowst to either one), and I think we can imagine how wasteful--how "inefficient"--that sort of relationship might be. And that has criminal penalties. Here we're only interested in civil penalties. I think they're appropriate.
Isn't that only criminal if you are married to both?
Yeah, fair enough, but that's what I meant.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 08:45:33 AM
Yeah, fair enough, but that's what I meant.
Well if these cops didn't marry 2+ women, I don't see the comparison.
Quote from: garbon on December 19, 2011, 11:30:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 08:45:33 AM
Yeah, fair enough, but that's what I meant.
Well if these cops didn't marry 2+ women, I don't see the comparison.
Anything to run up those billable hours and insert the law into places where it doesn't belong.
Next we'll outlaw wonder bras :P
Quote from: HVC on December 19, 2011, 01:04:14 PM
Next we'll outlaw wonder bras :P
Count me in. I want more visible nipples dammit.
Shopped this around the office and the general response was "bitches be trippin'."
Quote from: Brazen on December 19, 2011, 08:02:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 17, 2011, 04:02:59 AM
Can't wait to see what the noted feminists of Languish have to say about this.
Quote
The women say the men "deliberately and knowingly deceived" them into forming intimate relationships of up to nine years by concealing their real identities.
"Isn't that like all relationships?" Is that what you were looking for from our noted feminists?
Yup, that's basically what I expected.
Quote from: garbon on December 19, 2011, 11:49:51 PM
Shopped this around the office and the general response was "bitches be trippin'."
Maybe you shouldn't work with blacks? :bowler:
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2011, 02:56:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 19, 2011, 11:49:51 PM
Shopped this around the office and the general response was "bitches be trippin'."
Maybe you shouldn't work with blacks? :bowler:
I'm not sure how that would ever be an acceptable statement, you racist fuck.
Quote from: garbon on December 19, 2011, 11:49:51 PM
Shopped this around the office and the general response was "bitches be trippin'."
Haven't you established in the past that you work with braindead fuckwits? :hmm:
Anyway, regarding the married/not married thing, I think that impacts the measure of fraud, not whether a fraud occurred; and the measures are not very far off.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2011, 04:44:17 PM
The article says it's not allowed. They say it's 'never acceptable' and 'grossly unprofessional'. He was more than undercover, according to the environmentalists he was with, apparently he was an agent provocateur - again, I believe, not allowed - and he's said everything he did his bosses knew about.
This is the part that bothers me, to be honest. Well, this and the fact that Scotland Yard thought it necessary to infiltrate these groups in the first place. The relationships themselves were... well, relationships. The rest, though, seems stupid at best; worthy of employment sanctions at worst.
Quote from: garbon on December 20, 2011, 07:53:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2011, 02:56:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 19, 2011, 11:49:51 PM
Shopped this around the office and the general response was "bitches be trippin'."
Maybe you shouldn't work with blacks? :bowler:
I'm not sure how that would ever be an acceptable statement, you racist fuck.
Oh dear, that's one of the most racist things anyone said on languish, and that saying something.
Weird, that it should come from someone so apparently 'progressive'. :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on December 20, 2011, 01:03:48 PM
This is the part that bothers me, to be honest. Well, this and the fact that Scotland Yard thought it necessary to infiltrate these groups in the first place.
This is the thing I don't get. When he was outed as a policeman it caused the collapse of an aggravated trespass trial. I haven't seen anything else that justifies infiltrating these groups for seven years. Which makes the whole thing stink a little.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 20, 2011, 02:41:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 20, 2011, 01:03:48 PM
This is the part that bothers me, to be honest. Well, this and the fact that Scotland Yard thought it necessary to infiltrate these groups in the first place.
This is the thing I don't get. When he was outed as a policeman it caused the collapse of an aggravated trespass trial. I haven't seen anything else that justifies infiltrating these groups for seven years. Which makes the whole thing stink a little.
You've gotta prevent crazies from running amok in London.
Oh wait.
Do environmental groups never demonstrate non-peacefully, trespass into secure areas, destroy property, any of those things? I'm not sure the line between environmental group and smash em up anarchist is all that clear cut.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2011, 02:46:35 PM
Do environmental groups never demonstrate non-peacefully, trespass into secure areas, destroy property, any of those things? I'm not sure the line between environmental group and smash em up anarchist is all that clear cut.
And monitoring that requires one infiltrate them for years on end? I mean if they are doing these things on a regular basis surely getting a few recordings of a conspiracy to do those sorts of things should be all you need. Do you need to be amongst them for years to do that?
Quote from: Valmy on December 20, 2011, 02:54:00 PM
And monitoring that requires one infiltrate them for years on end? I mean if they are doing these things on a regular basis surely getting a few recordings of a conspiracy to do those sorts of things should be all you need. Do you need to be amongst them for years to do that?
Well they keep smashing stuff up every once in a while. Doesn't seem like a one and done deal to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2011, 02:46:35 PM
Do environmental groups never demonstrate non-peacefully, trespass into secure areas, destroy property, any of those things? I'm not sure the line between environmental group and smash em up anarchist is all that clear cut.
They trespass - the trial that collapsed was on trespass into a power plant. Obviously the police have a responsibility to try and stop people from trespassing into secure areas or destroying property. It's clear that Mark Kennedy wasn't the only one, I believe other trials have fallen apart as the police have had to pull people out. Nothing I've read suggests that any of the environmental groups - or even the anarchists - were wanting to do anything large enough to justify this. And I think the justification for a seven year undercover operation and others should be pretty high, just given the sheer cost and allocation of resources, especially in the last decade.
A police force using agent provocateurs messing with protest groups and keeping them disrupted sounds more plausible in my view.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2011, 03:00:06 PM
Well they keep smashing stuff up every once in a while. Doesn't seem like a one and done deal to me.
But policing's about choices and how you allocate funds. So it's not enough to say, they smash things up every once in a while so we need a permanent investigating presence.
Environmentalists in this country don't have a record of smashing stuff up, trespass, yes.
Anarchists have a history of violence but their outbursts tend to be at predictable events.
After you've done that you've then got to justify the cost in the context of other things the police have to be investigating. Frankly they look pretty low down on the food chain to me. They are the shoplifters of political violence.
Do you really need such expensive investigations when you have the Eye of Sauron?
It's important that we stop criminal organizations like Greenpeace and similar from doing their thing. It's unclear why traditional police work wouldn't be enough for this. They are not AQ.
If you really love someone, then finding out later that they were a cop infiltrating your organization would not hinder your love. These ladies are lying.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 20, 2011, 03:08:08 PM
If you really love someone, then finding out later that they were a cop infiltrating your organization would not hinder your love. These ladies are lying.
If you really love someone, then finding out later that they were a reservoir of viral load would not hinder your love, either, I guess.
Quote from: mongers on December 20, 2011, 02:02:42 PM
Oh dear, that's one of the most racist things anyone said on languish, and that saying something.
Weird, that it should come from someone so apparently 'progressive'. :hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Ft%2FHAPPY-BIRTHDAY-12-Russ-Kidz-Troll-Doll-PARTY-DRESS-%2F24%2F%21B5k20dwEGk%7E%24%2528KGrHqJ%2C%21hwEycbhB1UFBMuLbD5Lt%21%7E%7E_35.JPG&hash=67ac99cd171804519d12e1ecce60e6a2a6115c5f)
Ide called black people "braindead fuckwits".
It seems to me that it in the UK, environmentalists and violent anarchists are one in the same. Tearing up universities testing things on animals, using violence in order to prevent foxhunting, all that sort of nonsense.
What's wrong with fox hunting? Admittedly it seems kinda silly, but I don't make it a point to stop people from doing silly things.
Kills foxes. Ergo bad.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 20, 2011, 07:45:59 PM
What's wrong with fox hunting? Admittedly it seems kinda silly, but I don't make it a point to stop people from doing silly things.
I think the animal rights lot - again distinct from environmentalists - objected to the perceived cruelty. Chasing a fox for a few miles and then tearing it apart with a pack of dogs is probably a bit over the top.
Same thing the fox does to the animals it kills.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 20, 2011, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 20, 2011, 07:45:59 PM
What's wrong with fox hunting? Admittedly it seems kinda silly, but I don't make it a point to stop people from doing silly things.
I think the animal rights lot - again distinct from environmentalists - objected to the perceived cruelty. Chasing a fox for a few miles and then tearing it apart with a pack of dogs is probably a bit over the top.
Eh, it's their cultural thing. I can make reasonable exceptions for other cultures weird rituals. I imagine it makes an easy target since few people engage in it, and it's mostly an upper class thing.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 20, 2011, 08:01:34 PM
Same thing the fox does to the animals it kills.
Fox ain't gotta choice.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 20, 2011, 03:11:16 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 20, 2011, 03:08:08 PM
If you really love someone, then finding out later that they were a cop infiltrating your organization would not hinder your love. These ladies are lying.
If you really love someone, then finding out later that they were a reservoir of viral load would not hinder your love, either, I guess.
What is going on here? First Marti with racist comments and now you with those. I don't see why someone having HIV would make you love them less. You might chose not to sleep with them (or you might continue) but really do you think that virus would cause you to stop loving someone?
The only possible bit, which then I take back my complaint at you, is if they knowingly were putting you at risk...but then I still wonder if your love would dissipate even with the rising hate.
Quote from: garbon on December 20, 2011, 08:06:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 20, 2011, 03:11:16 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 20, 2011, 03:08:08 PM
If you really love someone, then finding out later that they were a cop infiltrating your organization would not hinder your love. These ladies are lying.
If you really love someone, then finding out later that they were a reservoir of viral load would not hinder your love, either, I guess.
What is going on here? First Marti with racist comments and now you with those. I don't see why someone having HIV would make you love them less. You might chose not to sleep with them (or you might continue) but really do you think that virus would cause you to stop loving someone?
The only possible bit, which then I take back my complaint at you, is if they knowingly were putting you at risk...but then I still wonder if your love would dissipate even with the rising hate.
Well, yeah, I meant if they knew. If these guys didn't know they were cops, then I guess they're off the hook. :P
Reminds me, once I get some funds, I'm taking a CCR5 Delta 32 test. It would render questions of my love for the HIV+ quite moot.
P.S.: I know my comment about your coworkers' unfortunately echoed Marti's a little bit, but I was basing it on something you said a few weeks ago, but I can't remember it. Something about Belgium not being a country, I think.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 20, 2011, 08:03:09 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 20, 2011, 08:01:34 PM
Same thing the fox does to the animals it kills.
Fox ain't gotta choice.
Neither do we. We kill animals for pleasure. That's what civilization is all about.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 20, 2011, 08:03:09 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 20, 2011, 08:01:34 PM
Same thing the fox does to the animals it kills.
Fox ain't gotta choice.
This is why Vegetarians shouldn't be allowed to make policy decisions. First Hitler, now Ide.
Quote from: RazThis is why Vegetarians shouldn't be allowed to make policy decisions. First Hitler, now Ide.
So I don't eat meat, like tanks, and advocate a system of camps. I think the similarities end there.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 20, 2011, 08:15:40 PM
Quote from: RazThis is why Vegetarians shouldn't be allowed to make policy decisions. First Hitler, now Ide.
So I don't eat meat, like tanks, and advocate a system of camps. I think the similarities end there.
You also advocate bad policies.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 20, 2011, 08:02:27 PM
Eh, it's their cultural thing. I can make reasonable exceptions for other cultures weird rituals. I imagine it makes an easy target since few people engage in it, and it's mostly an upper class thing.
What about cock fighting? Dog fighting? Bear baiting? I think it's equally reasonable for a culture, as a whole, to ban things perceived to be cruel to animals.
Cocks fight, dogs fight. Cats kill rats. The problem seems to lie not in the bloodshed but in the people watching.
(Bears probably don't fight packs of dogs while tied up in the wild.)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2011, 08:37:26 PM
Cocks fight, dogs fight. Cats kill rats. The problem seems to lie not in the bloodshed but in the people watching.
What's the difference between a bunch of poor people in flat caps watching animal cruelty and a bunch of toffs in red jackets sitting on horses watching dogs tear a fox to pieces?
Though personally I've no problem with fox hunting.
Edit: Incidentally the human provocation and intensification of the violence is a problem too. In cock fighting, for example, razors are attached to the birds' spurs. That's more than 'cocks fights' in the way cats catch rats.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 20, 2011, 08:27:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 20, 2011, 08:02:27 PM
Eh, it's their cultural thing. I can make reasonable exceptions for other cultures weird rituals. I imagine it makes an easy target since few people engage in it, and it's mostly an upper class thing.
What about cock fighting? Dog fighting? Bear baiting? I think it's equally reasonable for a culture, as a whole, to ban things perceived to be cruel to animals.
Honestly, I don't care that much. Maybe on the dogs. I like dogs. I've never met a fox or a cock that I was overly fond of.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2011, 02:46:35 PM
Do environmental groups never demonstrate non-peacefully, trespass into secure areas, destroy property, any of those things? I'm not sure the line between environmental group and smash em up anarchist is all that clear cut.
ELF spent a lot of time doing all sorts of nifty action direct stuff on the west coast in the late '90s and early 00s.
Although, the ELF brand became similar to post-2003 Al Qaeda for a time; franchised by different groups and individuals that really had no connection with one another.
Quote from: Valmy on December 20, 2011, 02:54:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2011, 02:46:35 PM
Do environmental groups never demonstrate non-peacefully, trespass into secure areas, destroy property, any of those things? I'm not sure the line between environmental group and smash em up anarchist is all that clear cut.
And monitoring that requires one infiltrate them for years on end? I mean if they are doing these things on a regular basis surely getting a few recordings of a conspiracy to do those sorts of things should be all you need. Do you need to be amongst them for years to do that?
Yup.
QuoteUndercover police had children with activists
Disclosure likely to intensify controversy over long-running police operation to infiltrate and sabotage protest groups
Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 January 2012 20.15 GMT
Two undercover police officers secretly fathered children with political campaigners they had been sent to spy on and later disappeared completely from the lives of their offspring, the Guardian can reveal.
In both cases, the children have grown up not knowing that their biological fathers – whom they have not seen in decades – were police officers who had adopted fake identities to infiltrate activist groups. Both men have concealed their true identities from the children's mothers for many years.
One of the spies was Bob Lambert, who has already admitted that he tricked a second woman into having a long-term relationship with him, as part of an intricate attempt to bolster his credibility as a committed campaigner.
The second police spy followed the progress of his child and the child's mother by reading confidential police reports which tracked the mother's political activities and life.
The disclosures are likely to intensify the controversy over the long-running police operation to infiltrate and sabotage protest groups.
Police chiefs claim that undercover officers are strictly forbidden from having sexual relationships with the activists they are spying on, describing the situations as "grossly unprofessional" and "morally wrong".
But that claim has been undermined as many of the officers who have been unmasked have admitted to, or have been accused of, having sex with the targets of their surveillance.
Last month eight women who say they were duped into forming long-term intimate relationships of up to nine years with five undercover policemen started unprecedented legal action. They say they have suffered immense emotional trauma and pain over the relationships, which spanned the period from 1987 to 2010.
Until now it was not known that police had secretly fathered children while living undercover. One of them is Lambert, who adopted a fake persona to infiltrate animal rights and environmental groups in the 1980s.
After he was unmasked in October, he admitted that as "Bob Robinson" he had conned an innocent woman into having an 18-month relationship with him, apparently so that he could convince activists he was a real person. She is one of the women taking the legal action against police chiefs.
Now the Guardian can reveal that in the mid-1980s, just a year into his deployment, Lambert fathered a boy with another woman, who was one of the activists he had been sent to spy on.
The son lived with his mother during the early years of his life as his parents' relationship did not last long. During that time, Lambert was in regular contact with the infant, fitting visits to him around his clandestine duties.
After two years, the mother married another man and both of them took responsibility for raising the child. Lambert says the woman was keen that he give up his legal right to maintaining contact with his son and cut him out of her new life. He says the agreement was reached amicably and he has not seen or heard of the mother or their son since then.
Lambert did not tell her or the child that he was a police spy as he needed to conceal his real identity from the political activists he was spying on. The Guardian is not naming the woman or the child to protect their privacy.
Lambert was married during his secret mission, which continued until 1988.
The highly secretive operation to monitor and disrupt political activists, which has been running for four decades, has come under mounting scrutiny since last year following revelations over the activities of Mark Kennedy, the undercover police officer who went rogue after burying himself deep in the environmental movement for seven years.
Police chiefs and prosecutors have set up 12 inquiries over the past year to examine allegations of misconduct involving police spies, but all of them have been held behind closed doors. There have been continuing calls, including from the former director of public prosecutions Ken Macdonald, for a proper public inquiry.
The second case involves an undercover policeman who was sent to spy on activists some years ago. He had a short-lived relationship with a political activist which produced a child.
He concealed his real identity from the activist and child as he was under strict orders to keep secret his undercover work from her and the other activists in the group he infiltrated. He then disappeared, apparently after his superiors ended his deployment. Afterwards, she remained under surveillance as she continued to be politically active, while he carried on with his police career.
The Guardian understands that as he had access to the official monitoring reports, he regularly read details of her life with a close interest. He watched as she grew older and brought up their child as a single parent, according to an individual who is aware of the details of the case.
The policeman has been "haunted" by the experience of having no contact with the child, whom he thought about regularly, according to the individual.
:lol:
I hope these motherfucking pigs (along with the government that let this happen) get sued out of the wazoo for child support and moral damage.
Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2012, 06:16:18 AM
:lol:
I hope these motherfucking pigs (along with the government that let this happen) get sued out of the wazoo for child support and moral damage.
Moral damage? It's not like the cops were gay.
If anything, the activists should pay child support to the state, as the kids will obviously have to be taken away. They're activists, and thus unable to responsibly raise a child.
What will be done to these illegal persons?
WTF is moral damage?
Clearly the police should have taken the children and raised them up at Scotland Yard. We would end up with an elite corps of Janissary or Mameluke coppers that we could use in future riot control :cool:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 21, 2012, 08:44:48 AM
Clearly the police should have taken the children and raised them up at Scotland Yard. We would end up with an elite corps of Janissary or Mameluke coppers that we could use in future riot control :cool:
I'd vote for Boris if he embraces his Turkish heritage and orders raids on Essex for Met Police Janissary recruitment.
Wow, that's some hardcore infiltration.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 08:47:47 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 21, 2012, 08:44:48 AM
Clearly the police should have taken the children and raised them up at Scotland Yard. We would end up with an elite corps of Janissary or Mameluke coppers that we could use in future riot control :cool:
I'd vote for Boris if he embraces his Turkish heritage and orders raids on Essex for Met Police Janissary recruitment.
They already do.
What do they say about the met, they're like bananas, yellow, only ever found in bunches and are all slightly bent.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2012, 01:18:34 PM
Wow, that's some hardcore infiltration.
They penetrated their targets quite deeply.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 21, 2012, 11:49:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2012, 01:18:34 PM
Wow, that's some hardcore infiltration.
They penetrated their targets quite deeply.
I guess the dicks weren't sufficiently undercover.