Undercover police had children with activists

[butchersapron]

Undercover police had children with activists

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.

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.

Continued from here

 

[paolo]

That's pretty fucked up (stating the obvious).

 

[discokermit]

fucking scum.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

That's really appalling behaviour

 

[Bernie Gunther]

"When I first saw Sunday," said Syme slowly, "I only saw his back; and when I saw his back, I knew he was the worst man in the world. His neck and shoulders were brutal, like those of some apish god. His head had a stoop that was hardly human, like the stoop of an ox. In fact, I had at once the revolting fancy that this was not a man at all, but a beast dressed up in men's clothes."

"Get on," said Dr. Bull.

"And then the queer thing happened. I had seen his back from the street, as he sat in the balcony. Then I entered the hotel, and coming round the other side of him, saw his face in the sunlight. His face frightened me, as it did everyone; but not because it was brutal, not because it was evil. On the contrary, it frightened me because it was so beautiful, because it was so good."

"Syme," exclaimed the Secretary, "are you ill?"

"It was like the face of some ancient archangel, judging justly after heroic wars. There was laughter in the eyes, and in the mouth honour and sorrow. There was the same white hair, the same great, grey-clad shoulders that I had seen from behind. But when I saw him from behind I was certain he was an animal, and when I saw him in front I knew he was a god."

"Pan," said the Professor dreamily, "was a god and an animal."

"Then, and again and always," went on Syme like a man talking to himself, "that has been for me the mystery of Sunday, and it is also the mystery of the world. When I see the horrible back, I am sure the noble face is but a mask. When I see the face but for an instant, I know the back is only a jest. Bad is so bad, that we cannot but think good an accident; good is so good, that we feel certain that evil could be explained. But the whole came to a kind of crest yesterday when I raced Sunday for the cab, and was just behind him all the way."

"Had you time for thinking then?" asked Ratcliffe.

"Time," replied Syme, "for one outrageous thought. I was suddenly possessed with the idea that the blind, blank back of his head really was his face—an awful, eyeless face staring at me! And I fancied that the figure running in front of me was really a figure running backwards, and dancing as he ran."

"Horrible!" said Dr. Bull, and shuddered.

"Horrible is not the word," said Syme. "It was exactly the worst instant of my life. And yet ten minutes afterwards, when he put his head out of the cab and made a grimace like a gargoyle, I knew that he was only like a father playing hide-and-seek with his children."

"It is a long game," said the Secretary, and frowned at his broken boots.

The Man Who Was Thursday

 

[Belushi]

Fucked up beyond belief.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fuck. That would be like finding out your dad had raped your mum.

 

[butchersapron]

That's the two you know about at this point as well.

 

[OneStrike]

Poor kids/mums

 

[Bassism]

ffs i dared not even read the links

 

[Voley]

Good grief. Another step lower than the Mark Stone debacle.

 

[stethoscope]

Seriously fucked up.

 

[Stoat Boy]

I wonder what names they would have had put on the birth certificates ? Or whether the CSA chase them up for payments ? But its wrong on so so many levels.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Senior officers have claimed sexual relations were never condoned or known about by the top ranks – a finding Hogan-Howe was expected to endorse in his report. However, the mounting evidence suggests otherwise.

Kennedy said he could not "sneeze" without his handlers knowing about his activities, and gave every indication they knew about the methods he used to gain the trust of activists, including his sexual liaisons. Black has said it was "part of the job" for fellow agents to use "the tool of sex" to maintain their cover and glean intelligence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/20/met-crisis-activist-spying-operation

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Legally where do they stand? Is there a law against obtaining consent under false pretences?

ETA:

Apparently not. Appears that this only applies to tricking someone into having sex when they think they're doing something else.

 

[butchersapron]

There's an ongoing case. Sort of.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

In one document, marked "secret", police chiefs lay out what they believed to be the legal justification for Kennedy's surveillance operation, stating that the environmental campaigners could cause "severe economic loss to the United Kingdom" and an "adverse effect on the public's feeling of safety and security".

Those police claims, along with the broader suggestion that environmental activists threaten the national infrastructure of the UK, have been repeatedly challenged in court. All 26 activists police wanted to prosecute for conspiring to trespass at the Nottinghamshire power station either had their trials abandoned or their convictions quashed following the Kennedy controversy.

Sentencing 20 of the activists in January, a judge at Nottingham crown court said he accepted they had intended a peaceful protest and had the "highest possible motives", describing the group as "honest, sincere, conscientious, intelligent, committed, dedicated, caring".

When their convictions were quashed in July, three court of appeal judges, who included the lord chief justice, said "elementary principles" of the fair trial process were ignored when prosecutors did not disclose the secret recordings to activists' lawyers. In a damning ruling, the judges said they shared the "great deal of justifiable public disquiet", found that Kennedy's operation had been partly unlawful, and even proffered the suggestion he had arguably been acting as an agent provocateur.

What the judges did not mention – but is increasingly becoming clear – was that Kennedy was not a lone operator, but the latest in a long line of undercover police officers who have been spying on activists as part of a classified operation dating back four decades.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/20/met-crisis-activist-spying-operation

 

[ska invita]

Even without kids involved its a disgrace. For what its worth (and its not worth whats happened) I really hope the court case around this does some serious damage to police powers.

 

[starfish]

Its not as if this sort of thing doesnt go on everyday.

 

[Voley]

There's just no sense of proportion with our police force is there? I'm trying to figure out how anyone in their right mind could consider this a justified means to an end.

 

[xenon]

Legally where do they stand? Is there a law against obtaining consent under false pretences?

ETA:

Apparently not. Appears that this only applies to tricking someone into having sex when they think they're doing something else.

Think about that if there were. Aside the difficulty of framing such a law.

What about deception. They were paid to do this. (Yeah I know, not remotely likely.)

Filthiest of filth anyway.

 

[StraightOuttaQ]

I wonder what names they would have had put on the birth certificates ? Or whether the CSA chase them up for payments ? But its wrong on so so many levels.

Probably their cover names. As these children were conceived on official duty, you could argue that it is thus the state's responsibility to provide....

 

[equationgirl]

Makes you wonder what else undercover police are up to.

This is disturbing and appalling behaviour from the police.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

surely this is still rape you cannot give informed consent if one of you is lying entirely about themselves.

In which case I'd like to also see the home secretary at the time being brought in as the person ultimately responsible for these police actions and sanctioning state sponsored rape as a method of interrogation.

a girl got done recently for pretending to be a boy and groping her mates.

Judge Peter Moss branded Barker, now 20, “mean and manipulative” and warned she could face jail. He said he could not be certain whether the cruel scam made her “bad and dangerous to know or mad and dangerous to know”.

Barker created bogus characters Aaron Lampard, Connor McCormack and Luke Jones on Facebook to lure her victims after they had told her about their “ideal” boyfriends.

After winning their confidence, she disguised herself as boys to meet them for kissing, cuddling and petting sessions at their homes.

so are these cops bad and dangerous to know or mad and dangerous to know

 

[butchersapron]

Makes you wonder what else undercover police are up to.

This is disturbing and appalling behaviour from the police.

How deeper could they go?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

surely this is still rape you cannot give informed consent if one of you is lying entirely about themselves.

No, that occurred to me. Apparently fraud by deception is only rape if it concerns the immediate act. For instance, sneaking into someone's bed in the dark and pretending to be their boyfriend when you're not - that's rape. This isn't.

In cases of alleged rape the only types of fraud which vitiated consent were frauds as to the nature of the act itself or as to the identity of the person who did the act.

http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/linekar.htm

In this case, 'identity' means something more immediate.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

How deeper could they go?

surely and sadly it's rather how much deeper have they gone?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

No, that occurred to me. Apparently fraud by deception is only rape if it concerns the immediate act. For instance, sneaking into someone's bed in the dark and pretending to be their boyfriend when you're not - that's rape. This isn't.

http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/linekar.htm

In this case, 'identity' means something more immediate.

don't buy it, if we lock up teenagers for fondling their mates then having sex and a family is definitely sexual assault. how could you give any kind of consent if you have been entirely mislead, surely it's Coercion.

 

[butchersapron]

Not legally right or the important point here.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Not legally right or the important point here.

how is it not the important point. a person has been deliberately mislead through the actions of the state and it's operatives and started a family under the guise of a police action.

the officers involved, their handlers and the home secretary are responsible and should be jailed (as hanging isn't allowed).