Political campaigns have become smarter, but Lush UK?
Discussion
Sway said:
Worse than murder /kidnap /torture?
Balls. The
s being investigated to that level were terrorists,al and so self righteous that no means was unforgivable for the ends.
Now, the nature of such deep undercover work means that scenarios happen that are deeply regrettable. Many are beyond the control of the officers.
It would appear that it's all irrelevant now anyway - seen loads on Facebook saying that undercover simply isn't viable any more, just make the taking of a pill a condition of entry into the group...
The women who's lives were ruined by the actions of the officers were never convicted of murder, kidnap or torture - please don't spread falsehoods.Balls. The
s being investigated to that level were terrorists,al and so self righteous that no means was unforgivable for the ends. Now, the nature of such deep undercover work means that scenarios happen that are deeply regrettable. Many are beyond the control of the officers.
It would appear that it's all irrelevant now anyway - seen loads on Facebook saying that undercover simply isn't viable any more, just make the taking of a pill a condition of entry into the group...
I didn't ask if it was worse than murder, anyway - I think it's self-evident that the police should hold themselves to much higher standards than criminals. I asked if it was ethical to impregnate then abandon a woman when investigating animal rights/environmentalist protesters, which is what happened.
Davos123 said:
Sway said:
Worse than murder /kidnap /torture?
Balls. Thes being investigated to that level were terrorists,al and so self righteous that no means was unforgivable for the ends.
Now, the nature of such deep undercover work means that scenarios happen that are deeply regrettable. Many are beyond the control of the officers.
It would appear that it's all irrelevant now anyway - seen loads on Facebook saying that undercover simply isn't viable any more, just make the taking of a pill a condition of entry into the group...
The women who's lives were ruined by the actions of the officers were never convicted of murder, kidnap or torture - please don't spread falsehoods.Balls. The
s being investigated to that level were terrorists,al and so self righteous that no means was unforgivable for the ends. Now, the nature of such deep undercover work means that scenarios happen that are deeply regrettable. Many are beyond the control of the officers.
It would appear that it's all irrelevant now anyway - seen loads on Facebook saying that undercover simply isn't viable any more, just make the taking of a pill a condition of entry into the group...
I didn't ask if it was worse than murder, anyway - I think it's self-evident that the police should hold themselves to much higher standards than criminals. I asked if it was ethical to impregnate then abandon a woman when investigating animal rights/environmentalist protesters, which is what happened.
Plod does not engage in half decade long moles for bunny cuddlers - they did indeed catch murderers, kidnappers and torturers.
Yes, there were a few women seriously effected. The problem with groups like these is they are an amorphous blob, with many well intentioned but ultimately clueless people hiding a core that think nothing of a letter bomb, or worse. These women were associated with that hidden core - otherwise they would have been useless.
This is Point Break, but over several years. Even Keanu Reeve f
ked up - and it seems from a bit of research we're talking about a tiny number of officers, doing a job that is seriously messed up at the best of times (living as someone else for months at a time, where any slip up could lead to you being killed), going off the rails and beyond the call of duty. Plod themselves aren't saying it's ethical - in fact the exact opposite. 
Reminds me of a campaign that Benetton ran in the US nearly 20 years ago. Building on their 'edgy' provocative campaigns, they featured implicitly humanising / sympathetic images of death row prisoners.
Lapped up the controversy and enhancing their liberal credentials. Then an ordinary couple in middle America recognised the picture of one of the guys who had kidnapped their child, tied him to a tree, raped and murdered him. They started an anti-Benetton campaign which just snowballed.
Cue grovelling retraction from Benetton once boycotts started to hurt. From memory they dropped the creative guy behind their campaign and hung him out to dry, tripling up the cynicism level imho.
Lapped up the controversy and enhancing their liberal credentials. Then an ordinary couple in middle America recognised the picture of one of the guys who had kidnapped their child, tied him to a tree, raped and murdered him. They started an anti-Benetton campaign which just snowballed.
Cue grovelling retraction from Benetton once boycotts started to hurt. From memory they dropped the creative guy behind their campaign and hung him out to dry, tripling up the cynicism level imho.
Undercover work in such circs is now more or less dead from actions of the police as well as actions from the animal rights briefs. Paid informers and supergrasses have had the same treatment. It's enough to make anyone think terrorists are working through the legal system to stop evidence being presented at court.
Although many people have an opinion on the matter of the undercover officer sleeping with the enemy, there's been precious little by way of facts coming out. I doubt we'll ever know the full circumstances.
I worked with a bobby who went undercover in the taxi 'wars' in the East End. He thought he'd infiltrated but a fellow cabby advised him about his driving being too 'police-like'. He didn't return.
It's dangerous work this undercover lark. Now public opinion, at least the FB and Twit users, seems to suggest it is unethical so I doubt it will be used except in extremis.
The group the chap mentioned in this thread as the person who started it all had infiltrated a group that was suspected of terrorist activities. There's a fair bit of pressure.
It is unlikely to be police officers who will do the undercover work now. It will be some form of 'specialist' unit. One with fewer safeguards.
Although many people have an opinion on the matter of the undercover officer sleeping with the enemy, there's been precious little by way of facts coming out. I doubt we'll ever know the full circumstances.
I worked with a bobby who went undercover in the taxi 'wars' in the East End. He thought he'd infiltrated but a fellow cabby advised him about his driving being too 'police-like'. He didn't return.
It's dangerous work this undercover lark. Now public opinion, at least the FB and Twit users, seems to suggest it is unethical so I doubt it will be used except in extremis.
The group the chap mentioned in this thread as the person who started it all had infiltrated a group that was suspected of terrorist activities. There's a fair bit of pressure.
It is unlikely to be police officers who will do the undercover work now. It will be some form of 'specialist' unit. One with fewer safeguards.
Mojooo said:
Terzo123 said:
Lush UK are now getting Facebook to delete any negative reviews. Only 27k or so to go.
Not very ethical.
Most are fake//irrelevant thoughNot very ethical.
dont have a problem with the campaign although the shop poster is not as clear as it could be.
Not sure that will work out well for them in the long run.
Do you think we can get Lush to spare a thought for the hard done by drug dealers stitched up by undercover officers?
"Meet Bob. Bob used to earn an honest living selling E's to happy ravers every weekend. Then Disco Dave arrived on the scene promising Bob pills of the purest quality. Disco Dave was undercover old bill. Bob no longer sells E's to glowstick waving, gurning ravers, Bob's in prison. Justice for Bob!"
"Meet Bob. Bob used to earn an honest living selling E's to happy ravers every weekend. Then Disco Dave arrived on the scene promising Bob pills of the purest quality. Disco Dave was undercover old bill. Bob no longer sells E's to glowstick waving, gurning ravers, Bob's in prison. Justice for Bob!"
Davos123 said:
Do you think it's ethical for undercover police agents to enter into relationships and in some cases, have children with, people suspected of being a part of groups which may commit illegal acts? The women in some of these cases were never even charged, just used so police could get closer to others. It's fking shameful and several times worse than the criminal acts they were investigating in the first place.
Yes.king shameful and several times worse than the criminal acts they were investigating in the first place.Undercover work is presumably incredibly dangerous. I'm prepared to give them leeway (so long as they don't break the law) to catch criminals.
Anyone who thinks otherwise should NEVER call on the Police for help NOR complain when criminals get of scot free.
Davos123 said:
I asked if it was ethical to impregnate then abandon a woman when investigating animal rights/environmentalist protesters, which is what happened.
Thousands, nah millions of men out there abandon pregnant partners. Some are actively pushed away by mothers who withdraw access rights.I'm prepared to overlook (sad though it is) As a situation that is not limited to 1 group.
Mastodon2 said:
This is their Gerald Ratner moment, they've handled this terribly. At it's heart, this is a campaign about a load of hippies being pissed off that they were investigated for their criminal activities but the way they've advertised it smears all police.
Shameful behavior, I hope their business is irreparably damaged.
I take the opposing view. I'm normally 100% in the law and order, lock up the scumbags camp, but I think the whole undercover officers shagging activists thing was totally out of order - the sort of thing you'd expect from the Americans, not the British establishment.Shameful behavior, I hope their business is irreparably damaged.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Isn't this aimed less at Police investigating and more at Police going so deep that they are sleeping and practically living with people as "partners"?
Yeah, I imagined it has to do with the whole Mark Kennedy thing which was very wrong indeed. But the timing does seem a bit odd, that's been away from the headlines a while now. Would have made a lot more sense if they'd said something at the time? Or perhaps someone from their senior management has been targetted and now is out for revenge. Although it looks like it's not working. Rich_W said:
Davos123 said:
Do you think it's ethical for undercover police agents to enter into relationships and in some cases, have children with, people suspected of being a part of groups which may commit illegal acts? The women in some of these cases were never even charged, just used so police could get closer to others. It's fking shameful and several times worse than the criminal acts they were investigating in the first place.
Yes.king shameful and several times worse than the criminal acts they were investigating in the first place.Undercover work is presumably incredibly dangerous. I'm prepared to give them leeway (so long as they don't break the law) to catch criminals.
Anyone who thinks otherwise should NEVER call on the Police for help NOR complain when criminals get of scot free.
Davos123 said:
I asked if it was ethical to impregnate then abandon a woman when investigating animal rights/environmentalist protesters, which is what happened.
Thousands, nah millions of men out there abandon pregnant partners. Some are actively pushed away by mothers who withdraw access rights.I'm prepared to overlook (sad though it is) As a situation that is not limited to 1 group.
Kermit power said:
I take the opposing view. I'm normally 100% in the law and order, lock up the scumbags camp, but I think the whole undercover officers shagging activists thing was totally out of order - the sort of thing you'd expect from the Americans, not the British establishment.
it is a sticky one TBH - at this point all the crims need to do is supply a 'partner' and then the old bill will need to knock their investigation on the headOK, it seems there is an ongoing inquiry. Lush have issued statement
https://uk.lush.com/article/spycops-statement
in which case I take back what I said about timing,
https://uk.lush.com/article/spycops-statement
in which case I take back what I said about timing,
Kermit power said:
A bloke running off an leaving a pregnant woman is also completely reprehensible, but I don't think it's anything close to deliberately targeting women as part of an undercover operation before getting them pregnant and then vanishing.
Targeting women as part of an undercover operation. Absolutely fine in my book. We don't give women a free pass just because they are womenGetting them pregnant before vanishing. It obviously wasn't a rape situation. Women who have unprotected sex with men run that risk. Else they would be on the pill or insist the man wears a condom. The sex is what happens when 2 people meet and there is mutual attraction.
A few drinks, a lot of flirting. Things happen.
Davos123 said:
Do you think it's ethical for undercover police agents to enter into relationships and in some cases, have children with, people suspected of being a part of groups which may commit illegal acts?
Do you think it's ethical for ARA to dig up family graves and threaten people as part of their activities supported by Lush?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff