425k, yours for ****** an undercover cop

[LucreLout]

Sorry, but it really is a load of old bks. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone that hasn't lied to members of the opposite sex before, and I'm far from sure any of you have either.
So he was a working man rather than a dog on a string freeloader. That's good, right?
So he was married... Well yeah, most blokes having affairs probably are.
No evidence has been presented that he consented to having a child, only that he was there when it arrived.
Sorry, but she shouldn't be entitled to anything more than garnishing his wages, same as every other lass that let someone knock her up.

[anonymous-user]

The point that some appear to be missing is that the subterfuge here was employed on behalf of the State, as part of an over zealous campaign of surveillance of people who had not committed any serious crimes. This was not just the usual situation of someone lying his way into bed with someone else.

[greygoose]

Breadvan72 said:

The point that some appear to be missing is that the subterfuge here was employed on behalf of the State, as part of an over zealous campaign of surveillance of people who had not committed any serious crimes. This was not just the usual situation of someone lying his way into bed with someone else.

Some posters do seem to have the view that this was just an affair by some bloke rather than a man employed to get close to the woman in order to infiltrate her possible friends to gather intelligence. The fact it lead to a child being born which he just abandoned at the drop of a hat shows remarkably dubious decision making by him and his managers.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Breadvan72 said:

The point that some appear to be missing is that the subterfuge here was employed on behalf of the State, as part of an over zealous campaign of surveillance of people who had not committed any serious crimes. This was not just the usual situation of someone lying his way into bed with someone else.

That doesn't effect the core of her complaint, that is she had a relationship with someone who wasn't who she thought they were. The fact that he was acting for the state instead of himself doesn't alter the position from her standpoint.

She is in the same position and loads of other women who have been duped by men into having sex / a relationship thinking they were single when they were married, thinking their job was x when it was y, etc etc.

[anonymous-user]

This went further because this guy was a State agent using intimacy in order to spy on the woman and her associates. There's an added dimension when the abuse of State power is involved.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Breadvan72 said:

This went further because this guy was a State agent using intimacy in order to spy on the woman and her associates. There's an added dimension when the abuse of State power is involved.

That may be a factor if disciplining him, but when compensating her, how was her experience different from any other woman duped by a man?

The fact that he was employed to dupe her as opposed to just doing it of his own accord made absolutely no difference to her situation.

If a freelance undercover journalist had duped her, would she have been less affected?

[carinaman]

The long baby arm of the law?

[Thorodin]

Maybe the public have the right to expect a certain standard of behaviour from the State compared to Grub Street? Or alternatively the authorities have more to hide and will try to avoid consequences.

[Rovinghawk]

Breadvan72 said:

The point that some appear to be missing is that the subterfuge here was employed on behalf of the State

I would suggest that pregnancy was not on behalf of the state. He did not need to father a child as part of his job.

Breadvan72 said:

part of an over zealous campaign of surveillance of people who had not committed any serious crimes.

I agree totally with this position, but still maintain that parenthood was not part of the surveillance operation.

[Randy Winkman]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Breadvan72 said:

This went further because this guy was a State agent using intimacy in order to spy on the woman and her associates. There's an added dimension when the abuse of State power is involved.

That may be a factor if disciplining him, but when compensating her, how was her experience different from any other woman duped by a man?

The fact that he was employed to dupe her as opposed to just doing it of his own accord made absolutely no difference to her situation.

If a freelance undercover journalist had duped her, would she have been less affected?

Surely it's not the only case where someone is compensated because they suffer a loss because of the way another person is doing their job?

[Pit Pony]

jshell said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It may not be pleasant but if lying to a woman to get consensual sex is rape, then I'm in trouble.

A LOT of us, probably most, would be in trouble. He could have used a condom though!

:NO: Not me. Never lied to anyone, in order to get laid. Which is why I'd still be a virgin, if my wife hadn't decided I'd make a great father for her kids. I'm not convinced, but they all tolerate me, so hey.

[carinaman]

I just chanced upon this while researching something else:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/...

I am pleased I'm not the only person that thought undercover cops fathering children was rape like. What's the difference between what these officers got up to and the Fake Sheikh getting Emma Morgan to play the role of Drug Dealer?

[otolith]

The idea that consent can be retrospectively withdrawn when the woman becomes aware of new information about the man is a dangerous one.

[anonymous-user]

That's not what happens. The question is whether consent is given when a material fact is withheld. Consent induced by deception may not be consent at all. There is a bit of case law on this.

[oyster]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Breadvan72 said:

This went further because this guy was a State agent using intimacy in order to spy on the woman and her associates. There's an added dimension when the abuse of State power is involved.

That may be a factor if disciplining him, but when compensating her, how was her experience different from any other woman duped by a man?

The fact that he was employed to dupe her as opposed to just doing it of his own accord made absolutely no difference to her situation.

If a freelance undercover journalist had duped her, would she have been less affected?

Surely she was as much duped by the state as she was by the policeman involved.

[carinaman]

How does stuff like this compare to people impersonating police officers? It's not OK to impersonate a police officer but it's OK for a police officer to fake being a planet saving eco warrior?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M662XNAmcM

I've read Simon Day's book and the mentions of Crack addiction, but I am now starting to worry that he's actually an undercover police officer. Lovely.

[otolith]

Breadvan72 said:

That's not what happens. The question is whether consent is given when a material fact is withheld. Consent induced by deception may not be consent at all. There is a bit of case law on this.

The difference is semantic. It still amounts to "I would not have slept with you had I known X, therefore I have changed my mind about whether I wanted to sleep with you, therefore you raped me".

[anonymous-user]

I disagree. The woman has not changed her mind. Her unwillingness to sleep with an undercover policeman existed before, during and after the sex. Her consent was vitiated by deception.

[anonymous-user]

I should add "arguably". I can't recall offhand what the cases say on this. I may look them up later.

[Rovinghawk]

Breadvan72 said:

Her consent was vitiated by deception.

Where does case law stand on "Yes, I will still respect you in the morning"?

It's a source of concern to me.