• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Prosecuting with Prostitution - undercover and sex

Andiferous

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Andiferous"/>
I'm wondering about the implications of this.
Guardian

Mark Kennedy Mark Kennedy had sexual relationships with several women while serving as an undercover policeman and infiltrating a ring of environmental activists

Undercover police officers routinely adopted a tactic of "promiscuity" with the blessing of senior commanders, according to a former agent who worked in a secretive unit of the Metropolitan police for four years.

The former undercover policeman claims that sexual relationships with activists were sanctioned for both men and women officers infiltrating anarchist, leftwing and environmental groups.

Sex was a tool to help officers blend in, the officer claimed, and was widely used as a technique to glean intelligence. His comments contradict claims last week from the Association of Chief Police Officers that operatives were absolutely forbidden to sleep with activists.

The one stipulation, according to the officer from the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit formed to prevent violent disorder on the streets of London, was that falling in love was considered highly unprofessional because it might compromise an investigation. He said undercover officers, particularly those infiltrating environmental and leftwing groups, viewed having sex with a large number of partners "as part of the job".

"Everybody knew it was a very promiscuous lifestyle," said the former officer, who first revealed his life as an undercover agent to the Observer last year. "You cannot not be promiscuous in those groups. Otherwise you'll stand out straightaway."

The claims follow the unmasking of undercover PC Mark Kennedy, who had sexual relationships with several women during the seven years he spent infiltrating a ring of environmental activists. Another two covert officers have been named in the past fortnight who also had sex with the protesters they were sent to spy on, fuelling allegations that senior officers had authorised sleeping around as a legitimate means of gathering intelligence.

However Jon Murphy, Acpo's spokesman on serious and organised crime, said last week that undercover officers were not permitted "under any circumstances" to sleep with protesters.

He added: "It is grossly unprofessional. It is a diversion from what they are there to do."

Mounting anger among women protesters will see female activists converge on Scotland Yard tomorrow to demand that the Met disclose the true extent of undercover policing. The demonstration is also, according to organisers, designed to express "solidarity with all the women who have been exploited by men they thought they could trust".

Climate campaigner Sophie Stephens, 27, who knew Kennedy, said there was fury among women who felt violated by the state: "We know women have been abused by men posing as policemen and it's becoming clear this was state-sanctioned. These women did not know they were forming a relationship with policemen. It's appalling, and now we want the full details of the undercover officers to be made public."

The protest will be followed on Tuesday by the appearance before the Commons home affairs select committee of the acting Met commissioner, Tim Godwin, and Commander Bob Broadhurst, who is responsible for public order in the capital. Both will be asked to explain why Scotland Yard gave false information over the use of covert operatives during the London G20 protests in 2009. The issue of sexual activity by operatives is also likely to be brought up.

The former SDS officer claims a lack of guidelines meant sex was an ideal way to maintain cover. He admitted sleeping with at least two of his female targets as a way of obtaining intelligence.

"When you are on an undercover unit you were not given a set of instructions saying you could or couldn't do the following. They didn't say to you that you couldn't go out and drink because technically you're a police officer, that you shouldn't go out and get involved in violent confrontations, you shouldn't take recreational drugs.

"As regards being with women in very, very, very promiscuous groups such as the eco-wing, environmental movement, leftwing, or the Animal Liberation Front, it's an extremely promiscuous lifestyle and you cannot not be promiscuous in there.

"Among fellow undercover officers, there is not really any kudos in the fact that you are shagging other people while deployed. Basically it's just regarded as part of the job. It'd be highly unlikely that you were not [having sex].

"When you are using the tool of sex to maintain your cover or maybe to glean more intelligence, because they certainly talk a lot more, pillow talk, you would be ready to move on if you felt an attachment growing.

"The best way of stopping any liaison getting too heavy was to shag somebody else. It's amazing how women don't like you going to bed with someone else," said the officer, whose undercover deployment infiltrating anti-racist groups lasted from 1993 to 1997. Two years later the SDS became the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, the secretive organisation that employed Kennedy and whose activities are the subject of three investigations.

The officer added that undercover police were strictly encouraged not to form a bond with women they were sleeping with and said that he knew Jim Boyling, the undercover officer who married an activist he was supposed to be spying upon.

Boyling, a specialist operations detective constable with the Met, was suspended on Friday pending an investigation into his professional conduct.

The former SDS officer, who has now left the Met, said one stipulation by senior commanders was that undercover officers should be married, so that they had something to return to. He said the move was introduced when a spy never returned after five years undercover.
 
arg-fallbackName="Memeticemetic"/>
Utterly revolting. All I have as tools of seduction are good looks, a keen and penetrating intellect, highly developed empathy, and devilish charm. I don't need a bunch of damn cops muscling in on my action when I'm trying to pick up hippy chicks.
 
arg-fallbackName="Andiferous"/>
I should have said "sex undercover" but hindsight is 20/20. I somehow think you won't win hippy chicks from suits. ;)

I can see it being handy. But where's the line with prostitution and rape, really, given these ethics... or power play.
 
arg-fallbackName="Memeticemetic"/>
Well, to deal a bit more seriously with the subject matter, I really do find this revolting. I know deception is often considered a legitimate tool of seduction; and that seduction is widely considered a tool for gaining power. And I reject the legitimacy of those concepts as being immoral. I consider the attainment of consent for sex gained under false pretenses to be tantamount to rape, so the establishment of a false identity and subsequent seduction of these women is a despicable act. If that makes me a slightly promiscuous prude, so be it, but I refuse to lie to get laid and those who engage in this practice should be convinced to take a large zucchini up the wazoo under equally false pretenses as just retribution.
 
arg-fallbackName="kenandkids"/>
This entire concept is weird, that of undercover I mean. Realistically, to be undercover means sanctioning or performing actions that show you to be "one of the group." At this point, you would be the very person that you are hoping to bust.

This also leads into a serious problem with undercover work, it is entrapment of the highest magnitude. Undercover prostitutes highlights this especially well. Here in America, it has been determined by those on high that a cop sitting in a marked, yet not perfectly visible, car who watches someone speed by is guilty of entrapment; yet a person that poses as a prostitute or drug dealer and actively attempts to coerce people into breaking the law is not guilty of entrapment.
 
arg-fallbackName="ArthurWilborn"/>
kenandkids said:
This entire concept is weird, that of undercover I mean. Realistically, to be undercover means sanctioning or performing actions that show you to be "one of the group." At this point, you would be the very person that you are hoping to bust.

This also leads into a serious problem with undercover work, it is entrapment of the highest magnitude. Undercover prostitutes highlights this especially well. Here in America, it has been determined by those on high that a cop sitting in a marked, yet not perfectly visible, car who watches someone speed by is guilty of entrapment; yet a person that poses as a prostitute or drug dealer and actively attempts to coerce people into breaking the law is not guilty of entrapment.

I don't think you know what "entrapment" means. Basically, it means compelling someone to do something illegal that they wouldn't do by themselves. A hidden police car isn't entrapment because they didn't make the person speed. Offering someone an opportunity to break the law isn't entrapment unless you also gave them the idea.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

As for the issue in the OP, I don't see a problem with it. As the cops mentioned, it's simply a part of the culture. Those women and men are more then willing to share their bed, and if they end up getting burned for it that's their fault. Lying about their job isn't a crime and really isn't that big of a deal.
 
arg-fallbackName="kenandkids"/>
ArthurWilborn said:
I don't think you know what "entrapment" means. Basically, it means compelling someone to do something illegal that they wouldn't do by themselves. A hidden police car isn't entrapment because they didn't make the person speed. Offering someone an opportunity to break the law isn't entrapment unless you also gave them the idea.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

As for the issue in the OP, I don't see a problem with it. As the cops mentioned, it's simply a part of the culture. Those women and men are more then willing to share their bed, and if they end up getting burned for it that's their fault. Lying about their job isn't a crime and really isn't that big of a deal.

I agree that a cop witnessing someone speeding isn't entrapment, it is the law that disagrees. Cops are not allowed to hide and watch people speed, they must be visible to a reasonable degree to write the ticket.

As for "offering someone an opportunity" to break a law, this isn't always the case. A hooker on a corner may or may not be a lure to a john looking for a paid date, but many of these operations involve aggressive promotion and sometimes coercion by the undercover. The bar hookers are a good example. They look for a target, approach, and then spend the next length of time trying to convince the target to avail themselves. Drug undercovers do the same thing. They arrive and begin pushing their product, oft-times working hard to convince people to use or buy.
 
arg-fallbackName="ArthurWilborn"/>
kenandkids said:
ArthurWilborn said:
I don't think you know what "entrapment" means. Basically, it means compelling someone to do something illegal that they wouldn't do by themselves. A hidden police car isn't entrapment because they didn't make the person speed. Offering someone an opportunity to break the law isn't entrapment unless you also gave them the idea.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

As for the issue in the OP, I don't see a problem with it. As the cops mentioned, it's simply a part of the culture. Those women and men are more then willing to share their bed, and if they end up getting burned for it that's their fault. Lying about their job isn't a crime and really isn't that big of a deal.

I agree that a cop witnessing someone speeding isn't entrapment, it is the law that disagrees. Cops are not allowed to hide and watch people speed, they must be visible to a reasonable degree to write the ticket.

As for "offering someone an opportunity" to break a law, this isn't always the case. A hooker on a corner may or may not be a lure to a john looking for a paid date, but many of these operations involve aggressive promotion and sometimes coercion by the undercover. The bar hookers are a good example. They look for a target, approach, and then spend the next length of time trying to convince the target to avail themselves. Drug undercovers do the same thing. They arrive and begin pushing their product, oft-times working hard to convince people to use or buy.

What's your basis for claiming this? It's not that I don't believe you, that sounds like typically scummy cop behavior, but that does clearly fall under entrapment and I hard to believe the cops would do something this obviously against the rules.
 
arg-fallbackName="kenandkids"/>
ArthurWilborn said:
What's your basis for claiming this? It's not that I don't believe you, that sounds like typically scummy cop behavior, but that does clearly fall under entrapment and I hard to believe the cops would do something this obviously against the rules.

These are generally well known and accepted tactics. Most of my knowledge is first-hand or "inside" information, but just googling provides numerous accounts and papers written on the topic. What is especially disturbing is that courts have struggled with entrapment and decided that a person who has previous convictions or a history of a behaviour is not subject to entrapment due to a proclivity for the act. This allows officers to target people and sometimes forcibly convince them to engage in illegal activity, even if the person had been clean or "straight" for decades. The bar is set so high for defences to prove entrapment, it rarely succeeds as a defence, and places like the UK do not consider it a valid defence only a mitigating factor.


police created crime:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-256544.html
http://boards.trutv.com/showthread.php?5389-What-About-Morality
http://newduilawyerblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/entrapment-in-dui-cases.html
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/09/0921.html
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100809/bc_entrapment_update_100809?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Creating legit medical marijuana cards to catch people legally selling marijuana: http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/10/19/news/doc4cbdd257652eb103188209.txt

other stuff:
http://www.policeissues.com/From_Morals_to_Practice.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/nyregion/16terror.html
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/practice-points/the-law-regarding-entrapment
http://lawiki.org/lawwiki/Improperly_obtained_evidence
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3476707
 
arg-fallbackName="Inferno"/>
"The best way of stopping any liaison getting too heavy was to shag somebody else. It's amazing how women don't like you going to bed with someone else," said the officer, whose undercover deployment infiltrating anti-racist groups lasted from 1993 to 1997.

Had to lol at the above. :lol:

I don't think it's such a big deal, tbh. The women would have slept around anyway, so who cares if it was with policemen or not? The only reason they're angry is because now everybody knows that they're sluts.
Now if the policemen had RAPED them, that'd be a different thing. But I don't see any indication of that, so who cares? Good on those policemen-studs, even though I wouldn't want to do it.
 
arg-fallbackName="RichardMNixon"/>
Memeticemetic said:
I consider the attainment of consent for sex gained under false pretenses to be tantamount to rape, so the establishment of a false identity and subsequent seduction of these women is a despicable act.

Out of curiosity, what was your take on this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew

Fundamentally I don't see anything wrong with it. Hell getting information from sex is glamorized in James Bond movies and the like. If that's the culture of the organization he's in then that's how he's got to act.

The potential issues I see might be something like revealing his status and offering amnesty in exchange for sex or something similar. Pretending to be radical about a cause doesn't give you power to hold over someone. Being a police officer does, and if you're using that status then the line starts to get crossed.
 
arg-fallbackName="Memeticemetic"/>
RichardMNixon said:
Memeticemetic said:
I consider the attainment of consent for sex gained under false pretenses to be tantamount to rape, so the establishment of a false identity and subsequent seduction of these women is a despicable act.

Out of curiosity, what was your take on this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew

Fundamentally I don't see anything wrong with it. Hell getting information from sex is glamorized in James Bond movies and the like. If that's the culture of the organization he's in then that's how he's got to act.

The potential issues I see might be something like revealing his status and offering amnesty in exchange for sex or something similar. Pretending to be radical about a cause doesn't give you power to hold over someone. Being a police officer does, and if you're using that status then the line starts to get crossed.

Yeah, I remember that case and thinking it was ridiculous at the time. I need to back off from the 'rape' card I threw out so cavalierly, that's really far too strong a word to accurately express my opinion. I would still call the man who obtained consent through deliberate deception despicable, worthy of an ass-kicking but not prosecution. For me, it is a matter of a personal moral code, not what I think should be prosecutable.

I do disagree that pretending to be a radical about a cause doesn't give you power over someone. Of course it does. If you pretend to share the passions of the target of your seduction you have inhibited their capacity to make informed decisions while remaining in control of yourself and your perspective of the situation. That is the very essence of power. Many would disagree with me that there is anything morally wrong about this, and I accept that. It is, after all, fairly typical human behavior. It's just a behavior I have chosen not to exhibit.
 
arg-fallbackName="RichardMNixon"/>
Memeticemetic said:
I do disagree that pretending to be a radical about a cause doesn't give you power over someone. Of course it does. If you pretend to share the passions of the target of your seduction you have inhibited their capacity to make informed decisions while remaining in control of yourself and your perspective of the situation. That is the very essence of power. Many would disagree with me that there is anything morally wrong about this, and I accept that. It is, after all, fairly typical human behavior. It's just a behavior I have chosen not to exhibit.

Where do you draw the line though? Is pretending to like chick flicks moral? Pretending to like ethnic food that you don't? Music you don't? Hiding your porn?

What about overemphasizing your devotion to feminist causes? Overstating your involvement in a particular political campaign? "Oh yeah, I remember watching that pro-choice rally on TV, that was uhh... great! I was so moved."
 
arg-fallbackName="Memeticemetic"/>
RichardMNixon said:
Memeticemetic said:
I do disagree that pretending to be a radical about a cause doesn't give you power over someone. Of course it does. If you pretend to share the passions of the target of your seduction you have inhibited their capacity to make informed decisions while remaining in control of yourself and your perspective of the situation. That is the very essence of power. Many would disagree with me that there is anything morally wrong about this, and I accept that. It is, after all, fairly typical human behavior. It's just a behavior I have chosen not to exhibit.

Where do you draw the line though? Is pretending to like chick flicks moral? Pretending to like ethnic food that you don't? Music you don't? Hiding your porn?

What about overemphasizing your devotion to feminist causes? Overstating your involvement in a particular political campaign? "Oh yeah, I remember watching that pro-choice rally on TV, that was uhh... great! I was so moved."

I try not to draw a line at all. Dishonesty is dishonesty, and I do my best not to deceive in any way. I would consider all of your examples to be fairly mild and easily forgivable offenses, but offenses none-the-less. Except for hiding porn, of course. I don't hide the fact that I have or use porn but I'm sure as hell not going to rub the poor girls face in it. Heh, I probably could have worded that last bit better, but I'll let it stand for comedy's sake.
 
arg-fallbackName="Andiferous"/>
I think I lost the direction of this thread at about the point it morphed into subversive political motivations born of power struggles of radical feminists. ;)

Who is to say it's only women are affected or that only women are feminists?

In my mind it is about hypocrisy and only holding some people to the law. Like prostituting to wrangle in prostitutes. Hypocrisy is ebil.

It's also about the thin line between using sex under cover and using sex as a police enforcement tool, and the attitude that tends to bleed across into normal police business.

And inevitably it's about big brother. ;)
 
Back
Top