This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Read this today :
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/20/lisa-jones-girlfriend-of-und...
The thing that caught my attention is where they say he took on the persona of a professional climber.
How easy do you think it would be to keep up that pretence, long term, amongst a group of friends that climb?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/20/lisa-jones-girlfriend-of-und...
The thing that caught my attention is where they say he took on the persona of a professional climber.
How easy do you think it would be to keep up that pretence, long term, amongst a group of friends that climb?
2
2
In reply to mountain_jay:
Just ending every sentence with #northface #scarpa should suffice I would have thought.
Just ending every sentence with #northface #scarpa should suffice I would have thought.
32
In reply to mountain_jay:
Just keep referring to your grappling hooks, and the number of times you've scaled Mt Snowdon.....
Just keep referring to your grappling hooks, and the number of times you've scaled Mt Snowdon.....
Post edited at 17:17
3
4
In reply to mountain_jay:
just keep quoting the well informed and knowledgeable opinions so readily shared on UKC.
just keep quoting the well informed and knowledgeable opinions so readily shared on UKC.
17
In reply to mountain_jay:
The 'professional climber' thing is media bollocks. He never took on the persona of a 'professional climber'. They're confused between his cover working as a rope access person (enabled him to be away a lot), and the fact he did genuinely climb too with his friends/targets.
The 'professional climber' thing is media bollocks. He never took on the persona of a 'professional climber'. They're confused between his cover working as a rope access person (enabled him to be away a lot), and the fact he did genuinely climb too with his friends/targets.
Post edited at 18:13
11
7
In reply to Timmd:
I don't quite get your point? Of course it wasn't his home town that he was an undercover in.
He moved to a new area with a comprehensive background including false ID constructed for him.
The climbing wasn't a facade, he genuinely was a climber. Climbing and mountain stuff is a generally quite a popular pastime in those kind of eco-activist circles (remember Ben Moon and Newbury etc.?) and he ended up climbing a bit with his 'friends', and also going away for rope access work (but not in reality of course, that was just the cover story).
I don't quite get your point? Of course it wasn't his home town that he was an undercover in.
He moved to a new area with a comprehensive background including false ID constructed for him.
The climbing wasn't a facade, he genuinely was a climber. Climbing and mountain stuff is a generally quite a popular pastime in those kind of eco-activist circles (remember Ben Moon and Newbury etc.?) and he ended up climbing a bit with his 'friends', and also going away for rope access work (but not in reality of course, that was just the cover story).
4
1
28
In reply to JayPee630:
I deleted because it wasn't really adding anything to the thread I decided, it was more some musings on how one might go about doing what he did, I wasn't somehow trying to say you were wrong (perhaps unusually for UKC ) .
I deleted because it wasn't really adding anything to the thread I decided, it was more some musings on how one might go about doing what he did, I wasn't somehow trying to say you were wrong (perhaps unusually for UKC ) .
1
2
17
In reply to mountain_jay:
Good article. Total scumbag and all the the people that were behind him. Zero morality: in essence this is very twisted, perverse form of prostitution. This story reminds of the idea that the world is run, at least in part, by psychopaths: that is people who have no care or feelings for others. Hope she gets a ton of compensation.
Good article. Total scumbag and all the the people that were behind him. Zero morality: in essence this is very twisted, perverse form of prostitution. This story reminds of the idea that the world is run, at least in part, by psychopaths: that is people who have no care or feelings for others. Hope she gets a ton of compensation.
18
6
5
In reply to mountain_jay:
I know the CPS have specifically said that the recent case of the woman who got 8 years for pretending to be a man has no bearing in this case, but the CPS aren't always the best of lawyers.....
I know the CPS have specifically said that the recent case of the woman who got 8 years for pretending to be a man has no bearing in this case, but the CPS aren't always the best of lawyers.....
2
1
1
In reply to Removed User:
Thats pretty low. Rich was witnessed climbing stuff that 99.9 % of us couldn't do, irrespective of any exaggerated claims made.
Thats pretty low. Rich was witnessed climbing stuff that 99.9 % of us couldn't do, irrespective of any exaggerated claims made.
4
In reply to howifeel:
Doesn't read like a "lame" or "begrudging" apology.
http://news.met.police.uk/news/claimants-in-civil-cases-receive-mps-apology...
> 8 years is better than a lame late begrudge apology by far.
Doesn't read like a "lame" or "begrudging" apology.
http://news.met.police.uk/news/claimants-in-civil-cases-receive-mps-apology...
2
In reply to Offwidth:
His profile as a climber was based on a lie though. He would have got away with it if he hadn't started making claims about his running and boxing as well.
> Thats pretty low. Rich was witnessed climbing stuff that 99.9 % of us couldn't do, irrespective of any exaggerated claims made.
His profile as a climber was based on a lie though. He would have got away with it if he hadn't started making claims about his running and boxing as well.
2
In reply to mountain_jay:
Read an interesting point today that made me think.
This compensation will come from the met, presumably from funds that would otherwise be spent on policing. Would it be better if a smaller figure was awarded, but came directly from these officers and the senior officers that approved these actions? Certainly the money he received from media appearances could be better spent. I'm excluding any child support. It seems only right that the met pay for the upkeep of children they have collectively fathered
Read an interesting point today that made me think.
This compensation will come from the met, presumably from funds that would otherwise be spent on policing. Would it be better if a smaller figure was awarded, but came directly from these officers and the senior officers that approved these actions? Certainly the money he received from media appearances could be better spent. I'm excluding any child support. It seems only right that the met pay for the upkeep of children they have collectively fathered
In reply to Offwidth:
It's not really low is it given he was peddling bullshit for personal gain off the back of everyone, and appears to have carried on doing that in other areas as well, once he was called out.
It's not really low is it given he was peddling bullshit for personal gain off the back of everyone, and appears to have carried on doing that in other areas as well, once he was called out.
6
1
In reply to toad:
I agree, this seems far more evil than what happened in that case and it is hard to believe that if you can get 8 years for rape for a half-arsed attempt at pretending to be a man you can't get done for rape for getting sex and impregnating a woman under false presences using an elaborately constructed story while actively seeking to act against her and her friends.
I could just about see the justification for an unpleasant tactic like this if used by MI5 against-murderous terrorists like ISIL or the IRA but in is totally disproportionate for the police to use to investigate environmental groups.
> I know the CPS have specifically said that the recent case of the woman who got 8 years for pretending to be a man has no bearing in this case, but the CPS aren't always the best of lawyers.....
I agree, this seems far more evil than what happened in that case and it is hard to believe that if you can get 8 years for rape for a half-arsed attempt at pretending to be a man you can't get done for rape for getting sex and impregnating a woman under false presences using an elaborately constructed story while actively seeking to act against her and her friends.
I could just about see the justification for an unpleasant tactic like this if used by MI5 against-murderous terrorists like ISIL or the IRA but in is totally disproportionate for the police to use to investigate environmental groups.
10
1
In reply to off-duty:
presumably there are still deep cover agents infiltrating eco-groups and forming relationships?
can you justify this?
presumably there are still deep cover agents infiltrating eco-groups and forming relationships?
can you justify this?
2
In reply to malk:
Infiltrating eco-groups - I don't know, what's the intelligence case?
Forming relationships - I would very much doubt it after this, and to be honest it should have been avoided at all costs prior to that. However if it's established that the one thing an undercover officer can't do is have sex with someone, what do you think the consequences might be...?
> presumably there are still deep cover agents infiltrating eco-groups and forming relationships?
> can you justify this?
Infiltrating eco-groups - I don't know, what's the intelligence case?
Forming relationships - I would very much doubt it after this, and to be honest it should have been avoided at all costs prior to that. However if it's established that the one thing an undercover officer can't do is have sex with someone, what do you think the consequences might be...?
2
In reply to off-duty:
being outed as an undercover cop in the eco-activist sex cult?
> However if it's established that the one thing an undercover officer can't do is have sex with someone, what do you think the consequences might be...?
being outed as an undercover cop in the eco-activist sex cult?
Post edited at 12:03
5
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Fixed it for you.
> He would have got away with it too if it hadn't been for those meddling kids.
Fixed it for you.
In reply to mountain_jay:
I'm suprised no one has -to my knowledge - suggested that these men committed rape, on the grounds that consent was based on a deception.
I'm suprised no one has -to my knowledge - suggested that these men committed rape, on the grounds that consent was based on a deception.
Post edited at 12:57
2
In reply to mountain_jay:
industrial climber- nothing that 200K/yr couldn't fake with a rope access course. and presumably he had detailed background info on everyone he met so could tailor his lies to the situation
ps. word on the street is that his rock climbing was a bit sketchy, so nothing to be overtly concerned about..
> How easy do you think it would be to keep up that pretence, long term, amongst a group of friends that climb?
industrial climber- nothing that 200K/yr couldn't fake with a rope access course. and presumably he had detailed background info on everyone he met so could tailor his lies to the situation
ps. word on the street is that his rock climbing was a bit sketchy, so nothing to be overtly concerned about..
In reply to off-duty:
you're the cop- you tell me
i can see a justification coming based on a small number of violent actions by the alf or somesuch (or maybe not as they have actively facilitated such actions?)
> Infiltrating eco-groups - I don't know, what's the intelligence case?
you're the cop- you tell me
i can see a justification coming based on a small number of violent actions by the alf or somesuch (or maybe not as they have actively facilitated such actions?)
Post edited at 13:15
1
In reply to malk:
I agree, as a member of the public, there is a possible justification based on the violent actions of the ALF, or other groups.
Not sure why "being a cop" would make me want to infiltrate these groups.
> you're the cop- you tell me
> i can see a justification coming based on a small number of violent actions by the alf or somesuch (or maybe not as they have actively facilitated such actions?)
I agree, as a member of the public, there is a possible justification based on the violent actions of the ALF, or other groups.
Not sure why "being a cop" would make me want to infiltrate these groups.
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I'm sure we had a thread on this. It may "seem" to be a "half-arsed" attempt, but, let's face it, that'd be your opinion, seemingly based on news reports. It certainly wasn't shared by the sentencing judge -
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of-hhj-dutton-r-v...
The essence of the reason it was rape was because she was lying as to her gender. The act the victim consented to wasn't male/female sex, but female/female sexual assault.
In the case of the undercover officers, whilst many other things, some of which might include criminal offences, wasn't the criminal offence of rape.
One of the reasons this has blown up to such proportions is precisely because there was no justification for the relationships. It appears to have been entirely unauthorised behaviour, with none of the rationale or justification that would be/ should be required. Hence the suggestion that other offences may still be under consideration.
> I agree, this seems far more evil than what happened in that case and it is hard to believe that if you can get 8 years for rape for a half-arsed attempt at pretending to be a man you can't get done for rape for getting sex and impregnating a woman under false presences using an elaborately constructed story while actively seeking to act against her and her friends.
I'm sure we had a thread on this. It may "seem" to be a "half-arsed" attempt, but, let's face it, that'd be your opinion, seemingly based on news reports. It certainly wasn't shared by the sentencing judge -
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of-hhj-dutton-r-v...
The essence of the reason it was rape was because she was lying as to her gender. The act the victim consented to wasn't male/female sex, but female/female sexual assault.
In the case of the undercover officers, whilst many other things, some of which might include criminal offences, wasn't the criminal offence of rape.
> I could just about see the justification for an unpleasant tactic like this if used by MI5 against-murderous terrorists like ISIL or the IRA but in is totally disproportionate for the police to use to investigate environmental groups.
One of the reasons this has blown up to such proportions is precisely because there was no justification for the relationships. It appears to have been entirely unauthorised behaviour, with none of the rationale or justification that would be/ should be required. Hence the suggestion that other offences may still be under consideration.
In reply to off-duty:
I read that and I still think it was a 'half-arsed' attempt. She was 'caught' because she asked the other woman for oral on a strap on. Now, IMHO, nobody with two brain cells would ask for oral if they were actually trying to deceive because unless their 'victim' had completely lost their sense of touch, taste and smell they are going to be able to tell the difference between a chunk of plastic and a penis when they lick it.
Yes, and the view that it is a particularly horrible crime deserving severe punishment because it involves concealing gender or the use of a sex-toy is IMHO slightly homophonic/transphobic. My personal opinion is that getting someone pregnant is a far worse aggravating factor than lying about gender or using a sex toy.
Legally you are probably right. I am no expert. But morally I think what the undercover cop did was far worse than what seems to be two women with psychological issues having a misunderstanding about sex.
> I'm sure we had a thread on this. It may "seem" to be a "half-arsed" attempt, but, let's face it, that'd be your opinion, seemingly based on news reports. It certainly wasn't shared by the sentencing judge -
I read that and I still think it was a 'half-arsed' attempt. She was 'caught' because she asked the other woman for oral on a strap on. Now, IMHO, nobody with two brain cells would ask for oral if they were actually trying to deceive because unless their 'victim' had completely lost their sense of touch, taste and smell they are going to be able to tell the difference between a chunk of plastic and a penis when they lick it.
> The essence of the reason it was rape was because she was lying as to her gender. The act the victim consented to wasn't male/female sex, but female/female sexual assault.
Yes, and the view that it is a particularly horrible crime deserving severe punishment because it involves concealing gender or the use of a sex-toy is IMHO slightly homophonic/transphobic. My personal opinion is that getting someone pregnant is a far worse aggravating factor than lying about gender or using a sex toy.
> In the case of the undercover officers, whilst many other things, some of which might include criminal offences, wasn't the criminal offence of rape.
Legally you are probably right. I am no expert. But morally I think what the undercover cop did was far worse than what seems to be two women with psychological issues having a misunderstanding about sex.
Post edited at 12:20
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
We are going to have to agree to disagree on the Newlands case. You clearly see it as "nothing much" and place a fair amount of blame on the victim. I disagree.
(Incidentally, without wanting to dwell on it, there are very realistic fake penises. Those covered in a condom and with a sexually naive victim...)
In relation to the undercover cops - whilst their behaviour may have been despicable, immoral and potentially criminal, it wasn't rape.
Quite reasonably the law should tread lightly around the issue of deception and sexual relationships. Everyone entering a relationship tries to present the best picture of themselves, perhaps hiding truths that they feel might dissuade the other party. I'm not convinced criminalising would be a positive step.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on the Newlands case. You clearly see it as "nothing much" and place a fair amount of blame on the victim. I disagree.
(Incidentally, without wanting to dwell on it, there are very realistic fake penises. Those covered in a condom and with a sexually naive victim...)
In relation to the undercover cops - whilst their behaviour may have been despicable, immoral and potentially criminal, it wasn't rape.
Quite reasonably the law should tread lightly around the issue of deception and sexual relationships. Everyone entering a relationship tries to present the best picture of themselves, perhaps hiding truths that they feel might dissuade the other party. I'm not convinced criminalising would be a positive step.
Post edited at 12:37
3
3
In reply to off-duty:
Words of cosmic wisdom, sir!
Mick
> Quite reasonably the law should tread lightly around the issue of deception and sexual relationships. Everyone entering a relationship tries to present the best picture of themselves, perhaps hiding truths that they feel might dissuade the other party.
Words of cosmic wisdom, sir!
Mick
In reply to mountain_jay:
I'm surprised nobody has noticed his nickname "flash". Surely in climbing circles the nickname Flash would have come from him flashing routes, not being a flashy character!
Useless reporting!
I'm surprised nobody has noticed his nickname "flash". Surely in climbing circles the nickname Flash would have come from him flashing routes, not being a flashy character!
Useless reporting!
In reply to Womble:
I'm surprised nobody has noticed his nickname "flash". Surely in climbing circles the nickname Flash would have come from him flashing routes, not being a flashy character!
There's a bloke that used to frequent the local park that was known as 'Flash'. However, he doesn't climb and his clothing is best described as grubby...
I'm surprised nobody has noticed his nickname "flash". Surely in climbing circles the nickname Flash would have come from him flashing routes, not being a flashy character!
There's a bloke that used to frequent the local park that was known as 'Flash'. However, he doesn't climb and his clothing is best described as grubby...
In reply to Womble:
Nope, the papers are right, his nickname came from having more cash than most of his friends, and being quite generous with it, nothing to do with climbing.
Nope, the papers are right, his nickname came from having more cash than most of his friends, and being quite generous with it, nothing to do with climbing.
Post edited at 16:41
In reply to off-duty:
''8 years is better than a lame late begrudge apology by far''
I dare say that in nature it's not lacking in anything as an apology, but one woman who'd been duped by an undercover police man said it'd taken a lot of work to get the MET to actually issue the apology.
While it isn't a lame apology (or weak to be more PC), some might argue that it is a little late and begrudging in how readily it's been given...
> Doesn't read like a "lame" or "begrudging" apology.
''8 years is better than a lame late begrudge apology by far''
I dare say that in nature it's not lacking in anything as an apology, but one woman who'd been duped by an undercover police man said it'd taken a lot of work to get the MET to actually issue the apology.
While it isn't a lame apology (or weak to be more PC), some might argue that it is a little late and begrudging in how readily it's been given...
Post edited at 16:13
In reply to off-duty:
Sorry! had the impression that you were somehow involved in law enforcement; if the law can't distinguish between a wee bit of spin, "yea I always put the toilet seat back down, never fart in bed and really enjoy listening to....zzzz." and devising an entirely fictitious persona specifically to gain someone's trust so you can abuse it.......maybe you're right; when's justice and decency ever had anything to do with the law.
> Quite reasonably the law should tread lightly around the issue of deception and sexual relationships. Everyone entering a relationship tries to present the best picture of themselves, perhaps hiding truths that they feel might dissuade the other party. I'm not convinced criminalising would be a positive step.
Sorry! had the impression that you were somehow involved in law enforcement; if the law can't distinguish between a wee bit of spin, "yea I always put the toilet seat back down, never fart in bed and really enjoy listening to....zzzz." and devising an entirely fictitious persona specifically to gain someone's trust so you can abuse it.......maybe you're right; when's justice and decency ever had anything to do with the law.
3
In reply to Hyphin:
Wow. What a confused post. Yes I work in law enforcement. I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the legal definitions of criminal offences - specifically rape, as determined by parliament and picked apart by the court system, but I'm sure you're the expert.
That being so perhaps you could redefine the offence of "rape" to make it easy for us thick plod to understand it.
I'm particularly interested in how you tackle "the fictitious persona" part of it. Is that to include "pretending you are a footballer to get girls to have sex with you?" - or will it include "pretending you are single", "pretending you don't have kids" or "pretending you are rich"? And is when does that pretence become criminal - if you lie once? If you lie again in the morning? If you tell lies on three dates in order to have sex with someone? Or two? Or five?
Personally I'd rather the law steered clear of proscribing the "do's and dont's" of relationships as far a possible. You appear to want MORE legislation.
> Sorry! had the impression that you were somehow involved in law enforcement; if the law can't distinguish between a wee bit of spin, "yea I always put the toilet seat back down, never fart in bed and really enjoy listening to....zzzz." and devising an entirely fictitious persona specifically to gain someone's trust so you can abuse it.......maybe you're right; when's justice and decency ever had anything to do with the law.
Wow. What a confused post. Yes I work in law enforcement. I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the legal definitions of criminal offences - specifically rape, as determined by parliament and picked apart by the court system, but I'm sure you're the expert.
That being so perhaps you could redefine the offence of "rape" to make it easy for us thick plod to understand it.
I'm particularly interested in how you tackle "the fictitious persona" part of it. Is that to include "pretending you are a footballer to get girls to have sex with you?" - or will it include "pretending you are single", "pretending you don't have kids" or "pretending you are rich"? And is when does that pretence become criminal - if you lie once? If you lie again in the morning? If you tell lies on three dates in order to have sex with someone? Or two? Or five?
Personally I'd rather the law steered clear of proscribing the "do's and dont's" of relationships as far a possible. You appear to want MORE legislation.
In reply to off-duty:
Well you do seem to have understood the gist of it.
Yes I work in law enforcement.
So my powers of observation and deduction are not too bad, hope you are indeed "off-duty" at the moment and not wasting more tax payers money on here.
I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the legal definitions of criminal offences - specifically rape, as determined by parliament and picked apart by the court system, but I'm sure you're the expert.
Suspect most of us common folk would hope that those involved in law enforcement would have at least a passing acquaintance with the "legal definition of criminal offences"; especially the more swerious ones such as rape and murder.
Definitely no expert but my lay understanding, very much in lay terms, is sexual intercourse (though I think the definition may have been broadened beyond only penetrative) without consent: including when the victim was unable to give informed consent.
As you so rightly point out I'm not an expert, but perhaps starting by looking at the legislation around gaining goods and services by deception might be an idea. When you have a completely fictitious identity and lifestyle (all funded by the tax payer) and hide fundamental facts about yourself which you could reasonably assume would exclude you from being considered by your victim as a sexual partner of choice, you have crossed the line; albeit that is only my uninformed opinion. I would suggest that to pretend to be single, childless or to hide anything else that would otherwise cause your victim to see you as a totally unsuitable partner, likewise crosses the line. A quick Google gives a good example, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-se...
Again, while admitting my lack of expertise in this area; I'd question whether this could be reasonably termed a relationship. I'm not even convinced it requires MORE legislation; the victim was unable to give informed consent as her assailant withheld facts which he knew that, if disclosed, would have led to his victim refusing to have sex with him; if it was my daughter/son I'd certainly be calling that rape.
> Wow. What a confused post.
Well you do seem to have understood the gist of it.
Yes I work in law enforcement.
So my powers of observation and deduction are not too bad, hope you are indeed "off-duty" at the moment and not wasting more tax payers money on here.
I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the legal definitions of criminal offences - specifically rape, as determined by parliament and picked apart by the court system, but I'm sure you're the expert.
Suspect most of us common folk would hope that those involved in law enforcement would have at least a passing acquaintance with the "legal definition of criminal offences"; especially the more swerious ones such as rape and murder.
> That being so perhaps you could redefine the offence of "rape" to make it easy for us thick plod to understand it.
Definitely no expert but my lay understanding, very much in lay terms, is sexual intercourse (though I think the definition may have been broadened beyond only penetrative) without consent: including when the victim was unable to give informed consent.
> I'm particularly interested in how you tackle "the fictitious persona" part of it. Is that to include "pretending you are a footballer to get girls to have sex with you?" - or will it include "pretending you are single", "pretending you don't have kids" or "pretending you are rich"? And is when does that pretence become criminal - if you lie once? If you lie again in the morning? If you tell lies on three dates in order to have sex with someone? Or two? Or five?
As you so rightly point out I'm not an expert, but perhaps starting by looking at the legislation around gaining goods and services by deception might be an idea. When you have a completely fictitious identity and lifestyle (all funded by the tax payer) and hide fundamental facts about yourself which you could reasonably assume would exclude you from being considered by your victim as a sexual partner of choice, you have crossed the line; albeit that is only my uninformed opinion. I would suggest that to pretend to be single, childless or to hide anything else that would otherwise cause your victim to see you as a totally unsuitable partner, likewise crosses the line. A quick Google gives a good example, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-se...
> Personally I'd rather the law steered clear of proscribing the "do's and dont's" of relationships as far a possible. You appear to want MORE legislation.
Again, while admitting my lack of expertise in this area; I'd question whether this could be reasonably termed a relationship. I'm not even convinced it requires MORE legislation; the victim was unable to give informed consent as her assailant withheld facts which he knew that, if disclosed, would have led to his victim refusing to have sex with him; if it was my daughter/son I'd certainly be calling that rape.
1
In reply to Hyphin:
I'm paid to extract sense from incoherence.
Always intrigues me when people make comments like this. (Apart from being a good old fashioned ad hominem attack). Engaging in debate - and inviting a reply - whilst complaining about the fact I am actually replying.
As for "wasting more tax payer money" - an interesting illumination of your views as to what I do during my working hours.
And, yes, I am off-duty. Not wasting your, or even my, tax payments.
You'll be pleased to know I do. Your previous post appeared to be blaming law enforcement for the legal definitions.
Oddly perhap, the legal definitions that provoke the most confusion, nit-picking and stated cases are often the simplest. Theft for example has legal cases which wrestle with every phrase of the definition.
Again - as I attempted to highlight - the "line" that must be crossed is where all the problems arise. Already you have attempted to clarify it as the lie would make you "a totally unsuitable partner" - is that subjectively? Objectively? How do you define "totally" - does that include lying about being single?
There is law around "consent" and exactly how it relates to deception. And largely it tries to steer clear - for the reasons highlighted above about where a line is drawn.
I'm not sure what the law is in Israel - as per your example. If a Jew lied about their religion in order to have sex with a muslim in the UK - it wouldn't be rape.
Some of these women had children with these officers, they went on holiday with them, they took them to meet family, socialised with them - I'm not sure what you could call that other than a relationship.
If your "line" is now "witholding facts that might lead to the victim refusing to consent to sex" - then we are back to lying about your income, single status etc.
Don't misunderstand me - I am not supporting these officers actions. They may well be criminal, they were wholly unethical and certainly appear morally repugnant. But it wasn't rape.
If we want to introduce a new offence of "sex by deception" or even amend the offence we have - then that might be the way forward.
However, for the reasons I have repeatedly expressed, I don't think that the law becoming involved in personal relationships is something that should be encouraged.
> Well you do seem to have understood the gist of it.
I'm paid to extract sense from incoherence.
> Yes I work in law enforcement.
> So my powers of observation and deduction are not too bad, hope you are indeed "off-duty" at the moment and not wasting more tax payers money on here.
Always intrigues me when people make comments like this. (Apart from being a good old fashioned ad hominem attack). Engaging in debate - and inviting a reply - whilst complaining about the fact I am actually replying.
As for "wasting more tax payer money" - an interesting illumination of your views as to what I do during my working hours.
And, yes, I am off-duty. Not wasting your, or even my, tax payments.
> I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the legal definitions of criminal offences - specifically rape, as determined by parliament and picked apart by the court system, but I'm sure you're the expert.
> Suspect most of us common folk would hope that those involved in law enforcement would have at least a passing acquaintance with the "legal definition of criminal offences"; especially the more swerious ones such as rape and murder.
You'll be pleased to know I do. Your previous post appeared to be blaming law enforcement for the legal definitions.
Oddly perhap, the legal definitions that provoke the most confusion, nit-picking and stated cases are often the simplest. Theft for example has legal cases which wrestle with every phrase of the definition.
> Definitely no expert but my lay understanding, very much in lay terms, is sexual intercourse (though I think the definition may have been broadened beyond only penetrative) without consent: including when the victim was unable to give informed consent.
> As you so rightly point out I'm not an expert, but perhaps starting by looking at the legislation around gaining goods and services by deception might be an idea. When you have a completely fictitious identity and lifestyle (all funded by the tax payer) and hide fundamental facts about yourself which you could reasonably assume would exclude you from being considered by your victim as a sexual partner of choice, you have crossed the line; albeit that is only my uninformed opinion. I would suggest that to pretend to be single, childless or to hide anything else that would otherwise cause your victim to see you as a totally unsuitable partner, likewise crosses the line. A quick Google gives a good example, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-se...
Again - as I attempted to highlight - the "line" that must be crossed is where all the problems arise. Already you have attempted to clarify it as the lie would make you "a totally unsuitable partner" - is that subjectively? Objectively? How do you define "totally" - does that include lying about being single?
There is law around "consent" and exactly how it relates to deception. And largely it tries to steer clear - for the reasons highlighted above about where a line is drawn.
I'm not sure what the law is in Israel - as per your example. If a Jew lied about their religion in order to have sex with a muslim in the UK - it wouldn't be rape.
> Again, while admitting my lack of expertise in this area; I'd question whether this could be reasonably termed a relationship. I'm not even convinced it requires MORE legislation; the victim was unable to give informed consent as her assailant withheld facts which he knew that, if disclosed, would have led to his victim refusing to have sex with him; if it was my daughter/son I'd certainly be calling that rape.
Some of these women had children with these officers, they went on holiday with them, they took them to meet family, socialised with them - I'm not sure what you could call that other than a relationship.
If your "line" is now "witholding facts that might lead to the victim refusing to consent to sex" - then we are back to lying about your income, single status etc.
Don't misunderstand me - I am not supporting these officers actions. They may well be criminal, they were wholly unethical and certainly appear morally repugnant. But it wasn't rape.
If we want to introduce a new offence of "sex by deception" or even amend the offence we have - then that might be the way forward.
However, for the reasons I have repeatedly expressed, I don't think that the law becoming involved in personal relationships is something that should be encouraged.
2
In reply to off-duty
I would say that this was an opportunity for a court to set a new precedent, that just as we regard securing good and services by deception as an offence so should we regard securing sex by deception. My issue is not with law enforcement but with a legal system which would appear to value property above people.
> Don't misunderstand me - I am not supporting these officers actions. They may well be criminal, they were wholly unethical and certainly appear morally repugnant. But it wasn't rape.
> If we want to introduce a new offence of "sex by deception" or even amend the offence we have - then that might be the way forward.
> However, for the reasons I have repeatedly expressed, I don't think that the law becoming involved in personal relationships is something that should be encouraged.
I would say that this was an opportunity for a court to set a new precedent, that just as we regard securing good and services by deception as an offence so should we regard securing sex by deception. My issue is not with law enforcement but with a legal system which would appear to value property above people.
In reply to Hyphin: If I were you I'd relax and enjoy her rather good joke about not thinking that the law should become involved in personal relationships.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Any reason you went with "her" ?
> If I were you I'd relax and enjoy her rather good joke about not thinking that the law should become involved in personal relationships.
Any reason you went with "her" ?
In reply to Hyphin:
There have been plenty of opportunities to set precedents - bigamists, romance scams etc.
The courts have steered clear.
Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it is (or necessarily should be) illegal.
Morals can be a pretty subjective and movable concept.
> In reply to off-duty
> I would say that this was an opportunity for a court to set a new precedent, that just as we regard securing good and services by deception as an offence so should we regard securing sex by deception. My issue is not with law enforcement but with a legal system which would appear to value property above people.
There have been plenty of opportunities to set precedents - bigamists, romance scams etc.
The courts have steered clear.
Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it is (or necessarily should be) illegal.
Morals can be a pretty subjective and movable concept.
1
In reply to off-duty:
He seems a little old fashioned, especially in modern law-enforcement, no?
> Any reason you went with "her" ?
He seems a little old fashioned, especially in modern law-enforcement, no?
In reply to Mike Highbury:
I generally use the pronoun appropriate with the sex of the person posting.
> He seems a little old fashioned, especially in modern law-enforcement, no?
I generally use the pronoun appropriate with the sex of the person posting.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Interesting that you see "light touch" legislation as old-fashioned though. You prefer more state control?
> He seems a little old fashioned, especially in modern law-enforcement, no?
Interesting that you see "light touch" legislation as old-fashioned though. You prefer more state control?
In reply to off-duty:
I don't stalk your postings so how on Earth am I to know whether you are a he or a she?
I point out what I thought was a rather good pun and you act as if your very being was under attack. F*ck knows how you'd react if you were sworn at in the street? Maybe that's why you, as this forum seems to believe, ended up on light duties.
> I generally use the pronoun appropriate with the sex of the person posting.
I don't stalk your postings so how on Earth am I to know whether you are a he or a she?
I point out what I thought was a rather good pun and you act as if your very being was under attack. F*ck knows how you'd react if you were sworn at in the street? Maybe that's why you, as this forum seems to believe, ended up on light duties.
In reply to off-duty:
Not he as in you, OD.
> Interesting that you see "light touch" legislation as old-fashioned though. You prefer more state control?
Not he as in you, OD.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Didn't see what the pun was. Not sure why you think I was acting as if I was under attack - all I said was :
Any reason you went with "her" ?
I guess I've been on the streets too long if that is now considered to be "an attack" on the internets.
Maybe I should stay in more.
> I don't stalk your postings so how on Earth am I to know whether you are a he or a she?
> I point out what I thought was a rather good pun and you act as if your very being was under attack. F*ck knows how you'd react if you were sworn at in the street? Maybe that's why you, as this forum seems to believe, ended up on light duties.
Didn't see what the pun was. Not sure why you think I was acting as if I was under attack - all I said was :
Any reason you went with "her" ?
I guess I've been on the streets too long if that is now considered to be "an attack" on the internets.
Maybe I should stay in more.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Fair enough. No actual comment on topic then, other than "You are old fashioned" (for some not entirely clear reason)
> Not he as in you, OD.
Fair enough. No actual comment on topic then, other than "You are old fashioned" (for some not entirely clear reason)
In reply to off-duty:
I did not call you old-fashioned. I said that using 'he' is old-fashioned.
> Fair enough. No actual comment on topic then, other than "You are old fashioned" (for some not entirely clear reason)
I did not call you old-fashioned. I said that using 'he' is old-fashioned.
In reply to off-duty:
However, for the reasons I have repeatedly expressed, I don't think that the law becoming involved in personal relationships is something that should be encouraged.
The pun is around the law.
> Didn't see what the pun was. Not sure why you think I was acting as if I was under attack - all I said was :
However, for the reasons I have repeatedly expressed, I don't think that the law becoming involved in personal relationships is something that should be encouraged.
The pun is around the law.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Actually that's quite good (if unintentional).
> However, for the reasons I have repeatedly expressed, I don't think that the law becoming involved in personal relationships is something that should be encouraged.
> The pun is around the law.
Actually that's quite good (if unintentional).
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Aaah - got you. The difference those quote marks make!
Completely misread your post - sorry.
> I did not call you old-fashioned. I said that using 'he' is old-fashioned.
Aaah - got you. The difference those quote marks make!
Completely misread your post - sorry.
Post edited at 22:01
In reply to off-duty:
I live in Islington, remember.
> Aaah - got you. The difference those quote marks make!
> Completely misread your post - sorry.
I live in Islington, remember.
In reply to Hyphin:
The legal system would need to be at least 10 times its current size for that to be possible, with one verdict out of 10,000 being delivered through the impenetrable haze of "he said, she said".
It is hard enough getting verdicts in rape cases where it is admitted that sex took place but the issue is consent, so how could "sex by deception" (but with consent), possibly work?
> I would say that this was an opportunity for a court to set a new precedent, that just as we regard securing good and services by deception as an offence so should we regard securing sex by deception.
The legal system would need to be at least 10 times its current size for that to be possible, with one verdict out of 10,000 being delivered through the impenetrable haze of "he said, she said".
It is hard enough getting verdicts in rape cases where it is admitted that sex took place but the issue is consent, so how could "sex by deception" (but with consent), possibly work?
2
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...