With every respect to Andrew Turek, let us please avoid any hint of the starting premise being that such conduct- I would say “misconduct”- is the province of the male gender only, as though those duped might be of the supposedly more susceptible feminine gender alone.
Any special privileges granted to any specialist State servants come with correspondingly special obligations. I recall vividly from my practising days the ways in which the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad were allowed whether explicitly or tacitly to play fast and loose with the “rules of the game” and to have those theoretically in authority over them turn a blind eye. The ends must never justify the means however much we might try to persuade ourselves that circumstances, the disreputable and dangerous accusations concerned and however our profound disapproval or dislike of those pursued may be. Otherwise we become - collectively- no more honourable than those pursued. What could conceivably justify the emotional damage and the futures of those used intimately in the infiltration of a group disapprobated by the police or security services in one entity or another? Also, I ponder the nature of the targets and their objectives. Why were such conscientious believers in their causes to the point of civil disruption identified as “public enemy number one”? Or are we to fear that ANY perceived inroads into our laws should be subject to similar insinuations into their personal space, hopes and endeavours? To coin a phrase, we should be told.
The behaviour of these men was vile and deceitful but the women concerned chose to enter into sexual relationships with them. Men have in all ages lied about themselves, their marital status, and their work to obtain sexual favours.
Why and how did it become the responsibility of the Met or any other employer to supervise the sexual activities of its employees? Where does that end?
They were either undercover agents living under false identities at the behest of the Met in which case their deceitful relationships were conducted in the course of their duty and sanctioned by the Met. Or they were rogues and abusers who exceeded their powers, in which case the Met had a duty to supervise and stop them. Whatever one thinks of a man's right to lie for sex, it is irrelevant to the failings of the police here.
Just how were the Met to supervise and stop them? If their seniors had asked "Are you bedding any of the activists you are concerned with" and the officers had said "No" (and they would, wouldn't they?) what more could have been done?
It really is important to keep your feet firmly on the ground and stay in the real world!
Quite. So if we agree that the met deployed undercover officers with no effective means of oversight, no defined mission, no statutory limits on their powers, and no means of assessing their impact in a democratic society, I don't understand why you would say the met should not apologise for the appalling and predictable outcomes.
That they should apologise for this and much else to the community they serve I entirely agree. But I see no reason for an apology specific to the women concerned - and still less for damages. The women had agency.
With every respect to Andrew Turek, let us please avoid any hint of the starting premise being that such conduct- I would say “misconduct”- is the province of the male gender only, as though those duped might be of the supposedly more susceptible feminine gender alone.
Any special privileges granted to any specialist State servants come with correspondingly special obligations. I recall vividly from my practising days the ways in which the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad were allowed whether explicitly or tacitly to play fast and loose with the “rules of the game” and to have those theoretically in authority over them turn a blind eye. The ends must never justify the means however much we might try to persuade ourselves that circumstances, the disreputable and dangerous accusations concerned and however our profound disapproval or dislike of those pursued may be. Otherwise we become - collectively- no more honourable than those pursued. What could conceivably justify the emotional damage and the futures of those used intimately in the infiltration of a group disapprobated by the police or security services in one entity or another? Also, I ponder the nature of the targets and their objectives. Why were such conscientious believers in their causes to the point of civil disruption identified as “public enemy number one”? Or are we to fear that ANY perceived inroads into our laws should be subject to similar insinuations into their personal space, hopes and endeavours? To coin a phrase, we should be told.
Am I missing something here?
The behaviour of these men was vile and deceitful but the women concerned chose to enter into sexual relationships with them. Men have in all ages lied about themselves, their marital status, and their work to obtain sexual favours.
Why and how did it become the responsibility of the Met or any other employer to supervise the sexual activities of its employees? Where does that end?
They were either undercover agents living under false identities at the behest of the Met in which case their deceitful relationships were conducted in the course of their duty and sanctioned by the Met. Or they were rogues and abusers who exceeded their powers, in which case the Met had a duty to supervise and stop them. Whatever one thinks of a man's right to lie for sex, it is irrelevant to the failings of the police here.
Just how were the Met to supervise and stop them? If their seniors had asked "Are you bedding any of the activists you are concerned with" and the officers had said "No" (and they would, wouldn't they?) what more could have been done?
It really is important to keep your feet firmly on the ground and stay in the real world!
Quite. So if we agree that the met deployed undercover officers with no effective means of oversight, no defined mission, no statutory limits on their powers, and no means of assessing their impact in a democratic society, I don't understand why you would say the met should not apologise for the appalling and predictable outcomes.
That they should apologise for this and much else to the community they serve I entirely agree. But I see no reason for an apology specific to the women concerned - and still less for damages. The women had agency.
We are not going to agree about this!