So, are lefty female activists adults or not?

But this is the experience of several British women who are pursuing a civil case against the Metropolitan police. Last week, the Crown Prosecution Service ruled that four undercover police officers who spied on activists would not face sexual offence charges, including rape, sexual assault, sexual intercourse by false pretences, as well as misconduct in public office. These women consented to sleeping with men they believed were fellow activists, not police officers spying on them – and yet the CPS believes there is “insufficient evidence” for a prosecution.

What we are witnessing must surely be a stitch-up over what the women believe amounts to being raped by the state. The phone-hacking scandal rightly provoked widespread condemnation on the grounds that it was an impermissible violation of privacy. But what about police officers who share their lives with women, have sex with them, and – in at least two cases – fathered children with them? No wonder one of the women involved describes the practice in chilling terms as “body-hacking”. The difference is, of course, that the women involved are activists fighting for environmental and social justice: the sort of people who enjoy very little sympathy from those with power and influence.

Who you put out for, as an adult, is who you decide to put out for.

That these police officers lied is true. But if we tried to jail everyone who had lied their way into the bed of another then we’d have half the population being jailed by the other half. And yes, since you ask, there are undoubtedly women who lie their way into men’s (even mens’) beds too.

deterring future officers from having sex under false pretences on the basis that a rape charge could await them.

Sex under false pretences is not rape.

“You married or what?”

“No”.

Humpity Humpity.

“Yes”.

Rape!

Doesn’t work, does it?

Sorry about this but this is what being an adult in a free and liberal society means. You’re responsible for all of the pains and the pleasures of who you decide to share your gonads with.

58 comments on “So, are lefty female activists adults or not?

  1. Unfortunately, under Feminist/Proggie theory, it is rape, and their theories are the only ones anyone listens to. Rape has been redefined as “sex without consent” and “consent” is only considered to occur when the person is in a state of both absolute information, total freedom of action and complete rationality, none of which is in fact achievable in the real world. It’s the same argument as the “ignorant consumer” beloved of Proggies in economics.

    None of these consent criteria apply to men, of course. Because all men are rapists anyway.

  2. You have to bear in mind that we’re in a country where the government is about to pass a law criminalising arguing with your wife.

  3. Odd to see Guardianistas in the comments comparing these Met officers to the Stasi. Don’t they they love the DDR anymore?

  4. This is sexism, isn’t it? Where are the police women sleeping with male activists? “Oh no, we couldn’t ask them to do that, that would be prostitution.” Quite right, it would. So the blokes can’t do it either.

    I agree lying to get someone into bed comes under the general RoI “all’s fair in love and war”, but this neither love nor war, it is agents of the state screwing with citizens because they can. It may not be ‘rape rape’ but it’s still wrong.

  5. “The difference is, of course, that the women involved are activists fighting for environmental and social justice: the sort of people who enjoy very little sympathy from those with power and influence.”

    These women enjoy very little sympathy from those, like myself, without power and influence either.

    Much as I would like to see a bunch of bluebottles go down the drain.

  6. I shudder to think what hideous monsters will result from the mating of commie tarts with the filth. They’ll have to keep them under lock and key at Porton Down. As they were produced as a direct result of employment by the state, any UP (Unintellectual Property) belongs to the state. If they can be controlled we may be able to use them as weapons.

  7. Darling, as something of an amateur thesp myself may I say that your dialogue above shows real talent. The sub-text, so beloved of us thesps, in the deeply meaningful “Humpity Humpity” is very moving in a sort of ‘in and out’ way, if you know what I mean, reminiscent of Pinter at his, er, best.

  8. It doesn’t matter how many times you check it, does it?
    Rules of Engagement, not Return on Investment, obviously.

  9. All reasonable and correct. But tell me I’m not crazy for being a little bothered about people being paid to lie their way into bed by the state? I mean, if someone lied their way into my underpants the I’d chalk it up to experience, but I’d be a tad peeved to discover that my taxes had been paying them to do so.

    I’m sure it goes on an awful lot. And I’d guess that there are more men being ‘done’ than women (because we’re just easier) and, hence, there’s not a chance in hell that this case is ever going to get anywhere because there be a giant hornets nest that nobody with an ounce of power is going to allow to be prodded.

  10. It may not be ‘rape rape’ but it’s still wrong.

    “Wrong” isn’t criminal though. The confusion between these two things is why we live under a zillion and one laws these days.

    It might be fun to have a law against “impersonating a non-police officer” but there isn’t one yet.

  11. Roue le Jour raises an interesting point. If one wanted to infiltrate activist groups one’s presumably after hard information. How much is one going to gather on the pillow of some drippy bint whose main function in the organisation is to make the herbal tea? Equality, equality, equality an’ all that, but you can’t get round the movers & shakers of these sort of groups tend to be men.
    So where are the Plod ‘sleepers’ (or not just sleepers) from the female ranks?
    Is it: 1) There were never any successful ones? Having seen a few WPCs this explanation seems entirely likely.
    or 2) No-one’s complaining.

  12. Anyway, so far as I can tell, if they win this case then it’ll make spying illegal. Which will be interesting. I mean, the whole point of it is lying to everyone you’re with about why you’re there and who you are. Isn’t it?

  13. Where do we stand on “I’ve been tested for HIV, and I’m clear”, when knowing you’re not? (Substitute other STDs as appropriate.)

    From memory someone went down for that. Not sure if it was US or UK, or whether he went down for rape or assault for the harm done.

    And if that’s different, why? What about “I have no criminal convictions” from the convicted wife batterer?

  14. B(N)IS-

    Sex is a unidirectional exploitative transaction in which sex value is expropriated from the female by the male. It is therefore impossible for a male to suffer sexual abuse from a female. This really is Feminism 101.

  15. @IanB,

    If you think about it, biologically, it is (a unidirectional exploitative transaction in which the male expropriates sex value from the female). What the current generation of feminists are really railing against is the pill, not that I think they even realise it.

  16. You don’t need to be a fully paid up Guardianista to find this story pretty distasteful, as one or two comments above show.

    1. Obtaining sexual favours by deception is wrong. Just because we’ve all done it doesn’t make it OK.

    2. The intelligence gleaned wouldn’t make a row of beans.

    3. The evidence obtained would be largely hearsay or otherwise inadmissable in court.

    4. The threat to Western Civilisation posed by the wimmin was vastly exaggerated and millions of the public’s money were wasted.

  17. But tell me I’m not crazy for being a little bothered about people being paid to lie their way into bed by the state?

    I don’t think that anybody is suggesting that bonking the scruffies was part of the intelligence targeting.

    Hence they were being paid to lie their way in to the confidence of the generic scruffie community. The humpity humpity with one, or more, specific scruffies was a mere sidebar.

    I can understand why the bints were upset. They were literally being banged by “the man”. But to extend Ian B’s point – something that Bint A later regrets (having consented to at the time – even with the presence of deliberately falsified information: to whit DS Bloggins was only pretending to be a scruffie) isn’t even necessarily “wrong”. Never mind being either criminal or a civil tort.

  18. The Thought Gang: ‘But tell me I’m not crazy for being a little bothered about people being paid to lie their way into bed by the state?’

    Well, relax – that wasn’t what they were paid to do, it was a means to an end, that of maintaining their cover. What they were being paid to do was gather intel on crusties with a violent streak.

    Poor sods should be given medals…

  19. Read the post again. We are not talking one night stand, where arguably different rules apply, two of them fathered children. Those women will never look at those children in the same light again.That is unequivocally wrong.

  20. Yes, it’s absolutely wrong, bad, shouldn’t happen.

    But are they really the only two women in the UK with children fathered by men they would prefer hadn’t fathered the children? My guess is that number is at least two million, possibly even twenty million. So two ain’t that much of an issue [sic].

  21. “Those women will never look at those children in the same light again.”

    Really? Frankly, that says more about them than about the policemen.

    And I bet they have no such issues when looking in a mirror…

  22. @Roue le Jour

    When these women got pregnant, do you really think that was his idea? More than one deception in that relationship methinks.

  23. Actually, BiG, I think women rarely have babies with men they don’t intend to. They may well tell porkies about it later, though, which is quite different.

  24. Gary, fair point. However, the copper is still on the line for child support, unless it was an expense incurred in the line of duty, which would be an interesting thing to know, wouldn’t it?

  25. I once met a rather toothsome WPC (admittedly, that in itself was unusual), whose job involved going to nightclubs, fraternising wiv da make yoof and finding out thereby who was you go-to man for high-end drugs. I doubt (but don’t know) this involved sexual liaisons, but the point about her was her honeytrappishness.

  26. @RlJ, sure not at the time, but I suspect there’s rather a lot who have the hindsight thing about the siring of their brats. You can’t deny there is no shortage of epsilon dads out there.

  27. Jonathan,

    Guardianistas’ “love” of the DDR was as hypocritical as their love of Islam is today. 50 years ago they lauded central economic planning, while not one in ten thousand of them chose to migrate to the DDR. Today they laud Islam while not one in ten thousand chooses to retire to Pakistan or the Islamic part of Nigeria.

  28. Actually, from memory, there are criminal sanctions against certain types of deception used to get someone into bed. Think Luke is right re STDs. But also impersonating someone else ie Tom Cruise lookalike who pretends to actually be Tom Cruise is in trouble, one who admits he is a lookalike but lies that he is single gets away with it.

    The thing I find extraordinarily distasteful in this case was the long term nature of the relationships, including children, despite the very identity of the man being false. But there is less criminal law about the “relationship” stuff than the “rumpy pumpy” stuff. I’d suggest it is plausibly comparable to bigamy (settle down with a guy, get married, oops turns out whole life was a lie and he’s got another wife somewhere else) which is a criminal offence, in order to protect women from such a fate. But we don’t have criminal offences available if the relationship stops short of marriage, even if the guy is married to someone else (though there are countries which criminalise adultery, which seems pretty illiberal to western ears but is at least logical if you view marriage as a form of state-protected relationship).

    In that “distasteful personal conduct” aspect, there doesn’t seem to be much redress because we don’t generally criminalise that sort of conduct. I think there will be more legal ramifications in terms of professional conduct – it would have been interesting if a “misconduct in public office” charge got as far as a jury, who I wouldn’t expect to have much sympathy for the police. And there is the prospect of disciplinary action too, which I hope would be firm.

    I’d have more sympathy for the police if their targets posed an existential threat to us – but that’s perhaps a job for spy agencies who may make no special effort to stay within the limits of the law (security comes first), than police who are meant to be guardians of it (justice should come first). In this case it strikes me that a great injustice has been done to these women, and I can’t see a security concern that can reasonably trump justice.

    A query re the government’s involvement being particularly alarming. Had the men been hired for surveillance by the energy companies rather than the state, would that have made things any less bad? To me it seems to alter the legal landscape but not that the fundamental wrong was the behaviour of the men involved.

  29. I do think that false identity stuff comes pretty precariously close to the Tom Cruise example but am not surprised the prosecutions didn’t get off the ground.

  30. 3. The evidence obtained would be largely hearsay or otherwise inadmissable in court.

    Intelligence doesn’t have to be admissible in court to be useful.

  31. So where are the Plod ‘sleepers’ (or not just sleepers) from the female ranks?

    Oh fuck, we had that with Colin Stagg, didn’t we? Worked out so well.

  32. Docbud’s comment on the scary product of commie and filth is entertaining but these kids will be thick; their fathers couldn’t remember to pack condoms; that is unforgivable: producing more children for the tax payer to fund.

  33. Hmm.

    Some of these groups were engaged in conspiracy to commit extremely serious offences – such as the aim to close down power stations and thereby deny heat and light to hundreds of thousands of people, including old, disabled and otherwise vulnerable.

    In that context I’m willing to support police infiltration, for exactly the same reason I would support infiltration of the IRA and eg Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty people.

    If this one goes against the police there is an automatic police agent detector created – the one’s who won’t sleep with anyone are the spies.

    This needs to go against the activists.

  34. All I wanted was to deceive and ensnare the alpha warrior of our social justice commune by ‘accidentally’ getting pregnant, but was trouble-deceived into ensnaring the filth instead.
    How dare the Military-Industrial Complex interfere with my rights to deceive and ensnare the man of my choosing. How very dare they.

  35. Suppose one of these women wasn’t really “into the cause” and was just pretending to be in order to sleep with some bloke she fancied who she thought WAS into the cause.

    Would that mean she in effect raped him*? Until it turned out that he was an undercover cop at which point it turns out they’ve raped each other?

    *notwithstanding that women can’t be accused of rape as such, I use ‘rape’ as a loose term.

  36. “activists fighting for environmental..justice…enjoy very little sympathy from those with power and influence”

    Eh?

    Why are we building all these windmills then, if they enjoy “little sympathy” from those in power?

  37. ukliberty

    Thank you for a very helpful link. There really doesn’t seem to be any criminal action the victims can seek here. I doubt very much that there is any direct civil action either.
    However, this does not sit right with me, regardless of the legal position. And yes, I do regard the women as victims. And no, my lack of natural sympathy for them makes no difference.

  38. Ironman, I am inclined to agree with you; it is difficult to see that the alleged behaviour constitutes criminal offences, however it does seem extremely shabby and I think the lack of empathy/sympathy from some commenters is pretty vile.

    Aside from that, even if one has no sympathy for the women – or children born to women and undercover officers who subsequently disappeared(!) – surely one should be critical of the state ruining the lives of people (and children born to those relationships) who present no imminent threat to life.
    (I say the state – apparently the police (not all police) did this without the knowledge of Parliament.)

  39. I’m not sure what IanB’s “Feminist/Proggie theory” is (I’m American, ya see), but I think the Fem’s theory is well described as the Humpty Dumpty theory:

    “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less,”

    which theory my wife adopted soon after marriage and fully explains our discourse ever since.

  40. Matt W,

    Some of these groups were engaged in conspiracy to commit extremely serious offences – such as the aim to close down power stations and thereby deny heat and light to hundreds of thousands of people, including old, disabled and otherwise vulnerable.

    In that context I’m willing to support police infiltration, for exactly the same reason I would support infiltration of the IRA and eg Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty people.

    If this one goes against the police there is an automatic police agent detector created – the one’s who won’t sleep with anyone are the spies.

    This needs to go against the activists.

    Indeed, the Stephen Lawrence campaigners and the Ratcliffe-on-Soar protesters presented a terrifying threat to life.

    And the infiltration was so good that officers ended up facilitating, encouraging, and even organising wrongdoing.

    Why aren’t people more grateful to ‘are brave boys’? etc.

  41. The wimmin were hardly a secret society, were they? Printing off tracts, posters, ads, etc to show exactly what they were up to.

    If they needed to be “infiltrated” a couple of forensic accountants to search for the Moscow gold would have sufficed, not a bunch of Plod Lotharios.

    As for the threat, it was to stop a power station or an airfield on the grounds that the wimmin might get hurt.

    Well… Call my bluff, bitch.

  42. Encouraging, facilitating and helping to organise the activity seems a peculiar way to prevent people from participating in the activity for their own good.

  43. ukliberty: “Indeed, the Stephen Lawrence campaigners and the Ratcliffe-on-Soar protesters presented a terrifying threat to life.”

    I’ve never heard of the other mob, but when you look at what the MacPherson debacle has done to the police farce, it’s hard to agree with the former, isn’t it?

  44. I’m not sure what IanB’s “Feminist/Proggie theory” is (I’m American, ya see), but I think the Fem’s theory is well described as the Humpty Dumpty theory:

    Odd response. Feminist theory was predominantly developed by Americans. The Radicals started off in New York. The majority of second wave progressivism- or political correctness- is American in origin. So it’s all really something Americans ought to be quite familiar with.

  45. As a general point, since some people are defaulting to the “think of the poor innocent wimmins” meme here, something I said (paraphrased) over at Sp!ked the other day; prior to The Joy Of Islam, terrorism in Britain largely consisted of two demographics. The first was angry Irishmen blowing things up to fight for Irish independence. The other was middle class girls joining the Angry Brigade and Animal Rights Whatever and setting off amateurish bombs at Biba and animal testing labs, etc. Angela Mason is typical. This traces all the way back to the Suffragettes, who were also enthusiastic bomb makers.

    The leftist movements do have a violent history, and it has generally come from these loosely organised issue based front groups, and has involved many women. It is not aberrant for Plod to want to know what they’re up to at all. And it is entirely wrong to dismiss Leftist groups as a bunch of harmless cranks. They are often rather dangerous.

  46. It is not aberrant for Plod to want to know what they’re up to at all.

    I don’t think anyone has suggested it is aberrant – the dispute is about what behaviour/activities/methods ought to be allowed.

  47. On a lighter note, it was amusing to read that a significant number of London Greenpeace activists were infiltrators working for McDonald’s and their enthusiasm may have encouraged the group’s leaders to keep it going.

  48. The Police tatics here don’t seem to have been very useful.
    Surely if they let these protestors shut down a coal power station causing blackouts, the protestors would lose so much support as to render them ineffective.

  49. Ian B:
    Whoever got em riled up and winning, I still don’t know what “F/P” theory is. Maybe “Fems right, men wrong – on near everything?”

  50. Tex:

    A little dilligent searching will find you a pdf online of Catharine Mackinnon’s “Towards A Feminist Theory Of The State”. That’s a pretty good primer.

  51. Ian B:
    I truly thank you for the direction, as I have been uninformed except the mish mash of bad stuff I see @ US Universities, family law, reg law, & so many other idiocies and had no idea these women were united behind a single cause other than they should rule (brief description); however, I don’t imagine further study will help me make things right.

  52. Tex-

    Another work worth reading for insight is “Against Our Will” by Susan Brownmiller, which for feminists is “the rape classic” that sets out the basic stall on the issue.

    Feminism, like many other ideologies, isn’t so much a coherent theory as an “idea cloud”, but it is fairly well defined, and certain ideas are key to it, like those expressed in those two books which bind Feminism together in a marxist framework of (gender) class struggle. Out “in the wild” it’s terms like “exploitation”, “objectification”, “rape culture” etc which are referring back to the theoretical framework provided by the likes of Mackinnon and Browmiller; in particular, Mackinnnon is the “go to girl” for understanding the legalist aspects. She literally wrote the book; it’s the one I referenced above. Indeed, it was Mackinnon who introduced and defined the term “sexual harrassment”.

    Knowledge in itself doesn’t achieve anything. But it can be a requirement for, or some degree of help in, achieving something.

  53. Ian B:

    Lunatics’ plans are not valuable to me. The problem is higher up – gov. I doubt my influence but there may be some awakening by the citizenry.

    I learned Friedman, yrs ago, said all major gov initiatives were from Madison Av type marketing, not public demand. He was talking about SS which he said was a bad tax & a bad welfare system sold as insurance when it was not but neither part would have passed as such. In the same speech he noted gov had been working for yrs to control healthcare, by marketing, not public demand. He hoped for failure as the result w/b more cost & less care. We now have Obamacare massively marketed but imposed rather than wait for marketing to sway a majority. Gov is doing the same with AGW, pushing, pushing, selling, selling . . . selling nonsense as science.

    The fem movement is, in my view, a catastrophe for M/F relations & families to our detriment; however, it is but a part of gov impositions, which are all eventually catastrophic. The US regulatory burden has grown so that start-ups are declining, (peaked before the recession) & now more businesses are closing that starting. Americans have no right life or liberty which may be decided by secret court w/o representation or even knowledge of plans against you. Your property may be charged as criminal & taken when you have done nothing at all.

    There are & will be many reasonable girls, though men are at risk. Men may avoid risk via porn or apparently super sex dolls which will get more pre-fem life-like. One female journalists (psychologist?) said porn was bad b/c guys may (did?) become accustomed to perfect images unavailable in reality & become unresponsive to real girls. Another made similar comments re the new sex-dolls. For some men, this may be intention rather than byproduct. There are no substitutes for other gov impositions w/o alternatives or escape.

    Thus, I read gov & econ stuff. Where do you think the biggest problems?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.