![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dv8nation.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAn undercover operative in the UK has said that officers working undercover in activist groups often have sex with suspects to get information with the blessing of the higher ups.
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.
I wonder how much sex the officers going after right wing groups got. Anyway, this is just one guy and the brass are denying this is sanctioned. But still, this is really troubling. I'm not up on British law beyond what I've seen on Law & Order: UK (LOL wigs!). But I'm pretty sure British officers aren't allowed, for example, to sleep with confidential informants.
And with good reason. The minute the defense brings up that an officer slept with one of the people on trial then "They framed me because I didn't want to sleep with them anymore!" comes into play. Plus, people in general don't like it when someone they've slept with uses pillow talk against them so there's potential jury trouble right there. Nevermind other objections a jury might have to an officer using sex like that as part of an investigation.
Yes, undercover work is murky stuff. But officers who do that must be held to the highest standards because if they integrity is in any way questionable then anything they bring to court is potentially fruit of the tainted tree.
(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 19:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 16:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 17:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 17:34 (UTC)Hiyoooo! (http://www.hiyoooo.com/)
(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 17:47 (UTC)(gosh, I feel like I'm 13 again saying something that juvenile)
(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 17:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 18:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 18:43 (UTC)The officer's testimony will not be used as evidence by the prosecution, merely as probable cause for the search warrant that discovered the bodies of the babies and the knife with the accused's prints and the deceased's DNA all over it.
(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 20:35 (UTC)I can't imagine any cop with a brain is going to get a warrent based on info from an officer who's under the influence.
(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 22:10 (UTC)Remember, the threshold for getting a search warrant is FAR lower than in a criminal trial. Really any probably cause, including from an anonymous informant where the police don't even know who it is that is making the report or what their state of mind is can be enough in some cases to get one.
(no subject)
Date: 25/1/11 19:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/1/11 19:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 17:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 17:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 18:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 18:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 19:43 (UTC)The idea of using the defence "They framed me because I didn't want to sleep with them anymore!" is pretty damned weak and it is hard to imagine it ever working. "They" are a police officer who only started sleeping with you in the first place so as to pump you for information. They are reporting to their sexual relationship with you to their boss who is running the case and who isn't going to frame you up in revenge for no longer having sex with their underling.
Seriously, inject the idea of sex into a situation and people get all moral panicky. There's no big deal here.
(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 19:48 (UTC)tee hee
(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 22:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 22:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 20:31 (UTC)Allowing testimony and having it poked at by prosecutors is two different things. As for the rest, officers do take oaths that doesn't seem in keeping with banging people for information.
(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 20:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/1/11 22:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/1/11 04:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/1/11 04:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/1/11 05:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/1/11 19:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/1/11 22:24 (UTC)I mean, if this particular thing is objectionable, then so is all undercover investigation.
(no subject)
Date: 25/1/11 19:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/1/11 22:19 (UTC)Certainly not if you believe being an uncover officer in the first place does not violate an oath of integrity.
By being an undercover officer they are outright lying to the people they are dealing with about their identity, and their entire behaviour is modified in a way designed to deceive those people into believing they are someone they are not. They sit to eat with them, spend time with their families, deliberately seek to create trust relationships that they intend to violate and make personal promises that they have no intention to keep.
If that's acceptable, why is having sex with these people to obtain information suddenly cross some exceptional and invisible boundary?
(no subject)
Date: 26/1/11 02:26 (UTC)Quotes page
Date: 24/1/11 20:18 (UTC)This is just twisted funny. I approve and recommend it for our Quotes Page.
Just for the record a friend of mine who's kind of big in the NE GOP said key parties hapen all the time at conventions.
Re: Quotes page
Date: 24/1/11 20:29 (UTC)Re: Quotes page
Date: 25/1/11 04:15 (UTC)Re: Quotes page
Date: 24/1/11 22:42 (UTC)