Skip to content or view screen version

Flash and sexual allegations

fred | 12.01.2011 10:43


An activist wishing to be known only as Anna says she feels violated after having sex with the man who turned out to be an undercover policeman being paid to uncover information seemingly by any means possible. I wonder how you can truly consent when everything you think you know about a situation is a web of lies concocted by the very person attempting to have sex with you on the basis of that bed of lies.

fred

Comments

Hide 4 hidden comments or hide all comments

Not the first time

12.01.2011 12:36

The cops have done it before - Operation Julie for starters.

Why are you only now making a fuss?

Karen


Life imitates art imitates life

12.01.2011 12:44

Not the first time.

Bards express the experience best. If you get a chance try hearing Peg Millet singing "He Looked a Whole Lot Like Jesus". The reference is to an abortive EF! action circa 1990 (there was an undercover agent embedded in their group and one? of them was having sex with him).

MDN


not just cops

12.01.2011 17:27

i've had anarchist/activist men from this scene pretend to be things they are not in order to get in my knickers more times than i have time to list here... yeah baby i'm a feminist, yeah baby i'm totally bisexual, yeah baby i'm committed to the cause, no baby i'm not drunk/high/going to tell all my mates about it... blah fucking blah.

abcdefghi


Agree

12.01.2011 17:29

I agree, going undercover as a cop is crossing one line; having intimate relationships within the circle you are grassing up on, is another line he crossed. I imagine the woman in question feels deeply violated.

Charlie


@abcdefghi

12.01.2011 18:00

It's not the same level of deception, it's not even in the same ball-park, and so don't try to elevate your experiences to those of genuine victims. As a rational adult you should be able to spot those lies and act accordingly, and if you are not a rational adult then that is rape. Without reference to Kennedy but to previous cases, this is state-sponsored criminal deception by the police. The statute definition of rape is 'without reasonable consent'. This institutionalised behaviour is far more akin to the paedophile gangs, or having unprotected sex knowing that you are HIV, and the very worst thing about it is it is official police policy. Do police infiltrators wait six months after their last sexual encounter and have a range of STD checks before bedding the next innocent? Cos if they don't, they are risking the lives of their 'lovers'. This is at best institutionalised prostitution and by any reasonable definition it is not 'reasonable consent', because it is not informed consent. You do all victims of rape a disservice with such a false analogy.

Danny


?

12.01.2011 19:00

"yeah baby i'm a feminist, yeah baby i'm totally bisexual, yeah baby i'm committed to the cause"

Are these the things I should have been saying to get laid? If so, it explains a lot!

confused boy


banned name

12.01.2011 22:34

does anyone else think "yeah baby I'm totally bisexual" is a great name for a band?

john peel


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Flash was a dirty sleazy scumbag

13.01.2011 00:22

Which meant he fitted in well with the other ageing sexual predators in that scene. Come on girls, we all know their names - Merrick, Spencer, Andy from Nottingham, Davey from Leeds, and Mark fucking Stone. Long-term sex pests and predators known to every woman in the movement.

Terra


liars

13.01.2011 06:25

People (mostly men? sorry, but i bet that's true) have been lying in order to have sex since forever. Small white lies, big fat lies - size doesn't matter, they're liars.

anon


The Boy who Cried Rape?

13.01.2011 08:38

Helping Nobody


Karen ...

13.01.2011 10:49

You have no idea whether I'm only now making a fuss or have always made a fuss. As it happens, this is the first time I've been aware of such an incident as I'm fairly new on the scene. I'm sorry in my infancy when I didn't do anything particularly worthy of police infiltration I didn't magic up knowledge on the matter and make a fuss. I must be one hella sexist, right?

fred


Big difference between this and the Arab/Jew rape case

13.01.2011 12:50

I have seen several people claiming this is just like the case in Israel when the Arab guy was imprisoned for rape for having consensual sex with a Jewish woman just because he didn't tell her he wasn't Jewish.

The comparison is not valid, and the Israeli case is just pure racism. Can you imagine it happening if it were the other way round? (Jewish man pretending to Arab woman he wasn't Jewish). No.

The big difference here is that is isn't between two individuals, it is between a member of the public and an employee of the state with a duty to protect the public. It's more like when a person with a position of power like a teacher abuses one of their pupils.

Ordinary people might tell lies or exaggerations to get laid, but if a cop does it (have sex with me and the charges will be dropped; I'm not a cop I'm an activist), that is when the line is crossed into rape.

Mark Kennedy needs to do some hard time.

anon


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

The View From The Grassy Knoll

13.01.2011 14:01

In recent days the media have been fixated with the tale of Mark ‘Flash’ Stone (real name Mark Kennedy), the undercover cop who for seven years infiltrated the environmental movement, and who supposedly ended up supporting the movement he was helping to destroy. This Hollywoodesque portrait of Kennedy as some downmarket Donnie Brascoe has appealed to lazy hacks out for a juicy story and denied contact with everyone involved except for a few low-rent media whores and outright traitors. Yet the truth is very different.

The early part of the unmasking of ‘Mark Stone’ will be familiar to activists, or at least the bare bones of it will. He was infiltrated into the movement in 2003, moving to Nottingham, going to the Sumac Centre a few times, and then turning up at that year’s Earth First! Summer Gathering where he began to become known. Over the next seven years he became a main player in the UK environmental movement, going on numerous actions, attending conferences and gatherings, and generally making himself useful, primarily as a driver. He also infiltrated or attempted to infiltrate other movements, both here and abroad.

The sleeping policeman’s downfall came sometime last year when his long-term girlfriend within the movement found a passport in the name of Mark Kennedy, ‘Stone’s real name. The passport also contained the details of a child. Kennedy span an elaborate tale to account for the find, which his girlfriend appeared to accept. Eventually though she spoke to friends about it, and after an investigation traced a birth certificate for the child which gave his father’s occupation as “police officer” (as his paternal grandfather had been) a rather disparate bunch of friends, six in all, confronted their erstwhile comrade. The undercover cop had obviously been trained in how to act if his cover was blown, and after his excuses fell on deaf ears, he burst into tears, seeking the sympathy of those he had so thoroughly betrayed.

The group questioned Kennedy; primarily about themselves it seems, but also about another suspected undercover cop, formerly based in Leeds. Controversially, Kennedy confirmed that she was part of the same unit. How long the questioning went on we do not know because the fruits of it, if there are any, have not been shared with the movement. Kennedy was allowed to go on his way unharmed.

In fact, far from being harmed or intimidated, immediately following the encounter, Kennedy was still so clear-headed, that he telephoned another long-term partner, who the Group of Six had failed to warn, confessed his occupation, and drove some distance with the aim of seeing her. She is merely one of many women within the movement who Kennedy exploited and betrayed during his seven years undercover.

Within days of Kennedy’s ‘outing’, a short piece appeared on Indymedia making his true identity public. There was also a photo of him wearing a large hat which covered his forehead, hair, and ears. This was later supplemented by a second photo, though this seems to have been regarded by many Indymedia posters as little better than the first. Among the incredulity, shock, and disbelief in the 174 comments (plus many more that were ‘hidden’, or censored, by Indymedia moderators) which followed the post were numerous requests for more information and better photos, requests that were for the most part met by irritation by the cognoscenti and their allies.

While many of the close friends and comrades of Stone/Kennedy, outside of the Group of Six, were in fact offered very little forewarning, support, or protection, there was much talk, both on the net and at a well-attended Anarchist Bookfair meeting, about protecting “those closest to him” and about the need for “security” (a bit like closing the barn door after the pig has already bolted). It appears to have been understood by many however, that further information about Kennedy would be made publically available, not least to ensure that his career as an undercover cop really was well and truly over. If assurances were made, as has been claimed, those assurances were broken, no more information has been provided to the movement by the Group of Six, and information posted to Indymedia by others has been subject to censorship at their direction.

Kennedy had lived at several addresses in Nottingham (and obviously elsewhere as a cop), but at the time of his fall from grace he was living on a canal barge he had bought at the beginning of 2010. The boat, called Tamarisk (of which there are several registered narrow boats), was moored close to Nottingham, and in lieu of Kennedy himself, was an obvious target for those he had betrayed. Members of the Group of Six, or others very close to them, apparently assured other activists that the boat would be dealt with. Instead however, it was allowed to simply sail away, much like Kennedy himself. The name of the boat was only exposed as frustrated activists became more and more angry at the lack of any further information about Kennedy and one of them posted it to a heated Indymedia thread, in which the Group of Six were accused of ‘protecting’ Kennedy. That post was ‘hidden’ following a request on the Indymedia moderation list (received on 10th January 2011) from “some of the people directly involved” for any reference to Kennedy’s canal boat, even its very existence, to be expunged from Indymedia. Now why would they want to stop people finding out about Kennedy’s boat?

The only thing surprising about the recent explosion of coverage of the Stone/Kennedy affair is that it took so long to happen. The story first appeared in The Sunday Times on the 19th of December 2010, with a particularly nauseating political slant, and an even more nauseating photo of the (thankfully disbanded) Clown Army. The piece appeared to be largely culled from Indymedia, and was reasonably sympathetic to both Kennedy and to the wet-end of the environmental movement who had clearly planted the story. As with the avalanche of coverage which would come a few weeks later, one of the common themes was the utter worthlessness of the UK environmental movement in terms of infiltration, a slant on the story that appears to have come from the environmentalists themselves and that they would later shamelessly parrot endlessly for the bourgeois media. The cops it seems should have been focussing their resources on less ‘fluffy’ activists than these “hippies and tree-huggers”.

It was the second Ratcliffe-On-Soar trial, which led to the real media frenzy. The story was that a group of protestors had planned to invade and occupy a power station at Ratcliffe, and Kennedy had been a key-player, and arguably an agent provocateur, in the operation. Naturally the cops were tipped off, and swooped arresting 114 activists, and Kennedy, while they were discussing the action at a meeting in Nottingham. Charges were eventually dropped against most of those arrested, including Kennedy of course, with 26 going on to face trial. Despite their knowledge of Kennedy’s involvement, the first group of 20 chose to fight the case on the basis of climate change and an appeal to the liberal sensibilities of the jury, a principled stand which resulted in them all being convicted. Through their lawyer, the remaining six challenged the prosecution’s lack of disclosure regarding Kennedy, and were discharged before their trial could even begin.

Despite the media lie that would dominate coverage for days to come, the trial was NOT halted because Kennedy had offered to give evidence for the defence.
What had actually happened was that one of the 6 defendants, Dr Simon Lewis, an inveterate careerist and wealthy academic, but someone with a background in Reclaim The Streets, Earth First!, Dissent, and the Climate Camp (as well as a friend of Special Branch tout and Clown Army founder John Jordan), was so frightened of having his lucrative career damaged by an actual conviction that he contacted the cop, Kennedy, and appealed for his help, insisting that he never intended to go on any action in the first place (which to anyone who knows Lewis is entirely believable). In taped phone conversations which were later acquired by the BBC, Kennedy whines self-pityingly about how much he hates himself, before mumbling about possibly helping. This is as far as any help went. Kennedy’s assistance was of course not required anyway, it was his activities and the fact that they had not been disclosed that was important, not any assistance he might give to a grovelling sell-out like Lewis, someone who is happy to talk to cops to save his own skin.

The false story that the media seized on was that Kennedy had “gone native” and that the trial had collapsed because of his offer of help. It was a lie they were able to run with because of the assistance of traitors who have collaborated with the press, often they have been people who barely knew Kennedy personally. Either way, they have queued up to do the media’s bidding, with Simon Lewis’s posh girlfriend Sophie Stevens, an ‘activist’ with all the pedigree of a Hush Puppy, even appearing on Newsnight. While the media frenzy has been useful in terms of Steven’s CV, and the egos (and perhaps pockets) of the other media whores, the truth about Kennedy “going native” is that it has since transpired he is now working for a private security company.

Yet, despite its nauseating slants and untruths, many activists will have learned more from reading between the lines of the bourgeois media than they ever have from the supposed comrades who conducted the investigation into Kennedy and who have been steadfast in their refusal to disclose further photographs of him or any further information, including his whereabouts. While they may not have anything more to say to the movement, at least one of their number certainly had plenty to say to The Guardian.

Despite being an undercover cop, Kennedy’s vanity meant that he was always posing for photographs, there must be hundreds in existence, yet the Group of Six and their associates have repeatedly claimed they had none. Again, it’s funny how they were available to The Guardian.

Having been allowed to escape, Kennedy now supposedly lives abroad at a location known to the Group of Six, but which they have adamantly refused to disclose on the basis that Kennedy has a wife and teenage son who must be protected. This position is not only a dereliction of duty and an abuse of both power and of trust, but it is a vicious smear against the movement who they are implying are no better than TV gangsters. Such reactionary prejudice has at its basis the innate middle-class fear of ‘the other’, of the uncontrollable ‘mob’ who (in this case) cannot be trusted to deal responsibly and intelligently with information their betters hold safely in keeping. In this they have sided with a cop and with the state.

In the UK Mark Kennedy may have primarily engaged in political activity with ineffectual liberals, and indeed spent most of his time partying in the sleazy semi-retired eco-activist scene inhabited by those now protecting him, but he travelled widely, visiting 22 countries according to The Guardian, and in most of those countries he comported himself differently and mixed with a more militant class of activist. Some of those comrades certainly have more to lose than a few months on a probation order, yet they have been hung out to dry by a tiny clique of party-heads and one-time eco warriors in Nottingham. At the very least they deserve to know that Mark Kennedy is not living on the next street to them.

German activists recently uncovered their own undercover cop, it took them seven months rather than seven years, and the subsequent international press release contained as much information as they were able to gather, as well as excellent photographs. Kennedy spent long periods infiltrating German activist groups, and they are both shocked and astonished by the way things have been handled here. With questions being asked in the German parliament, they may eventually get more answers from the authorities than from their UK comrades.

Despite heavy censorship on Indymedia frustration among some activists is beginning to turn to anger, and the Group of Six have been accused of an unspoken agreement with Kennedy – That he would protect them as best he could, and that in return they would let him walk away, leave his boat alone, not post their archive of photographs and personal information to the net, and not disclose his whereabouts or those of his family. With every day such a theory becomes more compelling.

There is no doubt that Kennedy’s former close friends must be extremely distressed and traumatised by the events of the past six months, but those in the Group of Six have to realise that Kennedy’s activities have implications way beyond themselves, and that they need to behave with a sense of responsibility to the wider movement. Divesting themselves may also help take them towards closure in the affair, instead of prolonging it (by intervening on Indymedia for example). They did a good job in tracing Kennedy’s real identity, but it might then have been better to hand the matter over to other activists who were less emotionally involved. That they did not, and let Kennedy walk away, is unfortunately symptomatic of the middle-class ‘activist’, they never imagine that anyone might be better qualified than themselves. As for Kennedy, he should certainly not have got off so lightly.

Another preoccupation both of the press and of some activists has been how bad poor old Mark Kennedy (the cop who lied to those around him for seven years and betrayed his closest friends and comrades) must be feeling now. We neither care nor are interested. Kennedy supposedly spent his working days hanging from a rope, and we can only hope that one day justice finds him at the end of one.

The Boys on the Grassy Knoll


Where is the force?

13.01.2011 14:34

So you have outlined professional misconduct.With no proof of force or the threat of force or blackmail, we still have no rape case.

There have been no suggestions so far that he forced himself onto anyone or threatened them in any way. It sounds as though the sex was totally consensual, just that at least Mark Kennedy was dishonest about who he was.

Can you find me a single modern rape case in the UK where the issue of identity defined the difference between rape and no rape?

He should be brought to book for what he has actually done, and so should his bosses who set up this legally dubious quasi-police-corporate spy operation. On the face of it here, it looks like there have been serious breaches in terms of policing, justice and civil liberties.

Helping Nobody


Rape doesn't require force, let alone a police force

13.01.2011 15:43

"So you have outlined professional misconduct.With no proof of force or the threat of force or blackmail, we still have no rape case"

And your legal qualifications are? You don't need to use force to rape someone, try having sex with a willing 15 year old for example, or a blind drunk 30 year old. That's rape. Without reasonable consent, it is rape. We are arguing about what is 'reasonable'. I find the police force policy and behaviour highly unreasonable. Actually, in the newspapers a few police are also saying this was unacceptable, which means they should be pressing charges themselves.

Think about the effect too. If someone rapes you when you are drunk, it is horrific and soul-destroying, and criminal, but it is a single event. Kennedy damaged lives repeatedly over the long term.

"There have been no suggestions so far that he forced himself onto anyone or threatened them in any way. It sounds as though the sex was totally consensual, just that at least Mark Kennedy was dishonest about who he was"

Yup, no reasonable consent. Rape doesn't require violence or the threat of violence.

"Can you find me a single modern rape case in the UK where the issue of identity defined the difference between rape and no rape?"

I believe there was a recent case where a man was jailed for rape for sneaking into his friends bedroom and having sex with his wife, who assumed it was her husband. I don't want to search the case name because there is a risk of this semantic argument turning salacious. Rape as a crime is defined differently by judiciaries across the world, and as an anarchist I don't want to limit the word solely to English and Scottish law but to what we know in our hearts is just and unjust. In Scotland though, I assume in the rest of the UK too, you require reasonable consent for sex not to be rape, and as a juror who would decide what is reasonable and unreasonable I would convict Kennedy and his employers of unreasonable behaviour. Do you find it reasonable? If not, it is rape. Even if you don't agree with the word you have already agreed on another thread that it is heinous abuse that should be punished. It doesn't demean the victims of violent rape to admit that rape occurs without violence. Say a doctor hypnotised you and when you were under hypnosis got you to sign a disclaimer, that's still rape isn't it?

I'd like to add as an addendum, nothing to do with this case, rape isn't just limited to full blown sex. If a person forces a finger, or anything, into someone elses sexual oriffice without reasonable consent, that legally is rape here. As the Assange case shows, different countries have different definitions and a wider range of charges, but in the UK the charges have been combined into a single charge to increase the paltry rate of convictions.

I'm not an expert on this by any means, it would be good to have someone representing RapeCrisis or another group here to give their more informed opinion, partly because I don't think either of us know enough about it to speak on the subject definitively.

Danny


Plumbing the depths of shittiness

13.01.2011 16:12

Whether of not Flash Mark's scummy behaviour is legally definable as rape or not is really beside the point. The emotional effect, the sense of violation, must be much the same.

It is disgraceful that the "Grassy Knoll" people are effectively clamouring for at least one of the women he so abused to be exposed to further trauma (by going on about the boat issue).

Most of the shitty things life throws at my friends are either within my own experience or I understand enough to comprehend and have a measure of it. Someone's long term lover turning out to be an undercover cop is way, way outside that. The shittiness of it beggars belief.

Those closely affected deserve all we can give them in the way of love, solidarity and protection from the media and cops.

Stroppyoldgit


where "issue of identity defined the difference between rape and no rape"

13.01.2011 16:24

A cop apologist said: "Can you find me a single modern rape case in the UK where the issue of identity defined the difference between rape and no rape?"

Sure, all the time. Teachers and their pupils, for example, even if they are of a legal age (16 or over).

Abusing a position of power for sex isn't allowing for proper consent. People like teachers, doctors, cops are held to a higher standard of behaviour than us ordinary people, precisely because of the power they hold.

anon


"I'm not an expert on this by any means"

13.01.2011 16:32

Obviously, you are no expert.

Rape does indeed require an element of lack of consent or force/coercion. As it stands what has been said demonstrates nothing that would normally qualify as rape.

The guy is scum for sure. But is he any worse than my ex who strung me and others along on false promises and lies?

Reasonable consent means the person was of sound mind and free from threat when they agreed to have sex, and they were of an age and competency to be legally able to do that. That's all. A simple google would reveal that much.

It doesn’t mean the person you are having sex with has to have never deceived you. Simply lying about your identity isn't enough to invalidate consent to sex.

I'm very sure it won't make his victims feel any the less violated, and used but it doesn't look like a rape case.

I think it is pretty insulting to be people who have been physically violated with force or coercion to reduce their trauma to the actions of being duped by a scummy cheat. Deeply as unpleasant as that is.

Helping Nobody


Anon

13.01.2011 16:36

It isn't illegal for a teacher to sleep with a mentally competent and sober 16 year old in the UK.

It is a sacking offence if it is one of their own pupils.

They would legally marry a 16 year old if there was the will.

defending the concept of rape isn't cop apology, it is defending repe victims by not trivialising them.

Helping Nobody


Strppyoldgit

13.01.2011 16:38

"The emotional effect, the sense of violation, must be much the same. "

It could be even worse. How do you measure these things?

Helping Nobody


@git

13.01.2011 16:39

"Those closely affected deserve all we can give them in the way of love, solidarity and protection from the media and cops"

Sure, I agree with that but maybe they also need sound legal advice as to whether they should be bringing criminal charges or a civil prosecution not just against Kennedy but against his employers.

I've never went to the cops when I've been mugged or whatever, the one time I did without hesitation is when a stranger attempted to rape a lover. Whether or not this is criminal rape, this is such a serious abuse that those women should be talking to the one of comparatively decent lawyers who take activist cases. If you are in contact with any of them maybe you should recommend that. A prison sentence or even a big payout won't ease the hurt but it might help to change police policy and stop this abuse repeating endlessly.

Danny


@helping nobody

13.01.2011 16:49

I wouldn't label your argument as as 'cop apologists' but you really aren't helping anyone. Please read, consider, investigate and then respond to my reply to you as I realise this an unfamiliar grey area to many.

"The guy is scum for sure. But is he any worse than my ex who strung me and others along on false promises and lies?"

Yes, without a shadow of a doubt, beyond any reasonable doubt, and that is such a stupid thing to say you will regret it one day. We've all had dishonest scummy lovers, in fact my love life has been ruined by someone I have good grounds to suspect as an infiltrator who is by far the worst I've known which is why I'm posting, but Stroppyoldgit is right, nothing any of us have experienced will compare to these victims. Please show some thoughtfulness or if you are going to persist then do so openly and identifiably.

Danny


You really are 'Helping Nobody'

13.01.2011 16:57

It isn't illegal for a teacher to sleep with a mentally competent and sober 16 year old in the UK."

Try telling that to Mr. Birch:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6614348/Teacher-who-had-sexual-relationship-with-pupil-jailed.html

twelve months


Reasonable belief

13.01.2011 17:03

Another factor which makes the new definition of rape broader than the old one is the issue of "reasonable" consent.
At present, an accused person must merely have an "honest or genuine" belief that a victim consented, said the policy document. In future, however, that belief must also be a "reasonable" belief.

So the question of whether this is statuary rape hinges on, did Mark Kennedy have a reasonable belief that the people he slept with would have willingly slept with him if they knew he was an undercover policeman? That's for a jury to decide, not a judge, not a policeman, not any uninformed punters here.

I think we can all agree that if no official prosecution of Mark is taken by the authorities, then we should punish him ourselves for this.

Your fact checkin' cousin
- Homepage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7461031.stm


Breach of trust

13.01.2011 17:23

It is a professional misconduct offence. I wasn't aware that you go be prosecuted with that. But it's not even a sex offence let alone rape.

Helping Nobody


Yup, go to Rape Crisis!

13.01.2011 17:33

"So the question of whether this is statuary rape hinges on, did Mark Kennedy have a reasonable belief that the people he slept with would have willingly slept with him if they knew he was an undercover policeman?"

No I don't believe it is. It is obviously what you want it it be. But in reality it will hinge on whether the person was in a position to legally consent, and whether Kennedy believed that person was sane, 16 or over and sober and wasn't he forcing or threatening them.


I think if anyone feels they have been a victim of a sexual assault they should contact Rape Crisis.

Lord help anyone who comes to Indymedia for sound advice on anything!

I really couldn't care less if Kennedy got dragged behind wild horses but macho posturing helps no one either.

Bye!

Helping Nobody
- Homepage: http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/centres.php


'ignorance is no excuse'

13.01.2011 17:55

"It is a professional misconduct offence"

Nah, 'professional misconduct' is when an accountant submits a false expense claim without a receipt. You've called Kennedy scum so you know this isn't just that level of offence. It is closer to rape, if not rape, and you so far haven't bothered to learn the basics that each adult should know about this subject.

"I wasn't aware that you go be prosecuted with that. But it's not even a sex offence let alone rape."

You must know in your heart it is even worse than your typical sex offence. There are men on the sex-offenders register for peeing in a public park. There are 15 year olds on the sex-offenders register for having sex with their their 14 year partners. This is far, far worse than that.

If you are wanting to show you are not just an apologist for the scummy Kennedy, then present your arguments identifiably, every regular here knows who I am, it wouldn't take the papers two minutes googling to identify me. You are rapidly crossing into 'troll' territory. Why not take a day before posting any further comment that would prove you are a troll? Instead of speculating about the law, why not take a day to learn about it before pronouncing on it as if you know what you are talking about? Or else, drop the pseudonym if you want to be taken seriously.

Danny


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

not yet banned

13.01.2011 18:06

so, no-one want to join my band Yeah Baby I'm So Totally Bisexual? Seems like some people here will be too busy going to see Long Live Misogyny at the Empire on Saturday.

john peel


Bye!

13.01.2011 18:16

"Instead of speculating about the law, why not take a day to learn about it before pronouncing on it as if you know what you are talking about?"

Funnily enough it was your obvious lack of restraint that made me comment in the first place. I have said all I have to say.

If people want advice and help, speak to Rape Crisis!

Helping Nobody


Consent means reasonablly consent

13.01.2011 18:21

"But in reality it will hinge on whether the person was in a position to legally consent"

Here is the crux then, machismo aside, point-scoring dropped. I have no wish to attack you simply for disagreeing with me but please reply rationally to my points.

Legal consent means by statute not only 'reasonable consent' from the complainant but , seemingly, a reasonable belief of Marks that his 'lovers' would have reasonably consented if they had known. That's not my definition, that's the Scottish Law definition, and Mark was 'active' in Scotland. I assume that is the same in England.

Lokk at this from a non-activist jurors point of view, who had read these comments or listened to the first hand testimony. Would they consider it reasonable to have an undercover 'scum' cop shag innocent activists for dirt? They obviously wouldn't, that must have been part of the reason why this case was dropped.

Take it a stage further, would any random juror off the street who heard an honest account of this 'sting' think the police should be prosecuted for abuse? I think they would. I think Kennedy is a rapist, I think the police chiefs who employed him are complicit in soliciting rape, and I think they should be either prosecuted by the state or punished by the people. That's just my understanding of the law of this land, you are fully entitled to your view but you haven't justified it yet in the least. Argue your case with reason and facts or please rethink.


To IMCistas, about other posts on this thread: as a fan of John Peel I never heard him joke about rape. I wouldn't ask you to censor my opponents arguments but please cut the rape-jokers in their buds.

Danny


Scum beyond description

13.01.2011 18:41

I agree they guy is total scum. I wouldn't cry if bad things happened to him. But I think it is down to the victims' wishes as to how the thing plays out.

I really have no idea what the proper word pathogens like Kennedy is. I am simply saying as nauseating as what he has done is, I really totally doubt it could ever be framed legally as rape.

From my experience I seriously doubt you can even easily compare it to rape. But I don't feel that as soemone who has only been sexually assaulted and thankfully managed to escape a rape attempt that I can judge that.

I think Lady Liberty should knock the living daylights out of him with the statute. I agree that people are guilty of disgusting behaviour all they way up the to the Home Office.

Realistically, I doubt the justice system will do anything for the victims. Because even in wholly unambiguous cases, the chances of securing a conviction for rape are slim.

I hope the victims can find some kind of positive outcome, whatever that may be.

And that really is my last word.

Helping Nobody


so full of yourself

13.01.2011 21:11

Danny says:
"To IMCistas, about other posts on this thread: as a fan of John Peel I never heard him joke about rape. I wouldn't ask you to censor my opponents arguments but please cut the rape-jokers in their buds." How po-faced can you get?

Where did I joke about rape Danny? My first joke was aimed at sleazy anarchist men - my second at you and other posters on this thread patronising people with your know-it-all nonsense. I admit my twisted sense of humour doesn't always come across - at least I have you one, you laughless fuck.
You belittle other people's serious considerations about rape and Mark's actions, and then try to deflect it by calling for censoring others... And don't DARE get all John Peelier than thou cos the mighty Mr R had a brill sense of humour and one of his favourite targets was pretentious humourless twats.

John Peel


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

So ashamed of yourself

13.01.2011 23:24

Why are you cracking jokes on an article about abuse - to lighten the mood? If you are so proud of your "jokes" then why not take full credit for it, rather than besmirch the memory a man you obviously never understood in the least, by identifying yourself? The way it reads it be you are just a sick little fuck-wit who comes across more like Jim Davidson than John Peel, but prove me wrong, name yourself and claim your applause.

stand up


still really 'Helping Nobody"'

14.01.2011 00:00

"But it's not even a sex offence let alone rape."

Try telling that to the judge:

"Birch, 65, showed no reaction as Judge Robert Fraser jailed him and said he would have to sign as a sex offender for 10 years."

Ten Years


Article 8

14.01.2011 00:14

This latest Guardian article is saying that the police don't normally have a duty of care towards the public the same way a doctor or teacher would always have. To hell with them then if they won't police their own, treat each infiltrator as if they were a sex-offender and not just a snitch.
No forgiveness, no impunity, no escape.

guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/mark-kennedy-civil-actions

If the protesters or the women could show that the police owed them a duty of care, there is a possibility for a claim of negligence. "If it can be shown that the police have a responsibility, then there could be grounds for a case," said Stephen Cragg, barrister at Doughty Street chambers. "There are just no guidelines on this kind of situation. It is very difficult to establish a duty of care, but if he was sleeping with these women in order to gain information from them, then there may be a strong case."

He said that any case would be likely to be settled by police, to prevent the courts setting precedents for future claimants.

"It could well be that if a claim was brought, the police might not want to risk a judgment saying that such a duty was established," said Cragg.

Women who had intimate relationships with Kennedy would have to show that they suffered damage, such as a recognised psychiatric condition, as a result of discovering his identity was false.

But the possibility of claims under the Human Rights Act, which guarantees respect for private life at the hands of public authorities, would circumvent the need for specific loss or damage as a result of the relationship with Kennedy.

Home Office guidance on the activities of covert human intelligence sources, which includes the police, recognises the likelihood that human rights issues could arise when relationships are formed between undercover officers and the public.

"Article 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] includes the right to establish and develop relationships," the guidance says. "Accordingly, any manipulation of a relationship by a public authority (eg one party having a covert purpose on behalf of a public authority) is likely to engage Article 8, regardless of whether or not the public authority intends to acquire private information."

not the apologist


Danny ...

14.01.2011 12:04

Maybe of more concern to the victims than legal proceedings, is the process of overcoming the damage done and healing. Giving evidence as the victim in a sexual offence trial is very famously described as re-experiencing the traumatic experience. Yes a conviction or a pay-out would discourage other cops from acting this way in future. But it's not the responsibility of the victim to relive trauma and traul their personal life in the media spotlight when they're already facing enough damage.

I find the entire manner in which this conversation has developed very disturbing and can only imagine how upsetting it must be for those personally involved in this, to read the comments here. The two of you are discussing this matter so clinically, without even a ounce of respect for the feelings of the people involved.

ping


clarification

14.01.2011 14:30

@helping nobody
@danny

re: identity fraud, consent, and rape.


Sorry to be pedantic, but, rightly or wrongly, the law is pretty clear on this point.

R v Elbekay is one case in which an individual was guilty of rape having decieved the victim about who he was.

s76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 places this on a statutory footing, as it creates a conclusive presumption against consent in circumstances where the defendant has obtained consent by deception regarding identity. The legal effect of this is that if the prosecution can prove that the victim was so deceived, and would not have had sex if the truth had been known to them, then the consent is deemed invalid and the jury would be directed to return a guilty verdict. There are very few conclusive presumptions in law at all, and this is the only provision relating to rape. By contrast, if the prosecution can prove the defendant physically assaulted the victim immediately prior to intercourse, this only creates an evidential presumption against consent, leaving it open to the defendant to argue, and the jury to agree, that the victim did consent and there was no rape. (s75)

Although it is highly improbable that any prosecution would ever take place, technically, if Anna, or indeed, any of Kennedy's partners are clear they would not have had sex with him had they known his identity, and if he knew or reasonably believed that they would not have done so, he committed rape.

v24


Obtaining sexual contact by fraud

15.01.2011 14:06

Apologies to the women if they agree with how you've read my comments. It is obviously their choice whether to pursue civil legal action but the police have made it clear they would settle out of court to avoid details being released, which would also negate their need to testify. Criminal charges should be brought in my opinion which would give the victims anonymity, but again that is the victims decision.
As v24 helpfully pointed out obtaining sex by deception is a criminal offence. Currently in Scotland there is such a case. Samantha Brooks is accused of posing as a man called Lee Brooks and thus obtaining sexual contact with them by fraud over 8 years. She faces two charges of obtaining sexual contact by fraud, which are broken down into various subsections, and of sexual assault on numerous specific dates. Mark Kennedy also pretended to be a man when he was in fact a pig.

Danny


Hide 4 hidden comments or hide all comments