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 the following 34 comments
Not the first time
12.01.2011 12:36
Why are you only now making a fuss?
Karen
Life imitates art imitates life
12.01.2011 12:44
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
abcdefghi
Agree
12.01.2011 17:29
Charlie
@abcdefghi
12.01.2011 18:00
Danny
?
12.01.2011 19:00
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
john peel
liars
13.01.2011 06:25
anon
The Boy who Cried Rape?
13.01.2011 08:38
Helping Nobody
Karen ...
13.01.2011 10:49
fred
Big difference between this and the Arab/Jew rape case
13.01.2011 12:50
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
Where is the force?
13.01.2011 14:34
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
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
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
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
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 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
It could be even worse. How do you measure these things?
Helping Nobody
@git
13.01.2011 16:39
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
"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
Try telling that to Mr. Birch:
twelve months
Reasonable belief
13.01.2011 17:03
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
Helping Nobody
Yup, go to Rape Crisis!
13.01.2011 17:33
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
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
Bye!
13.01.2011 18:16
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
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 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
"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
still really 'Helping Nobody"'
14.01.2011 00:00
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
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
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
@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
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