Reply to: I thought children were supposed to be a blessing?

[vetran]

And you are quoting the case out of context. In R v Clarence the judgement was indeed that infecting his wife with gonorrhoea did not negate the consent but he was convicted of actual bodily harm. Later overturned on appeal. He was charged with rape but found not guilty. The judges comment in the case was making it clear that in the view of the court the only things that would negate the consent were fraud as to the nature of the act itself, or fraud concerning the identity of the individual who does the act. The fact that she knew who he was and had consented to penetrative sex means there was no fraud on either count. Had she consented to non-penetrative sexual activity or was under the belief that the person involved was her husband when he wasn't, then fraud would have been committed and consent nullified.

Your final point it irrelevant as their is no deception involved. The prostitute is being paid to have sex in the knowledge that he may or may not be who he says he is. The act that follows proves nothing as doubt has already been established and she has consented anyway.

The Wills quote seems pretty clear that consent obtained fraudulently was still consent. There was a case about the nature of the activity pretending it was a another type of activity i.e. a medical exam.

Stephens challenges it but examples are ones known to the victim

As the former Solicitor General concedes it is a grey area, I trust her opinion more than Wikipedia.

The prostitute would not be party to the doubt about identification so it would by your definition be raped.

very grey!

[DaveB]

Rather than Wikipedia armchair expertise how about a real lawyer and a direct quote from the lawyer behind the allegations?



Note Regina v Clarence was about a Husband who knowingly infected his wife with Gonorrhea and doesn't support your case.

I wonder if you can prosecute someone for 'forgetting' her birth control based on this?




hmmm



As the 'offence' happened in 1984 - 87 it would be a stretch to use case law in 2003 to condemn him.

Sex, Lies and Undercover Cops - The Student Lawyer

So his guilt of rape is not established and is doubted by a former Solicitor General ! Get the Pitchforks ready! burn him, burn him!

The point they seem to be turning on is that Bob was not Bob, by default undercover cops can't be who they are.
If they win this, any undercover cop who is suspected is then sent for 10 minutes with one of the gang's prostitute's and the case is thrown out, if he won't do it then its a bullet in the head.


And yet again his behavior would not be acceptable in normal life.

And you are quoting the case out of context. In R v Clarence the judgement was indeed that infecting his wife with gonorrhoea did not negate the consent but he was convicted of actual bodily harm. Later overturned on appeal. He was charged with rape but found not guilty. The judges comment in the case was making it clear that in the view of the court the only things that would negate the consent were fraud as to the nature of the act itself, or fraud concerning the identity of the individual who does the act. The fact that she knew who he was and had consented to penetrative sex means there was no fraud on either count. Had she consented to non-penetrative sexual activity or was under the belief that the person involved was her husband when he wasn't, then fraud would have been committed and consent nullified.

Your final point it irrelevant as their is no deception involved. The prostitute is being paid to have sex in the knowledge that he may or may not be who he says he is. The act that follows proves nothing as doubt has already been established and she has consented anyway.

[vetran]

I wonder what his wife makes of it all.

The point you're not acknowledging is that she's not been awarded money as a victim of crime, but that she's been awarded money because the police behaved unacceptably. Think of it in light of the kind of awards that have been given for things like discrimination or bullying or unfair dismissal, which do seem out of proportion to awards for violent crime. The difference is that the "offender" is not an individual, but an organisation.

it was nearly 30 years ago, being judged by today's.

Apparently the Police prohibit sexual relations. So this individual behaved irresponsibly but I assume they knew about it fairly quickly. Not sure why the Police paid out.

Spying on protest groups has gone badly wrong, police chiefs say | UK news | theguardian.com

Another 8 claimants

Undercover police officers' lies wrecked lives, say women they duped | UK news | theguardian.com

I assume his wife came around no mention of Divorce on wiki.

[BrilloPad]

[vetran]

In cases where police operate undercover there will certainly be a whole slew of minor offences committed, certainly if you look at the fraud aspect, but these would generally be dismissed as not having sufficient weight to warrant prosecution. Having a sexual relationship and fathering a child as a result doesn't fall into that category.

Rather than Wikipedia armchair expertise how about a real lawyer and a direct quote from the lawyer behind the allegations?

In R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, the Court of Appeal held that a man who had infected his wife with gonorrhea had committed no assault; the concealment of his disease and infidelity did not negate her consent to intercourse. “That consent obtained by fraud is no consent at all is not true as a general proposition either in fact or in law,” stated Wills J: otherwise any adulterer, bigamist or silver-tongued charmer would be similarly guilty of rape.

Note Regina v Clarence was about a Husband who knowingly infected his wife with Gonorrhea and doesn't support your case.

I wonder if you can prosecute someone for 'forgetting' her birth control based on this?

This approach was followed in R v Linekar [1995] QB 250, where the defendant made off without paying, after sex with a prostitute: the Court of Appeal held his insincere promise to pay did not negate consent.

hmmm

The case law on this subject is thus somewhat contradictory and Vera Baird QC concedes it is a grey area, stating “all bets are off” if a case ever came to court. In particular, the most recent High Court cases seem to conflict with older precedent and lead to some illogical consequences.

As the 'offence' happened in 1984 - 87 it would be a stretch to use case law in 2003 to condemn him.

Sex, Lies and Undercover Cops - The Student Lawyer

So his guilt of rape is not established and is doubted by a former Solicitor General ! Get the Pitchforks ready! burn him, burn him!

The point they seem to be turning on is that Bob was not Bob, by default undercover cops can't be who they are.
If they win this, any undercover cop who is suspected is then sent for 10 minutes with one of the gang's prostitute's and the case is thrown out, if he won't do it then its a bullet in the head.


And yet again his behavior would not be acceptable in normal life.

[mudskipper]

Compensation may be justified but with £5,500 the normal compensation for death as the result of crime £450K is a lot of cash for getting pregnant by a ghost, possibly I'm cynical but I imagine state support was involved in raising the kid.


Attacking the chap as disgraceful seems a little unfair.

I see what you are saying but given the context what should he have done?

1. Stayed celibate - bit odd for a young virile man in an organisation with many young passionate women. Hardly going to fly is it?
2. Slept with everyone until no one would touch him. He of course would face retrospective accusations
3. Slept with her and not get her pregnant? I bet he tried that.
4. Insisted on an abortion
5. Told her and blown the operation or put his cover and therefore his family at risk?

He was UNDERCOVER! He had to lie daily. He didn't get weekends off and a fortnight with the kids in Italy.


The cases

The scary thing for me about this speech is that we all know the people standing on the wall aren't going to be angels, they can't be yet we still want the wall guarded and then hang the soldiers out to dry every so often.

A Few Good Man "You Can't Handle the Truth" - YouTube

I wonder what his wife makes of it all.

The point you're not acknowledging is that she's not been awarded money as a victim of crime, but that she's been awarded money because the police behaved unacceptably. Think of it in light of the kind of awards that have been given for things like discrimination or bullying or unfair dismissal, which do seem out of proportion to awards for violent crime. The difference is that the "offender" is not an individual, but an organisation.

[vetran]

The argument as to whether or not sleeping with Jacqui and fathering her child was justified in achieving convictions is perhaps separate to the argument as to whether or not she is entitled to compensation for that action.

It is possible for both his actions to be justifiable and for her compensation to be justifiable. An expense of the campaign if you like.

(FWIW, I don't think his actions were justifiable, just pointing out that the two aren't necessarily at odds)

Compensation may be justified but with £5,500 the normal compensation for death as the result of crime £450K is a lot of cash for getting pregnant by a ghost, possibly I'm cynical but I imagine state support was involved in raising the kid.


Attacking the chap as disgraceful seems a little unfair.

I see what you are saying but given the context what should he have done?

1. Stayed celibate - bit odd for a young virile man in an organisation with many young passionate women. Hardly going to fly is it?
2. Slept with everyone until no one would touch him. He of course would face retrospective accusations
3. Slept with her and not get her pregnant? I bet he tried that.
4. Insisted on an abortion
5. Told her and blown the operation or put his cover and therefore his family at risk?

He was UNDERCOVER! He had to lie daily. He didn't get weekends off and a fortnight with the kids in Italy.


The cases

The scary thing for me about this speech is that we all know the people standing on the wall aren't going to be angels, they can't be yet we still want the wall guarded and then hang the soldiers out to dry every so often.

A Few Good Man "You Can't Handle the Truth" - YouTube

[original PM]

No it's an out of court settlement not a bribe...

A bit like what Bernie Eccelston did when he was up on bribery charges......

e.g. paid lots of money for the charges to go away.


Justice for those who can afford it!

[darmstadt]

"The Met's payment of £425,000 is part of an agreement for her to drop her legal action alleging assault, negligence, deceit and misconduct by senior officers"

Presumably they felt there was a chance of her legal action being successful or they wouldn't have bought her off.

Ah, a bribe in other words

[mudskipper]

She was an Activist in an organisation well known for 'Direct Action' she was not however to the best of my knowledge convicted of anything.

What crime was Bob convicted of?

"The Met's payment of £425,000 is part of an agreement for her to drop her legal action alleging assault, negligence, deceit and misconduct by senior officers"

Presumably they felt there was a chance of her legal action being successful or they wouldn't have bought her off.

[mudskipper]

The argument as to whether or not sleeping with Jacqui and fathering her child was justified in achieving convictions is perhaps separate to the argument as to whether or not she is entitled to compensation for that action.

It is possible for both his actions to be justifiable and for her compensation to be justifiable. An expense of the campaign if you like.

(FWIW, I don't think his actions were justifiable, just pointing out that the two aren't necessarily at odds)

[vetran]

a parting gift

Labs raided, locks glued, products spiked, depots ransacked, windows smashed, construction halted, mink set free, fences torn down, cabs burnt out, offices in flames, car tires slashed, cages emptied, phone lines severed, slogans daubed, muck spread, damage done, electrics cut, site flooded, hunt dogs stolen, fur coats slashed, buildings destroyed, foxes freed, kennels attacked, businesses burgled, uproar, anger, outrage, balaclava clad thugs. It's an ALF thing! — Keith Mann[16]

Animal Liberation Front - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Animal Rights Militia and Justice Department[edit]
Monaghan writes that, around 1982, there was a noticeable shift in the non-violent position, and not one approved by everyone in the movement. Some activists began to make personal threats against individuals, followed by letter bombs and threats to contaminate food, the latter representing yet another shift to threatening the general public, rather than specific targets.[11]

In 1982, letter bombs were sent to all four major party leaders in the UK, including the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. In November 1984, the first major food scare was carried out, with the ALF claiming in phone calls and letters to the media that it had contaminated Mars Bars—part of a campaign to force the Mars company to stop conducting tooth decay tests on monkeys.[50] On November 17, the Sunday Mirror received a call from the ALF saying it had injected Mars Bars in stores throughout the country with rat poison. The call was followed by a letter containing a Mars Bar, presumed to be contaminated, and the claim that these were on sale in London, Leeds, York, Southampton, and Coventry. Millions of bars were removed from shelves and Mars halted production, at a cost to the company of $4.5 million.[51] The ALF admitted the claims had been a hoax. Similar contamination claims were later made against L'Oréal and Lucozade.[52]


Activists use the Animal Rights Militia name when violating the ALF's policy not to endanger life.[53]
The letter bombs were claimed by the Animal Rights Militia (ARM), although the initial statement in November 1984 by David Mellor, then a Home Office minister, made clear that it was the Animal Liberation Front who had claimed responsibility.[54] This is an early example of the shifting of responsibility from one banner to another depending on the nature of the act, with the ARM and another nom de guerre, the Justice Department—the latter first used in 1993—emerging as names for direct action that violated the ALF's "no harm to living beings" principle. Ronnie Lee, who had earlier insisted on the importance of the ALF's non-violence policy, seemed to support the idea. An article signed by RL—presumed to be Ronnie Lee—in the October 1984 ALF Supporters Group newsletter, suggested that activists set up "fresh groups ... under new names whose policies do not preclude the use of violence toward animal abusers."[55]

No activist is known to have conducted operations under both the ALF and ARM banners, but the overlap is assumed. Terrorism expert Paul Wilkinson has written that the ALF, the Justice Department, and the ARM are essentially the same thing,[56] and Robert Garner of the University of Leicester writes that it would be pointless to argue otherwise, given the nature of the movement as a leaderless resistance. Robin Webb of the British Animal Liberation Press Office has acknowledged that the activists may be the same people: "If someone wishes to act as the Animal Rights Militia or the Justice Department, simply put, the ... policy of the Animal Liberation Front, to take all reasonable precautions not to endanger life, no longer applies."[53]

From 1983 onwards, a series of fire bombs exploded in department stores that sold fur, with the intention of triggering the sprinkler systems in order to cause damage, although several stores were partly or completely destroyed.[57] In September 1985, incendiary devices were placed under the cars of Dr. Sharat Gangoli and Dr. Stuart Walker, both animal researchers with the British Industrial Biological Research Association (BIBRA), wrecking both vehicles but with no injuries, and with the ARM claiming responsibility. In January 1986, the ARM said it had placed devices under the cars of four employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences, timed to explode an hour apart from each other. A further device was placed under the car of Dr. Andor Sebesteny, a researcher for the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, which he spotted before it exploded.[58] The next major attacks on individual researchers took place in 1990, when the cars of two veterinary researchers were destroyed by sophisticated explosive devices in two separate explosions.[59][copyright violation?] In February 1989, an explosion damaged the Senate House bar in Bristol University, an attack claimed by the unknown "Animal Abused Society".[59][copyright violation?] In June 1990, two days apart, bombs exploded in the cars of Margaret Baskerville, a veterinary surgeon working at Porton Down, a chemical research defence establishment, and Patrick Max Headley, a physiologist at Bristol University. Baskerville escaped without injury by jumping through the window of her mini-jeep when a bomb using a mercury-tilt device exploded next to the fuel tank. During the attack on Headley—which New Scientist writes involved the use of plastic explosives—a 13-month-old baby passing by in a stroller suffered flash burns, shrapnel wounds to his back, and a partially severed finger.[59][copyright violation?] A wave of letter bombs followed in 1993, one of which was opened by the head of the Hereford site of GlaxoSmithKline, causing burns to his hands and face. Eleven similar devices were intercepted in postal sorting offices.[59][copyright violation?]

[vetran]

What crime was he a victim of?

I suspect that if he were a victim, then he would have taken professional legal advice and sued whoever he could to get what he wants from the system.

well I heard he was in the cross hairs a few times and he was definitely bugged a few times.

[vetran]

All completely irrelevant in terms of any offences he may have committed against her. Or are we getting into ends justifying means territory now? No one at any point has said she was a saint. That does not mean that she cannot be the victim of a crime and entitled to restitution like anyone else.

Context is key, he was investigating criminal acts and infiltrated an organisation known for criminal acts, as said earlier he would have been out of place if he didn't have some form of relationship.

Yet everyone is happy to make the policeman a sinner and accuse him of all sorts.

No not ends do not justify the means. But this man stopped a bunch of arsonists at great risk to his life, these were probably friends to Jacqui. Does she have no responsibility?

[vetran]

I might have missed it - what crime was Jacqui convicted of?

She was an Activist in an organisation well known for 'Direct Action' she was not however to the best of my knowledge convicted of anything.

What crime was Bob convicted of?