http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346432/Did-married-police-spy-use-sex-infiltrate-climate-group-Activist-felt-violated-relationship-undercover-officer.html

There was a cop recently sentenced to life for rape for having sex with vulnerable people he met in his job. This isn't that much different - a public servant with a duty of care to the public abusing his position to get sexual favours? If I were Mark Kennedy I would be shitting myself right now.

here is another picture of Mark Kennedy from the Mail

steady on guys the Daily Hiel is the least reliable of the full of lies “mainstream” press.

Its entirely possible that their source is in-fact indymedia this was being suggested on here last night.

Now i'm not saying that the research into the SkumFucks at Global Open is not usefull stuff or that it seems probable that Mark shithead Kennedy moved to them.

but the mail is NEVER a reliable source EVER.

"There was a cop recently sentenced to life for rape for having sex with vulnerable people he met in his job. This isn't that much different - a public servant with a duty of care to the public abusing his position to get sexual favours? If I were Mark Kennedy I would be shitting myself right now."

I thought that consensual sex wasn't rape. The cop who was jailed for rape didn't have consensual sex with his victims. He coerced vulnurable addicts into sex they didn't want - rape. Mark Kennedy didn't do that. There is enough on him without talking rubbish that diminishes what real rape is and what the survivors go through.

Saying that, the poster has one thing right. Mark Kennedy and all other undercovers and grasses should be bricking it.

It's not bullshit and it is not demeaning the offence of rape to describe this sort of misbehaviour as rape in my opinion. Consent means informed consent, a decision made knowing all the relevant and important facts.
In Scottish law at least rape is currently defined in statute by the lack of “reasonable consent". I don't feel it is reasonable for any professional organisation to entrap protestors into coitus using institutionised deception. Until recently this case would have, or rather should have, been prosecuted as the wholly appropriate charge of “clandestine injury”, but this charge was dropped in favour of the single charge of rape as it was being used by rapists to escape prosecution where no force was used.

If a confidence trickster defrauds you out of your money under false pretenses then it is still a crime of theft even if you consent to handing over the money without force of violence. No in the mainstream media or the judiciary argue that the victim is at fault or that no foul was committed. This was a far greater fraud and a far more damaging crime and yet it is being excused by the media and ignored by the judiciary because it was a policeman who committed the crime. Worse than that, the crime was and is official police policy.

There are numerous other legal examples where similar dishonesty than this would result in a long prison sentence. Sexual behaviour can lead to injury and death, never mind persuading people to take risky actions such as climbing cooling towers. Where someone has consensual sex with a partner who does not disclose their HIV status or similar then the partner will be imprisoned.

This crime is closer to that level of decption rather than the various pundits quotes currently in newspaper forums, claiming that everyone tells lies to have sex with a potential partner, it's not like claiming you have a big bank account or remarkable technique, it is serious, criminal fraud.

In extremis, if a doctor removed your organ to sell as a transplant by falsely telling you it was diseased, this would not just be misconduct, it would be a crime regardless of whether you had signed a consent form. If you shouted 'Fire' into a crowded theatre, you would be prosecuted for any resultant deaths although you never forced anyone to panic and trample each other.

Apart from everything else, these police officers are guilty of prostitution, and their employers are guilty of the same offences any madame would be charged with. And if the courts and politicians won't act to uphold justice against these police scum, then the people have a common law duty to punish them. Now I am not knowledgeable about this case and don't think we should be discussing it too much, this is my first and last comment on this thread, but I think you are wrong to underplay the criminal behaviour of Mark Kennedy purely in the sexual misconduct aspect of this. You don't need to use violence to rape someone.

whether or not rape is the right word to use or not, and I think that's just a semantic argument (ie it depends on how you define the word) his sexual partners, especially his long term partner have all been violated. He was a sleazy bloke who despite allegedly being married couldn't believe his luck at being asked to infiltrate a scene where 'open' relationships were common.

For it to be rape it would have had to be at least coercive with at least implied force/blackmail. Consent was apparently given with no such threat.

If an individual was unable to "reason" the person they were consenting to have sex with could possibly be a bald faced liar then the person would clinically fail the mental competency test and by that measure it would actually be rape.

Otherwise, by the same measure, a cheating partner would become a rapist. A gay man in a sham marriage a rapist, anyone who lied about what they do for a living would be a rapist.

An Arab who has sex pretending to be a Jew is apparently a rapist. But I don't think that case precedent squares with any sane notion of justice, but I think it is an identical 'reasoning'.

 http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/07/arab-rape-guilty-jew

You would have an easier time arguing that he broke trading standards law.

If there was no force, no blackmail, no competency issue nor age issue, then it was a disgusting and sickening violation for sure, but not rape.

But don't do rape a disservice by belittling it with shrill overclaim, as false claims help nobody but damage everybody.