The crux of the "scandal" is not the outrage of several feminists and other activists (male and female alike) over two things — 1) the fact that they (especially some of the ladies!) were fooled, and 2) because of some fiddly-duddly judge, a 70-year-old who had the gall to suggest that married men (and women) are more likely to be in a stable relationship.
The crux is that all women, whatever their political leanings (and whatever their vocal protests over toxic masculinity), go for alpha males.
Police officers infiltrated a number of environmental and animal rights protest movements, and under the guise of fellow travellerdom, their alpha maleness apparently still shone through, as girls (aka "victims" of "professionally trained liars") went to bed with them and even ended up married to, and/or having children with, some of them!
Doesn't anyone know that (at least) half the male attendees in a protest march (without being undercover policemen, natch) have not much interest — alright, they may have a degree of sympathy — in whatever the object of the demonstration is and are really there only, or mainly, to meet a girl and get laid?!
Michael Gillard and Eveline Lubbers:
Police officers working undercover may have been sleeping with political activists they were spying on for more than 40 years, according to newly released documents.
The public inquiry into the scandal disclosed the identity of an officer who is said to have had a sexual relationship with a radical student during the mid-Seventies. It is evidence to suggest that the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), set up in 1968, was a rogue Scotland Yard unit almost from the outset.
The undercover policing inquiry, led by Sir John Mitting, had thought that SDS officers were forming “deceitful relationships”, some of them resulting in the birth of children, from the Eighties. A woman has come forward, however, with evidence that an officer using the name Rick Gibson had had a relationship with her while on deployment between 1974 and 1976.
…/… In an interview with The Times “Mary” said … that her flatmate also slept with [an officer using the name Rick Gibson] and researchers have uncovered two other women with whom he had a sexual relationship.
In 2015 the Metropolitan Police apologised to eight women and acknowledged that officers who had relationships with targets were violating their human rights. The force did not contest the claims about Gibson.
Michael Gillard, earlier:
The judge chairing the public inquiry into undercover police who had sex with their activist targets has caused an outcry by saying that officers were less likely to enter illicit relationships if they were happily married.Be sure to read the comments…
Sir John Mitting’s “old-fashioned” views angered those who were duped into relationships, marriage and even having children with police officers who infiltrated the environmental and animal rights protest movements. His comments, and wider unease over his handling of the inquiry, are likely to lead to a boycott of proceedings by victims.
The inquiry has already cost more than £9 million but is not expected to hear any evidence until next year. It was ordered in 2014 by Theresa May as home secretary, but has been beset by delays.
Sir John, 70, said that his experience of life had shown that men who were in lengthy marriages were “less likely to have engaged in extramarital affairs”.
Victims told The Times that the remarks added to their concerns about the judge’s ability to carry out a proper investigation into police tactics that resulted in dozens of women being duped into relationships over three decades.
“Alison”, one of the eight women who successfully sued Scotland Yard, said: “How can someone who confesses to be so naive with regards to sexual politics be trusted as chair of a public inquiry tasked with exposing the truth about the deployment of professionally trained liars into the lives of female activists?”
Sajid Javid, the new home secretary, has been asked to appoint independent advisers to assist the judge. Core participants at the inquiry walked out in March over the judge’s unwillingness to release information, including cover names, about many of the officers. Another boycott is likely this week.
Sir John’s inquiry is scrutinising undercover policing and the activities of two covert units — Scotland Yard’s now defunct Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU).
Mrs May set up the inquiry after revelations that officers had formed relationships under false pretences with women they were spying on and used identities from dead children. There were also claims that officers spied on the family and supporters of Stephen Lawrence, 18, who was murdered in a racist attack in 1993. His father, Neville, was part of the recent walkout.
Sir John has been considering whether the cover names and real identities of officers should be released. Discussing an application in February, he indicated that he thought it was unlikely that the officer would have entered illicit relationships because he had a long marriage.
“We have had examples of undercover male officers who have gone through more than one long-term permanent relationship, sometimes simultaneously. There are also officers who have reached a ripe old age who are still married to the same woman that they were married to as a very young man. The experience of life tells one that the latter person is less likely to have engaged in extramarital affairs than the former.”Phillippa Kaufmann, QC, who represents victims, said: “People do all sorts of things, specifically in relation to sexual issues, that many other people would never have expected of them.”
Sir John later said: “I may stand accused of being somewhat naive and a little old-fashioned,” adding that he would reconsider his views.
The Police Spies Out of Lives group, which has called for transparency, said that Sir John’s comments “shocked every person in the room”.
“Sir John’s comment ‘shocked everyone in the room’”. His comment, carefully worded to allow for lots of exceptions, seems like common-sense. Who on earth was in the room?
How outrageous - an individual whose opinions do not match the pervading views of the self serving left leaning metropolitan liberal elite!
This judge appears to have acquired a dose of common sense.
Shouldn't be allowed.
… How dare you let reason get in the way of our right to be offended.