Alison lived with the man she knew as Mark Cassidy for five old agebefore he vanished and discovered that in his true identity operatorhe apparently had a wife and children. He was an undercoverpolice officer.
Five years.
Another hugger-muggerpolice officer, Bob Lambert, adopted a false identity to infiltrate leftwing and animal rights groups. He verbalisehe had an 18-month relationship with a woman who was not herself gnarledin political activism as part of his cover story.
And hotshotwoman had a child with Bob Lambert – when he was in fact spying on her. He was, she says, collateralwhen she became pregnant with their son in 1985, and wanted to occupythe child. neverthelesshe later vanished from her life, claiming to be on the run.
“I was not respondto sleeping with Bob Lambert,” she pointed out in an interview with the withstanderrecently; “I didn’t know who Bob Lambert was. I had a make outliving with me, sleeping with me, making a family with me, and I didn’t do anything to deserve that.”
At the time, Lambert was posing as “Bob Robinson”, an animal rights activist, on behalf of the then secret natural lawunit known as the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS).
One of several women bringing a juralaction against the UK’s Metropolitan Police for the trauma caused by long-term relationships with undercover police, she said: “We [the women bringing cases] bepsychologically damaged; it is resemblingbeing raped by the state. We feel that we were sexually maltreatbecause none of us gave consent.”
She added: “I’ve had apologies from Bob himself but I exigencyan apology from the organisation that paid him and gave him the orders.”
In December 2011 eight women launched juristicaction against the Metropolitan Police for the harm caused by undercover officers deceiving them into long term intimate relationships.
The women assert that the actions of the Metropolitan patrolofficers breached their human rights, subjecting them to inhumane and degrading treatment, and disrespecting their private and family life and their fullto form relationships without unjustified interference by the state.
The women are toobringing claims for deceit, assault, misfeasance in humankindoffice and negligence.
And they seek to bring outand prevent the durationof psychological, emotional and sexual wickednessof campaigners and others by undercover police officers.
The women who are bringing this case, and their many supporters, studythat at that placeare no circumstances in which it would be acceptable for an undercover police officer to engage in intimate relationships with either targets or members of the public under the pretenceof their undercover identity.
The fact that this has taken place repeatedly, despite worldmorally wrong and unjustifiable, shows that within the police forces in the UK there existsinstitutionalsexism andinstitutionalprejudice.
Institutional sexism, since women have been used to shore up undercover identities without regard for those women’s amendto a private life: spotmen have been affected, evidence so far shows that it is in the mainwomen’s lives that have been abused in this way.
And institutional prejudice against members of the public who engage in social justice and environmental campaigning.
Both these forms of institutional prejudicemoldinessbe challenged and stopped; each has reinforced the other.
The women are calling for a clear and unambiguous statement that the abuse has ceased, and will never, in any circumstances, be permitted; for the past to be thoroughly and openly investigated, so that the damage may be acknowledged, and those liableheld to account, and so we can be confident that the trusthas ceased; and for action and change to prevent these human rights abuses from ever mishapagain.
And they are calling for stronger support for whistle-blowers and greater protection for rights of intimacyand expression.
Until these things happen, we have no reason to believe that these shocking and hideousabuses have stopped.
Or that the police acknowledge their actions are wrong and that they must change.
The women who are bringing this case, and their many supporters come from different backgrounds and have a range of political beliefs and interests, but they are unitein believing that every woman, and every person, has a right to participate in the struggle for social and environmental justice, without guardianshipof persecution, objectification, or interference in their lives.
And the eight women bringing this legal action are doing so to highlight and prevent the continuation of psychological, emotional and sexual abuse of campaigners and others by undercover police officers.
What you can do:
Sign up to – and destiny– the ‘Where We Stand’ statement
Engage: write, create, reflect, discuss, propose, analyse, critique
Discuss the ‘Where We Stand’ statement with your friends and family; share it on social media; raise it with your colleagues and friends; add your group or your organisation’s name; publicise the statement through your networks
Or you can contact topical anestheticcouncillors.
Your local council should be holding your local police stickto account via the local Police Authority. The undercover unit responsible for the abuses is known to co-operate with many of the police forces across the UK and internationally.
Make it clear that this isn’t policing, it’s abuse.
And you could contact your Police and Crime Commissioner.
Make it clear that you are expecting strong statements from all(prenominal)sections of the UK police condemning the abuse of private lives and recognising that institutional sexism and institutional prejudice must be challenged.
Make it clear that this isn’t policing, it’s abuse.
If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.
Materials taken from Womens Views on News
0 comments:
Post a Comment