387
How I discovered my partner was an undercover police officer sent to spy on me
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
387 points (98.7% liked)
United Kingdom
4796 readers
116 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is awful, but I wonder what is technically illegal about it. It is a misleading and manipulative lie, but it's not illegal to lie about personal topics, I don't think.
It's fucking rape.
No it isn't.
As horrible this is (as owl said) how do you figure out it is rape?
Edit: fucking sorry for asking a question, that's too much for you it seems. "Everything is rape" isn't the answer ffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
False name, false life story, false reason for having sex with her. He had sex with her in order to spy on her.
Soon: it was rape because I thought he was nice.
If everything is rape, then nothing is. Rape is about non-consent, not about deception. Or so I think.
consent doesn’t just mean “yes”… consent means informed consent… consent means non-coerced consent
my state in australia has recently implemented some fantastic new laws around consent, and have done a really good job of defining some very grey areas
https://www.respectvictoria.vic.gov.au/news/affirmative-consent
specifically the section about when someone can not consent is relevant here. it covers things like coercion, feeling like you can’t withdraw consent, abuse of authority (ie covers workplace sexual harassment), age, asleep/unconscious (regardless of previous consent), AND most importantly:
and in case you think that’s too restrictive, the laws have widely been praised by the BDSM and kink communities - places where non-verbal consent is common… they cover a lot of ways people might consent, and also withdraw consent
the issue with identity is that she would not have consented if she knew all the details - facts which the man kept from her, knowing that if she knew she would likely not consent
and that’s key: to consent, you have to have all the information available at the time
You cant consent during deception. If your gf has aids and doesnt tell you, then you didnt consent. That is both the legal and culutral definition of rape.
Unfortunately: not everywhere is a woman capable of raping a man legally
Giving someone aids isnt rape, it's like saying "she shot me during sex so it must be rape".
Did you consent to getting shot? If it was during sex you have a case for rape.
Rape does not mean a penis goes in a vagina unconsentually. Rape means you removed someones agency in a sexual fashion. That can mean you fingered them like our president(but not under new york state law, even though the judge admitted it was rape), or it can mean you tore their clothes off, or stuck something in them they didnt like, it can mean they took the condom off without you knowing, it can mean they said they are fixed when they are not.
I just looked it up, you are correct. Knowingly transmitting hiv is not legally considered rape(except in some states), it's its own crime. Most of the time a felony.
The UK definition is bad: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape
Yep, that was the US's federal stance until 2009. Draconian as fuck.
Bud, what happens if you consent to something that didn't actually exist?
It's sex under false pretences and deception. That's a legally defined rape.
I agree with you. If being misleading is equal to rape, then this rule can easily be abused.
If a woman has sex with me (hypothetically) because she saw me wearing expensive clothes, but later it turns out they were cheap imitations, that would be misleading, but not rape.
Maybe, when you start arguing that an immoral act is not technically rape, you should simply not do that.
Rape by deception is rape, plain and clear. Why did you pick a scenario where you didn't lie, and try to compare it to someone who spun up an entirely new person out of thin air?
If he was asked if he got money and said yes, would that then be rape?
I'm trying to understand where the line is. Obviously in this story, the cop raped them, but I'm not sure it's as clean cut for every situation.
I'm not incredibly interested in pondering hypothetical questions. Rape is a complicated topic and the existence of a grey area doesn't mean that everything is a grey area.
If someone lies to their victim about every single part of their personal life and history, while they ostensibly think their victim is a criminal and are acting as an agent of state to arrest them, their friends, and stop a cause they believe strongly in, convincing them to participate in sex is immoral. If someone wants to "devil's advocate" they can do so with their therapist.
Bit late but I'm not here to play devil's advocate or ponder hypotheticals.
How we define laws and crimes do have an impact on people (look at the UK definition of rape) as well as how we can pursue and convict criminals in a court of law.
Depending on how you frame the law and the accusations, this guy could be set free or rightfully put in jail.
The legal battle was a civil suit, based more on the violations of Kate Wilson's human rights, than on the legality of actions
That makes sense, I agree with that.