One day you meet someone. They are interested in getting to know you, interested in your job; your hobbies; what your pastimes are. You take a liking to them and them to you and gradually, you end up forming a relationship.
Several months/years down the line when you have admitted them into your life, your home; your family and your bed you suddenly find out that they are not who they said they were. In fact, it turns out that you don't even know their real name.
This is not as implausible as it first sounds. Have you ever had an affair with a married man/woman? Have you ever met someone who was just in it for the sex but did not want a commitment? These are all conceivable scenarios where a situation such as this could occur.
When you find out the truth, you (hopefully) give the relationship up and move on with your life.
But what happens in a scenario where that person had an ulterior motive in meeting you? What if they were in fact employed in order to spy on you? Does that change things? I think it does.
It has been in the news recently that undercover police officers have formed sexual relationships with women that they were employed to spy on. They were investigated but due to lack of evidence were not found to be guilty of any criminal charge, although they are still to be investigated for misconduct.
I do not understand how no charges have been made on the basis of lack of evidence. These men were in relationships over the course of months and in some case years. Are you telling me that none of the police officer admitted to having sex with these women during this time? One of the woman involved had, according to a statement from her solicitor, two children with the officer spying on her.
What do you tell your children in these circumstances? Sorry kids, daddy isn't around anymore, I don't actually know who he is? How can you be in a purportedly loving committed relationship with someone whilst reporting their every move behind their back. If any of these relationships had actually meant anything to the officers in question, surely they would have come clean as to their identity or at certainly would have moved detail.
You have to wonder what was their thought process. Well I have to spy on her anyway, so I might as well have some fun whilst I am at it?
So what criminal charge should these police officers have faced? In my view, at the very least it should be procuring a woman to have sexual intercourse by false pretenses and also, misconduct in public office. What some of the women said is that they felt like they had been raped by the state and to be honest, I cannot say that I disagree with them.
The officers are employed by the State in order to protect its citizens and uphold the law. They are in a position of both power and trust. Infiltrating someone's life to extent that you have a sexual relationship with them, purely for the purposes of spying is abhorrent and should not be permitted from a person employed by the State.
It is reported that the officers in question could now face internal misconduct hearings. Surely these hearings should have been carried out prior to or ran concurrent with the investigation of any criminal charges. If the officers were to be found guilty of misconduct by an internal inquiry now, how can it stand that no criminal charges were brought.
These officers are employed to uphold the law, they are not above it and should be held accountable.