tinfoilhat Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Interesting that all the people conned were women. I wonder whether any men have been unknowingly lured into relationships with female police spies? No? Wonder why. Shame? Don't really give a monkeys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) They had consensual sex, they just didn't know the true occupation of the person they were having sex with. If every man who'd ever lied about his occupation in order to impress a woman was arrested for rape, the courts would get awfully crowded. I dont agree. She consented to have sex with a different person, not just someone with a different occupation. Edited November 21, 2015 by El Cid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I dont agree. They consented to have sex with a different person, not just someone with a different occupation. Disagree they consented to have a relationship with the person except they were misled as to that persons occupation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scania Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Disagree they consented to have a relationship with the person except they were misled as to that persons occupation. Did the police use their real names?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Disagree they consented to have a relationship with the person except they were misled as to that persons occupation. The above makes little sense, but I think it can only mean: 'they consented to have a relationship with the person, except they were misled as to that person's occupation'. No. They were misled as to that person's whole identity. That's more of a deception than simply being misled as to occupation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) Men and women have misled each other, both in and into relationships since time began, if these particular women need to be compensated then there are quite a few blokes out there that should compensated for bringing up the children of other men when and if they find out. As for the comment about it being rape, sorry EL Cid but that is cobblers ! Edited November 20, 2015 by Michael_W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Men and women have misled each other, both in and into relationships since time began, if these particular women need to be compensated then there are quite a few blokes out there that should compensated for bringing up the children of other men when and if they find out. Apparently one in seven children of married couples are fathered by someone other than the husband. As for the comment about it being rape, sorry EL Cid but that is cobblers !Yes, I have to agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 This post hits the nail on the head. The feds were out of line and were caught out. Its no wonder there is a lack of respect for them if this is the way they carry on. They weren't feds, they were police. We don't have feds in this country. The above makes little sense, but I think it can only mean: 'they consented to have a relationship with the person, except they were misled as to that person's occupation'. No. They were misled as to that person's whole identity. That's more of a deception than simply being misled as to occupation. I pretend to be a different person to get birds into bed. A few months ago I was on a date with an "artist", I pretended to enjoy her stuff and listening to her prattle on before getting what I wanted. Not as extreme as the coppers, but still a deception. It is not uncommon to project a contrived image of ourselves, especially in front of the opposite sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 It is not uncommon to project a contrived image of ourselves, especially in front of the opposite sex. It is however unethical and immoral to be paid out fo the public purse to construct an identity for yourself which you use deliberately to mislead someone over a period of years. It's a bit different from you pretending (?) to be a tosser in order to get someone into bed for the night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 it is however unethical and immoral to be paid to construct an identity for yourself which you use deliberately to mislead someone over a period of years. It's a bit different from you pretending (?) to be a tosser in order to get someone into bed for the night. No, silly. I pretend not to be one. Are you allowed to use that word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now