Post by abelardPost by JNugentIt is probably true that if any particular person "were just a common or
garden criminal", they would be put on trial for the crime(s) of which
they are accused.
But not telling every sexual conquest the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth about one's life and background is not a crime.
then why is the state paying out such large damages?
The state is picking up such large damages because the officer concerned
had been put into and maintained in this surveillance position by the
state and further required to integrate into a target community. Indeed
had he not made himself as inconspicuous as possible
his presence there would have been pointless.
The question to be asked is was he a free agent in this situation or
alternatively if he did extend his brief into jumping into bed with
female members of the movement was this not a jump too far?
Is it the case that it is common behaviour that members of protest
groups are inclined to behave in such a promiscuous manner? No doubt
some do but would those who don't somehow become conspicuous and thus
suspect?
To cut to the point, did the officers superiors expect him to behave
thus? If so was his wife in on the decision. Did she accept vocational
adultery as part of her husband's job?
I think that the more you ask such questions you come to the conclusion
that the officer concerned like many men took the opportunity for a
little bit on the side or possibly even saw this woman in terms of a new
direction is his life.
Under such circumstances the matter is not a matter for the metropolitan
Police his employer. A civil employer would not under any circumstance,
be deemed responsible for adulterous behaviour of two of his employees'
whether occurring in work time or not.
Responsibility for the child rests entirely with its parents. If the
mother feels deserted then it is her prerogative either to come to an
arrangement with regard to the maintenance of this child to go to law
and seek maintenance payments for the child just as thousands of others do.
But it's another case of "It's only our money" so much more convenient
and less embarrassing to to dip into the ever open public purse and dig
out a generous payment to send this lady on her way well compensated and
satisfied. I would think girls will be queuing up to go to bed with
policemen (or soldiers, sailors or airmen) after this. It's a bit better
than a council flat isn't it?