Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Knocked Up By The Met
32 Answers
It used to be that you would get compensation for being 'fitted up'. Now you get an astronomical sum for getting knocked up instead:
http://
That's an eye-watering sum. Whilst I don't deny that what these officers did was wrong, these women entered into these relationships of their own free will and thus must have either discussed starting a family with each of these officers or used covert methods of their own to get pregnant, didn't they?
If neither, the officers ought to be made to pay out of their own wages/pension pots/perosnal insurance for not taking precautions of their own, not leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill yet again.
http://
That's an eye-watering sum. Whilst I don't deny that what these officers did was wrong, these women entered into these relationships of their own free will and thus must have either discussed starting a family with each of these officers or used covert methods of their own to get pregnant, didn't they?
If neither, the officers ought to be made to pay out of their own wages/pension pots/perosnal insurance for not taking precautions of their own, not leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill yet again.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The women didn't know what they were getting into, so it wasn't by their own free will. They thought they were in genuine loving relationships. They've had their lives ruined and deserve every penny. I don't suppose the police officers have that kind of money, so the police forces should pay, and the officers should be sacked.
The officers had to fit in, clover. I expect we have undercover agents doing some very dubious things in our name as we post. There's barely a week goes by without arrests, foiled Islamist bomb plots,etc, some of which will, I'm sure, be the result of said operations.
Saying that, I seem to remember thinking these groups were pretty ineffectual when this originally surfaced. (of course, we don't know what they may or may not have done without the undercover operation.)
Saying that, I seem to remember thinking these groups were pretty ineffectual when this originally surfaced. (of course, we don't know what they may or may not have done without the undercover operation.)
// They've had their lives ruined and deserve every penny. //
I trust you are joking given the ridiculous sum.
I fail to see how the Police can be responsible, surely the officer did the deception not the Police.
Does this mean that when companies send people away on business they could be liable if the employee knocks someone up having claimed they were living and settled there?
I trust you are joking given the ridiculous sum.
I fail to see how the Police can be responsible, surely the officer did the deception not the Police.
Does this mean that when companies send people away on business they could be liable if the employee knocks someone up having claimed they were living and settled there?
The officers were sent by their forces to infiltrate women's lives. It is the Force's deception as much as the officers'.
They shouldn't have brought children into the situation, nor should they have led the women to believe they were in a serious loving relationship.
YMB, regarding your final question, no, of course not. There is no comparison.
They shouldn't have brought children into the situation, nor should they have led the women to believe they were in a serious loving relationship.
YMB, regarding your final question, no, of course not. There is no comparison.
If someone is lying to you about who they are then it doesn't matter if you were in the relationship "of your own free will" at the time. It was based on a lie. The men in question should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. And the Police Service that didn't stop such disgraceful behaviour is certainly responsible.
Very possibly... but that's the fault of the Police for engaging in such cynical tactics in the first place. Undercover officers are fine so long as they stick to just gathering intelligence. Having children, entering into long-term relationships or even starting off the crime themselves (as has happened in, I think, a case surrounding a protest at Drax Power Station) are all totally unacceptable behaviour.
Chilldo: I think you have experience (!!) along these lines and it didnt cross you mind to start sleeping with anyone in connection with your work.
Suppose:
your wifey upped and left you with four children,
and said I am not who you think: I only was investigating corruption in the red caps
you: but I'm not a red-cap ( or whatever ) and does it really take four years ?
Your next question would be : how one earth do I bring these kids up ? - does she realise what nursery fees are nowadays....
I think itis a small-ish sum
In terms of the law and the officers paying, themselves
After a French reds in the bed scandal, President Pompidou said if I had to have a Cabinet all of whom had no mistresses I would have to appoint 15 homosexuals - sorry I had to slip that one liner in
and more to the point: the employer knew exactly what they were doing had put them up to it, and so has to pay. The principle is vicarious liabliity, and as you can imagine there is lots of case law where the employer says " ah yes but so-and-so, so I dont have to pay. Someone who cant pay, has to, to wit, the employee"
[ and lots of case law where Denning J says: not so fast...... ]
Suppose:
your wifey upped and left you with four children,
and said I am not who you think: I only was investigating corruption in the red caps
you: but I'm not a red-cap ( or whatever ) and does it really take four years ?
Your next question would be : how one earth do I bring these kids up ? - does she realise what nursery fees are nowadays....
I think itis a small-ish sum
In terms of the law and the officers paying, themselves
After a French reds in the bed scandal, President Pompidou said if I had to have a Cabinet all of whom had no mistresses I would have to appoint 15 homosexuals - sorry I had to slip that one liner in
and more to the point: the employer knew exactly what they were doing had put them up to it, and so has to pay. The principle is vicarious liabliity, and as you can imagine there is lots of case law where the employer says " ah yes but so-and-so, so I dont have to pay. Someone who cant pay, has to, to wit, the employee"
[ and lots of case law where Denning J says: not so fast...... ]
// I fail to see how the Police can be responsible, surely the officer did the deception not the Police. //
that should be:
I cant see how the Chief Constable ( responsible for actions of his officers in law ) cannot fail to be responsible considering he was fully informed and then took the precaution of losing most of the records...
if you agree with these changes then I agree with you YMB
that should be:
I cant see how the Chief Constable ( responsible for actions of his officers in law ) cannot fail to be responsible considering he was fully informed and then took the precaution of losing most of the records...
if you agree with these changes then I agree with you YMB
// the officers ought to be made to pay out of their own wages/pension pots/personal insurance for not taking precautions of their own, //
You are shifting liability ( having agreed that SOMEONE is liable ) from someone who can pay ( employer, thro your taxes ) to someone who cant ( the plod for it was he who did the evil deed ) .
and no one has personal insurance for vicarious liability - you just say see my employer....
Professionals ( doctors dentists lawyers accountants) take out insurance for bits of their outside work that their employer does nt pay for - ie private practice but no one else does .
all this was done in the officers' extended work space - you cant get away from this...
AND didnt someone try to contact sue the father of her children and find that "John Smith" was in fact really a child of eight who had died thirty y ago from leukaemia ? One I thought had even visited the parents ( who are also suing but with less certainty )
You are shifting liability ( having agreed that SOMEONE is liable ) from someone who can pay ( employer, thro your taxes ) to someone who cant ( the plod for it was he who did the evil deed ) .
and no one has personal insurance for vicarious liability - you just say see my employer....
Professionals ( doctors dentists lawyers accountants) take out insurance for bits of their outside work that their employer does nt pay for - ie private practice but no one else does .
all this was done in the officers' extended work space - you cant get away from this...
AND didnt someone try to contact sue the father of her children and find that "John Smith" was in fact really a child of eight who had died thirty y ago from leukaemia ? One I thought had even visited the parents ( who are also suing but with less certainty )
// I believe it all started with the phrase '' Anything you say will be taken down''
& of course if the lady replied ''Knickers''. I rest my case.//
thank you Whiskey Ron: I like - - ter daah --
The girl ( in a Mae West pose and pouting ) ; is that a truncheon in your pocket or are you please to see me ?
Undercover p'liceman for it is he: Both
& of course if the lady replied ''Knickers''. I rest my case.//
thank you Whiskey Ron: I like - - ter daah --
The girl ( in a Mae West pose and pouting ) ; is that a truncheon in your pocket or are you please to see me ?
Undercover p'liceman for it is he: Both
Latest Posts
ChatterBank36 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Food & Drink45 mins ago
ChatterBank80 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles84 mins ago
