The Guardian reports;
"Sex was a tool to help officers blend in, the officer claimed, and was widely used as a technique to glean intelligence."
Espionage by Police Officers is a popular topic as demonstrations and activism is on the rise.
However, this can constitute criminal offences.
Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, as per the Sexual Offences Act 1956. This is reasonably straightforward.
However, case law has significantly developed premises around consent. This is developed into the term "rape by fraud".
Rape by Fraud is presumed where the male conducting the penetration has misled the male or female, who would not have consented had the truth been known.
Defined by sections 75 and 76 of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 clearly identify that procuring sexual activity by misleading the victim is rape; "the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act".
Even if one were to introduce the premis that the lie must cause the victim harm, in the instance of Police Officers masquerading as activists, this would create a chain of causation that would harm the victim.
Therefore, it appears, Police Officers are outside of the law with regards to rape.
In fact, it seems, they are actively encouraged to commit rape in order to obtain evidence.
This is simply diabolical.
But naturally, with Coulson in the news, little will be done.
The police officer who spoke to the Guardian will get some nice Gardening Leave and the superiors will deny this ever took place.
In the mean time, people embracing politicalll activism, standing up for their beliefs, clearly deserve to become victims of crime?
And we call this a democracy?
EDIT: Much debate has been had over this article and I wish to clarify;
A man may lie to a woman and tell her he is a Doctor, when in fact he is a janitor.
However, this lie may not prevent her from consenting, had she known the truth.
But a man lying about being a police officer, to an activist, when he seeks to obtain information and potentially arrest her, may well have caused her to remove consent. As indeed the Guardian Article goes on to illustrate.