You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Personally, I’ve lost count of the ways I’ve turned a blind eye to behaviour and language in past jobs (not in my current role at all) and when “our with the lads”.
Glad you don’t in the current role and more power to you. I’ve pulled up folk for shitty behaviour before and once lost a job for slapping a coworker with a frozen chicken for being racist and sexist to another coworker.
Never had it when out with friends though. Wouldn’t be friends with people that act like that in the first place. I have the opposite problem to what you describe. Can’t help speaking up or intervening in bad situations. Actually have scars from doing it too!
Would you have said that to Irish people during the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign?
SQUIRREL!!
I know Irish people that actively worked to build bonds of trust between communities. I’d like to think I’d have done the same if I’d lived there.
If you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem. It’s not good enough to sit back and go “well, I didn’t rape her.” It’s that sort of bullshit attitude which allows and empowers people with nicknames like The Rapist to act in the way they do. It legitimises it.
The perpetrator of this crime was a psychopath. He didn’t need anything legitimising by anyone. His ideas of social norms and acceptable behaviours will be nothing like those of a normal, functional person.
The ‘If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem’ argument is trotted out all the time. There are a metric shit tonne of issues out there. One simply can’t be part of the solution to all of them. Not being doesn’t make you part of the issue.
The issue here is a violent, psychopathic, sexual predator. As per my previous post, was he enabled by coworkers turning a blind eye to, not reporting or being somehow complicit in his behaviour? Possibly, but an investigation will hopefully find that out. Anyone found to be an enabler will be punished in line with the law, lessons will hopefully be learned and adjustments made.
Possibly, but an investigation will hopefully find that out. Anyone found to be an enabler will be punished in line with the law, lessons will hopefully be learned and adjustments made.
I salute your optimism. I might have missed Cressida Dick’s speech on how there would be a wide ranging review with everyone encouraged to speak openly without fear of recrimination or reprisal and that the recommendations would be enacted as quickly as possible.
I only saw the statement telling women to check for ID cards and verify them as though he wasn’t actually a copper
Hence the hopefully 😕 I’m also hopeful that she’ll be forced to resign and publicy apologise for her idiotic comments.
As ever lots of comments about bad apples. As if the saying is "we just found a bad apple but everything's fine, no need to ask if there's any more" . You'd almost think people do this on purpose.
AD
Full MemberApparently women need to be more streetwise. FFS.
More of the same, former Met Chief Superintendent Dal Baba says "Women will be asking the question should I get into a car if I'm approached by a police officer who shows their warrant card? My advice would be no.". Who watches the watchmen? Their victims apparently.
Maybe we should extend that logic to the entire criminal justice system, no need for police at all when we can just address any problems with "If someone tries to mug you, my advice would be to not get mugged"
Jesus Christ! That looks like something from Brass Eye. The fact that is genuine advice is pathetic.
Feel in danger? Worried for your life? Defend yourself with these three simple questions!
I mean, do they think a police officer with an abduction planned would be unable to supply plausible answers to those questions?
I am absolutely perplexed that the advice from the Met and multiple other sources is "resist arrest." I had some sympathy for them prior, that's just ****ed up.
The perpetrator of this crime was a psychopath. He didn’t need anything legitimising by anyone.
Yet, he was active on an internal WhatsApp group, sharing unpleasantness. No-one called him out. What's that if not legitimising it?
The ‘If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem’ argument is trotted out all the time. There are a metric shit tonne of issues out there. One simply can’t be part of the solution to all of them. Not being doesn’t make you part of the issue.
Sure, it's an oversimplification. I've had to bite my tongue many times over the years, and I've often regretted it afterwards.
But not wanting to does, and rushing to shout down anyone who dares to challenge the problem absolutely does.
Yet, he was active on an internal WhatsApp group, sharing unpleasantness. No-one called him out. What’s that if not legitimising it?
I get where you’re coming from but think he’d have still done what he did either way. His prior behaviour seems to point to it. A lot of people just go with the flow to be accepted. It’s sad and kind of pathetic. I’ve been the one to speak out, a lot. Lost jobs and got in to a few crazy situations as a result. Always happy about the outcome though.
But not wanting to does, and rushing to shout down anyone who dares to challenge the problem absolutely does.
I wholeheartedly agree but think being patronising as a way of trying to get others to see your point isn’t going to help in the slightest. The ‘If you’re not part of the problem’ always comes across as an utter ****ish argument. At least to me. It just shuts down any discussion and is akin to slamming a door on any conversation. A bit like shouting people down only in a passive aggressive way. Others will be okay with it and that’s fine too.
Yet, he was active on an internal WhatsApp group, sharing unpleasantness. No-one called him out. What’s that if not legitimising it?
Those on the group who are not in MPS have been suspended, one is no longer serving. The two from MPS? Carry on lads, we'll restrict your duties but no worries. Lessons have not been learned from Tomlinson. They are a failing, corrupt organisation starting from the top and throughout all levels. It's not a bad apple its sewage mixing with freshwater and producing sewage.
Didn't intend to be patronising, sorry if that's how it came across. Point was, it's not enough to go "not me, guv" however you slice it.
Would he have done it without his rapey mates anyway? Hard to say. Might've taken longer, might've been someone else.
I rather suspect though that is all going to go a bit Savile. You don't earn a nickname of "the rapist" unless you're hanging out with a bunch of sociopaths, or people actually think you're likely to be a rapist. That's not 'banter,' it's f- messed up.
ok then. What I wrote was:
From what I’ve read about this (and that isn’t much – I’ve tried to avoid it) I would be absolutely amazed if this was the first time he’d done anything like this. I would think that discovering previously unknown victims is itself an excellent reason to try to protect him in Prison for as long as possible – from either himself or others. I’m not one of those people specifically wishing him harm in prison – but one has to be pragmatic.
His children are additional innocent victims here – and my mind just boggles when I think about what the future is going to look like for them. As well as the practical issues – how do they reconcile the fact that their dad is an absolute monster? I think his wife is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions, both from the police and from her fiends, family and general public. This guy didn’t just turn into a psychopath overnight.
Pffff, the whole thing is completely depressing
It seems that some of you think I am somehow blaming the wife for what he did, or claiming she was complicit. I'm not. I'd say "of course I'm not" - but apparently it's not obvious.
Mostly I was saying that people are going to be asking her questions about unknowingly living with a psychopath. I'm not saying that she "should" be questioned by police - although obviously she has been (and probably will continue to be if further crimes come to light). I'm not saying that she should be asked uncomfortable questions - just that she probably is going to continue to be.
Perhaps worth saying again that I don't think she was complicit, and my post above was written in the context of her (and the kids) being victims - and their life disintegrating. Particularly if further crimes are discovered.
I rather suspect though that is all going to go a bit Savile. You don’t earn a nickname of “the rapist” unless you’re hanging out with a bunch of sociopaths, or people actually think you’re likely to be a rapist. That’s not ‘banter,’ it’s f- messed up.
No need to apologise. It’s a very emotional subject we’re discussing.
Definitely agree with what you’ve said. The only halfway decent thing that could come out of this whole sorry situation is wide sweeping reforms of the police force and how it’s staff are managed. I really hope that happens.
I get where you’re coming from but think he’d have still done what he did either way.
Except if they had spoken up, and the matters (which apparently justify criminal investigation of his colleagues) had been taken seriously he would/should have been booted out the police so would not have had the warrant card, handcuffs etc at his disposal.
Would he still have committed this or a similar crime? Possibly (although it may have been the kick in the baws he needed to make him moderate his behaviour and realise he can’t get away with anything he chooses) - would we be being outraged that a serving police officer had used his position to kidnap the woman in the first place? No. Would women the length of the country be questioning the legitimacy of any officer who approaches them alone in the future (whether in plain clothes or not - they take their uniforms home you know)? Probably not.
Mostly I was saying that people are going to be asking her questions about unknowingly living with a psychopath.
I understand -now- what you're saying I think. A better phrasing might've been "she's going to be hounded."
But you said yourself, "unknowingly."
Hey, what was it like?
I didn't know.
Er... nice weather for the time of year?
I really hope it doesn't come to this. I really hope that whatever our equivalent of the National Enquirer is doesn't come a-knocking wanting to run a "My Life With A Serial Killer" headline. I really hope that the poor cow will be left alone with her kids after what she's survived through.
Sadly, nothing would surprise me any more.
Yet, he was active on an internal WhatsApp group, sharing unpleasantness. No-one called him out. What’s that if not legitimising it?
Being a police officer is a fairly stressful profession. What to some is unpleasantness, to others is dark humour. I can't believe that if any of them had actual genuine concerns about him they wouldn't have done something, rather than just thinking he was odd and potentially keeping an eye on him. I personally find the investigation of the other officers private whats app conversations worrying as there should be some expectation of privacy, and it'll potentially isolate those with problems even more. It won't do anything to help change the attitudes of those who are misogynistic, they'll just be more careful to do it where they're not recorded.
I would like to know why he was still a policeman considering the issues of flashing and apparently his nickname was rapist really a police officer.
Quite. Some severe failings led to Couzens not being correctly investigated and thus still a police officer, which enabled him to commit this horrific act.
This needs to be be investigated, and the people / systems responsible for the failings bought to account.
It begs the question...what else is hiding in plain sight?
Now then, now then. Can you tell what it is yet?
I can’t believe that if any of them had actual genuine concerns about him they wouldn’t have done something, rather than just thinking he was odd and potentially keeping an eye on him.
This time last week, I'd have said the same thing. After all that's come out of the woodwork since, I'm highly sceptical. It's her own fault, she should've resisted arrest and got the bus.
I personally find the investigation of the other officers private whats app conversations worrying as there should be some expectation of privacy,
I can only assume that the WA group was Met-wide or at least it's existence was known by most of them. Otherwise how would they know there was something to investigate? If someone has just tripped over it then whilst I've the first person to advocate security I can't help but think "good" in this particular scenario.
I can only assume that the WA group was Met-wide or at least it’s existence was known by most of them. Otherwise how would they know there was something to investigate?
The press reports seem to indicate the opposite, that it’s a small group across a variety of forces.
Maybe the group was found after the murder investigation analysed his mobile?
I can only assume that the WA group was Met-wide or at least it’s existence was known by most of them. Otherwise how would they know there was something to investigate?
Probably only a handful of people in it. They’ll have found it when they examined Couzens’ mobile phone. Similar things have happened in other forces (including PSOS where I am) where someone has been investigated for one thing, then examination of their phone reveals inappropriate group chats with other cops, and further investigations follow.
It had also become more prevalent for any quasi-official WhatsApp groups, such as team or unit, groups to be discouraged as it can create cpia disclosure issues if matters relating to operations are passed on the group so a force wide group seems highly unlikely, and a security risk which would not be tolerated.
I personally find the investigation of the other officers private whats app conversations worrying as there should be some expectation of privacy,
What form do you think any investigation should take?
What form do you think any investigation should take?
Fishing through a suspects phone to try and find others not involved in the crime under investigation but who have privately posted things that wouldn't be acceptable in public seems like a massive overreach. You've never said something in private that could look bad when taken out of context or that you wouldn't say to strangers?
I’m not a police officer serving alongside someone who shouldn’t have been in the force and who we had failed to spot and stop. It’s optimistic to think that communication between officers should or could be ruled out of this kind of follow up investigation if it is to uncover what went wrong.
"Fishing through a suspects phone to try and find others not involved in the crime under investigation but who have privately posted things that wouldn’t be acceptable in public seems like a massive overreach."
so by your logic if during an investigation into a crime the Police find evidence of other parties guilt or involvement they should ignore is a "massive overeach" ??
Fishing through a suspects phone to try and find others not involved in the crime under investigation but who have privately posted things that wouldn’t be acceptable in public seems like a massive overreach. You’ve never said something in private that could look bad when taken out of context or that you wouldn’t say to strangers?
It’s not a fishing trip they’re looking for evidence of an offence. If they then happen upon evidence of a further offence, then it’s exactly that - evidence of a further offence, and rightly should be investigated.
Additionally, Police Officers do not have the same employment rights as anyone else. They’re not employed per se, they hold the Office of Constable. This means that intrusion into personal life is a regular feature. You have to have permission to reside, you have to declare “notifiable associations”, you have to declare and get permission for any business in which you have a vested interested. When you’re “off duty” you’re still a Police Officer; if you witness a crime or antisocial behaviour, even whilst out with the kids, you’re expected to put yourself “on duty” and deal with it. And so on…
You’re supposed to uphold all of the ethics and values of the office of constable, not just whilst you’re “on duty”, but all of the time. There are restrictions on personal life - any Copper who doesn’t like or accept this is in the wrong job. Unfortunately, many of the newer generation of Police Officers aren’t that happy or willing to realise any of this, or choose to ignore it and carry on as though it doesn’t apply to them. When they then get in the shit for WhatsApp messages that they thought was their private life, they become the “victim” and get all upset.
It’s not the office of constable that made Wayne Couzens an evil bastard, he was an evil bastard who probably sought out this type of position to enable his vile life. Sex offenders are probably the most accomplished liars and calculating people in society. Those who ask “why or how didn’t his wife or colleagues say or do something” - the answer is that he was probably by the very nature of what he is, especially careful. Like I said, sex offenders are some of the most calculating people I society; they don’t want to get caught.
What to some is unpleasantness, to others is dark humour.
I have heard it said that in this case, the content on the one of the WhatsApp groups related to directly to Sarah. A little beyond 'dark humour'...
You’re supposed to uphold all of the ethics and values of the office of constable, not just whilst you’re “on duty”, but all of the time. There are restrictions on personal life – any Copper who doesn’t like or accept this is in the wrong job. Unfortunately, many of the newer generation of Police Officers aren’t that happy or willing to realise any of this, or choose to ignore it and carry on as though it doesn’t apply to them. When they then get in the shit for WhatsApp messages that they thought was their private life, they become the “victim” and get all upset.
They used to have private bars where they could be very frank without worrying to much about exactly what was said. Whatsapp groups seem to have replaced this to a degree. Having privacy to let off steam, tell awful jokes or slag off "customers" is probably necessary for them to be able to cope with some of the demands of the job. The sensible ones will just make sure they just do this in person in private residences rather than leaving a digital trail but it'll make no difference to their actual opinions. We shouldn't be criminalising peoples private thoughts.
We shouldn’t be criminalising peoples private thoughts.
That's quite a reach you're making there.
It’s not the office of constable that made Wayne Couzens an evil bastard, he was an evil bastard who probably sought out this type of position to enable his vile life. Sex offenders are probably the most accomplished liars and calculating people in society. Those who ask “why or how didn’t his wife or colleagues say or do something” – the answer is that he was probably by the very nature of what he is, especially careful. Like I said, sex offenders are some of the most calculating people I society; they don’t want to get caught.
He was clearly a calculating evil guy who played the system to get into that position, or got into that position and then realised it would enable his crimes.
It's a terrible thing, but we often only find flaws in system when a tragedy happens, and this case has clearly found issues in vetting, recruitment and attitudes.
We don't have enough police and too many of those we do have are wrong-uns.
I don't think Crecida Dick should be given the luxury of resigning but the problems run far deeper than her, a police reform Bill or something similar needs to be put into action. At the moment they are not fit for purpose.
The Police haven't really changed for a couple of decades, same old practices with far less resources, a force run on a shoestring. Morale must be at rock bottom. A massive investment in training and recruitment so some form of community policing can be established is what is needed or else nothing will change.
A little earlier today I read this article that appeared on my Flipboard feed:
One bit jumped out at me, in connection with what we’re discussing here:
Over the years, investigators came to believe that the suspect may have been part of the Gendarmerie at the time of the crimes, and established a DNA profile of him.
Certain crimes revealed the suspect had used a police card, handcuffs and restraint techniques to stop some of the girls and women victims.
Maybe it’s time the watchmen need watching much more closely.
There are restrictions on personal life – any Copper who doesn’t like or accept this is in the wrong job. Unfortunately, many of the newer generation of Police Officers aren’t that happy or willing to realise any of this, or choose to ignore it and carry on as though it doesn’t apply to them.
So how's that work? You're being paid for 16 hours' work a day? Or a standby retainer? Or overtime if you have to intervene when off duty?
You put it in as overtime (if you can get someone to authorise it).
I don’t think Crecida Dick should be given the luxury of resigning but the problems run far deeper than her, a police reform Bill or something similar needs to be put into action. At the moment they are not fit for purpose.
The Police haven’t really changed for a couple of decades, same old practices with far less resources, a force run on a shoestring. Morale must be at rock bottom. A massive investment in training and recruitment so some form of community policing can be established is what is needed or else nothing will change.
Whilst true to a certain degree, during this Tory government the Police service has seen nothing but change. Thanks to the recession brought about by our banking colleagues… the police have had budgets wiped out, have lost a lot of staff & human resource, had to adapt to a world where cyber crime and terrorism has presented challenges that were not foreseen. They endured the reforms brought about by “Winsor” and the utter misery that has caused to the work force. You wouldn’t believe the carnage that caused..!
Look at the pay and conditions for a student officer. Outside of London the hourly rate of a student officer is £9.09. I think minimum wage is currently around £8.20??? Most forces now operate a graduate only (or whatever obscure equivalent) recruitment policy. For that you get to have your head kicked in every weekend, work 24 hour shifts, get spat at, verbally & physically abused, told how to do your job, and despite your best efforts - it’ll never be good enough; you’ll get to pass on the worst news to families, you’ll eventually lose many of your friends and the varied social life you once enjoyed. Your marriage will probably end in divorce.
You’ll wake up one morning and wonder what the **** you’re doing. All of your friends from school & university are earning substantially more than you and they say “hey, but you get to retire at 50 on a great pension…”. They haven’t realised that the great pension ended in 2015, the retirement age is now 60 (but by 50 your knees and back are knackered); they probably don’t realise that your life expectancy post retirement is currently around 8 years and that you paid 14% of your wage every month for privilege of giving half to your divorced wife.
I reached the top of my pay scale in the 2000’s; I’ve had a 1.5% rise in 11 years. When I look on the Bank of England inflation comparison and checker I should be earning £1k more per month to keep up with inflation since 2010. I’ve actually had my special priority payment taken off me & my competency related threshold taken off me. This amount to a payout of about £3000 per year. My pay packet is currently the same now as it was in 2011.
Unfortunately folks you have the Police Service David Cameron envisaged many years ago; a Police Service that is failing; failing the people it serves, and failing by design of a cynical corruption ridden political party, who would like. Irving more than the wholesale failure of the Police with a view to mass privatisation and profit for their peers. To quote many a retired colleague - “Job’s ****ed”.
This kind of thing…?
We know we have an urgent duty to do more to protect women and girls.
Here are some questions you can ask if you have concerns about an officer.
If you feel you are in imminent danger, always dial 999.
— Metropolitan Police (@metpoliceuk) October 1, 2021
That is absolutely insane. Victim blaming at its finest.
I can't help but think that the police effectively telling people to resist arrest is going to end very badly for somebody
So how’s that work? You’re being paid for 16 hours’ work a day? Or a standby retainer? Or overtime if you have to intervene when off duty?
As I understand it they can choose to behave as a police officer whilst off duty and retain their legal protections but they don't have to. Eg in West Yorkshire they get free travel on public transport when off duty but would be expected to help drivers/conductors if needed.
I am finding the issue being made of him being occasionally deployed to parliament rather strange, it stinks of them being more upset that the "special" people in parliament might have come face to face with the ghastly man, than that the murdering psychopath was a firearms officer that dealt daily with the general public.
@mildred the (armed) Civil Nuclear Constabulary at our sites are on substantially less than the security guards.
I guess the saying 'you get what you pay for' still rings true.
I guess the saying ‘you get what you pay for’ still rings true.
100%
When you’re “off duty” you’re still a Police Officer; if you witness a crime or antisocial behaviour, even whilst out with the kids, you’re expected to put yourself “on duty” and deal with it.
That's going to prove difficult when asked to radio in to confirm the officer's bona fides under the recent announcements.
That’s going to prove difficult when asked to radio in to confirm the officer’s bona fides under the recent announcements.
The Police Scotland announcement? There’s a contingency for that scenario as well.
he (armed) Civil Nuclear Constabulary at our sites are on substantially less than the security guards.
I guess the saying ‘you get what you pay for’ still rings true.
Some of that lot should never be near guns.
If I handled guns like that at a shoot I'd get a slap, but then as you said, peanuts / monkeys etc.
As an aside though, very few security guards will be on the money that ex SSEB / SNL / BE folk will be on.
As an aside though, very few security guards will be on the money that ex SSEB / SNL / BE folk will be on.
That's very true but worth noting the imbalance of risk, responsibility and reward in the respective jobs (nuclear security vs CNC).
It would appear that another policeman in the same unit as Couzens has been charged with the rape of woman last September.
PD David Carrick
It’s just bad apples.
It's only a bad apple. No dame Dick your organisation is corrupt and racist, sort it out or get out of the way and let someone in who will.
I read over the weekend that less than half of convicted sexual offenders in the police force are sacked. It reminds me of the Catholic church trying to gaslight everyone into believing that it's only a tiny minority of it's priests and membership were child molesters and convicted pedophiles. then preventing proper scrutiny and both covering up the crimes and indulging in victim blaming.
Cressida can't be long in post can she?
The undercover police officers didn’t rape anyone though. The women willingly slept with them albeit under false pretences…a bit like many relationships in other words.
Hmm, the definition of what constitutes 'rape' is quite subjective though, in this case:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47240670
"If you put all these things together, you have a team of officers conspiring to rape," said Rosa - not her real name - who told BBC Wales Investigates she discovered the man she thought was her long-term partner was a paid police spy.
"They know there was no informed consent."
I think the law needs to be strengthened to involve 'informed consent'. And regardless, even if it wasn't 'rape' as the law currently stands, the fact remains that multiple officers were effectively sanctioned by the state, to use sex as a means of undermining certain (left wing) political groups. That is not what should happen in a functioning democracy.
“If you put all these things together, you have a team of officers conspiring to rape,” said Rosa – not her real name – who told BBC Wales Investigates she discovered the man she thought was her long-term partner was a paid police spy.
“They know there was no informed consent.”
Using a relationship or otherwise personal information to manipulate someone is not the same as rape. Regardless of the violation of trust the consent is given to the act, not the persons back story. As someone said before, that could have serious implications for every adulterer or Walter Mitty type out there.
And before anyone tries to say otherwise I'm not advocating such conduct.
Using a relationship or otherwise personal information to manipulate someone is not the same as rape. Regardless of the violation of trust the consent is given to the act, not the persons back story. As someone said before, that could have serious implications for every adulterer or Walter Mitty type out there.
Well, the argument given above, relates to the notion of 'informed consent'. Which I think is very important. I think everyone has a right to know exactly with whom they are having sex. And beyond that; details of such sexual relationships became information recorded by the state. That, in itself, is extremely disturbing.
Using a relationship or otherwise personal information to manipulate someone is not the same as rape.
But these are distinct and different. These are not average punters on Tinder making up stories, or adding a zero to their salaries to get into the pants of some-other average punter in a bar on Saturday night.
These are officers of the state going outside the law in the conduct of their duty. In the broadest sense every cop owes a duty of care to the public, it's pretty much the definition of their job. How then could you see it in any other sense other than assault?
Using a relationship or otherwise personal information to manipulate someone is not the same as rape. Regardless of the violation of trust the consent is given to the act, not the persons back story. As someone said before, that could have serious implications for every adulterer or Walter Mitty type out there
The key difference is that most people who are lying in order to don't have the state sponsoring them to do so.
Your average adulterer has to juggle a full time job, a family, and their bit on the side. Informed consent will always mean there is some responsibility to inform yourself. If a normal person with normal resources manages to deceive you, you still bear the responsibility for not fully informing yourself of their background.
If someone is being paid to deceive you that is a completely different matter. Quite apart from the fact that lying to you is their full time job, they will also have support staff to aid them in lying to you.
It's unreasonable to expect someone to be able to give informed consent if the state is providing support for them to deceive you. Therefore it is state sponsored rape.
Anyone know any women whose opinions they could ask?
Was it rape by definition in law? I honestly don't know. Was it morally bankrupt? **** yes.
Hmm.
Someone lies to you to get money, it's fraud. Someone lies to you to get laid, is that not also fraud?
I'm actually not sure exactly what the legal situation is. To be fair, it really would open a can of worms. If you told your partner you were white but one of your parents was black and it turns out your partner is a massive racist can you then be charged with rape?
It's a huge topic and probably not one that's going to be sorted out any time soon.
However, I think that if the state is sponsoring you to deceive someone that is, without a doubt, taking away the person's ability to give consent. The racist in the above example could ask to see your birth certificate if they were really that worried about it. If the state was sponsoring you they could probably provide you with a fake birth certificate.*
*This example might be complete bollocks, please don't start trying to pick apart why this particular example is unrealistic. The main point is that if the state is helping you deceive someone you are at a huge disadvantage.
Older article, but still more than valid right now:
It’s unreasonable to expect someone to be able to give informed consent if the state is providing support for them to deceive you. Therefore it is state sponsored rape.
I agree.
Behind a paywall but some readers may have access I guess.