This video from Britain says about itself:
MET Police Protest Infiltrators
20 November 2015
A woman who had a child with an undercover police officer who was spying on her says she feels she was “raped by the state” and has been deeply traumatised after discovering his real identity.
She met the undercover officer – Bob Lambert – in 1984. At the time, Lambert was posing as “Bob Robinson”, an animal rights activist, on behalf of the then secret police unit known as the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS).
The woman, whose first name is Jacqui, said Lambert was supportive when she became pregnant with their son in 1985, and wanted to have the child. But he later vanished from her life, claiming to be on the run. She only discovered his true identity last year – after spotting his photograph in a newspaper.
“I feel like I’ve got no foundations in my life,” she said. “It was all built on sand – your first serious relationship, your first child, the first time you give birth – they’re all significant, but for me they’re gone, ruined, spoiled …
“I was not consenting to sleeping with Bob Lambert, I didn’t know who Bob Lambert was. I had a spy living with me, sleeping with me, making a family with me, and I didn’t do anything to deserve that.”
By Conrad Landin in Britain:
Met apologises for abuse of female activists
Saturday 21st November 2015
Eight women win police apology and payout for the ‘abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong’ behaviour
WOMEN deceived into long-term relationships with undercover cops spoke yesterday of the “deep psychological damage” they had suffered, after police chiefs were forced into a humiliating admission of guilt.
Evidence that the Metropolitan Police sanctioned officers to sleep with their targets has mounted since the exposure of undercover cop Mark Kennedy in 2009 — however until now the force has stubbornly refused to budge from its “neither confirm nor deny” policy.
But now seven women have won substantial damages from the Met, along with an extraordinary apology for officers’ “abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong” behaviour.
Kate Wilson, who was targeted by Mr Kennedy, is the only one of the group of eight litigators who has declined to settle — meaning her case will likely be heard in court.
Yesterday their lawyer Harriet Wistrich, of Birnberg Pierce solicitors, accused the Met of “institutionalised sexism” in its targeting of women in political, social justice and environmental activist groups.
One of the women, “Rosa,” told journalists yesterday that her experience had “affected my whole view of the state and yet it went as deep as my womb.”
Met assistant commissioner Martin Hewitt said the incidents amounted to a “violation of the women’s human rights, an abuse of police power and caused significant trauma” in his apology on Friday morning.
“I unreservedly apologise on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service,” he said. “I am aware that money alone cannot compensate the loss of time, their hurt or the feelings of abuse caused by these relationships.”
But the chief denied that relationships were authorised in advance or used as a “tactic of deployment,” ludicrously suggesting that coppers may have shacked up with activists “if it was a matter of life or death.”
Helen Steel, who was targeted by Special Defence Squad officer John Dines, called for the release of the undercover identities of officers so that other targets could learn the truth.
“Unless the code names are revealed by the public inquiry, we’re never going to know the extent of these abuses,” she urged.
The eight have all been deemed core participants in the public inquiry into undercover policing — and their settlement in no way prevents inquiry chair Lord Justice Pitchford digging deeper into their cases when he starts hearing substantive evidence next year.
But the women raised concerns that the limiting of the inquiry’s scope to public bodies meant it could not probe the “revolving door” of spies between the police and private corporations.
Another woman targeted by Mr Kennedy, who has remained anonymous but uses the name Lisa for public statements, said the cop had secretly sought work with private spying outfit Global Open while still in a relationship with her.
“With spies working for private firms there is even less oversight, and the scope for abuse is even greater,” Lisa told the Star.
“Alison,” who was targeted by an SDS officer who posed as a joiner and union activist, said it was “vital” the inquiry investigated the role of big construction companies.
She said the co-operation between the industry and police officers demonstrated that police spying was “about protecting corporate power in this country, and not the rights of citizens.”
Assistant commissioner Hewitt also acknowledged that “failures of supervision and management” were behind the incidents — which the women welcomed as an admission that the sick predators were not acting as rogue agents.
The SDS was set up in 1968, and until its disbandment in 2008 is thought to have had 10 undercover officers infiltrating protest groups at any one time. Another undercover division, the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit, reported directly to the private Association of Chief Police Officers until 2011.
From daily The Morning Star in Britain:
An astonishing betrayal
Saturday 21st November 2015
INADEQUATE and overdue are the kindest assessments of the Scotland Yard “apology” to women deceived and abused by Metropolitan Police secret agents.
However much was paid to the women concerned, it cannot assuage the harm done to them and the children that some of them bore to the police spies.
Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt made all the right sympathetic noises, absolving the women of blame for their mistreatment and recognising that they had been victims of manipulation and gross violation and that their cynical abuse probably epitomised contemporary Met attitudes towards women.
However, he persisted with the Met line that the top brass was unaware of how the Special Demonstration Squad, which existed as a unit of Special Branch from 1968 until 2008, was gathering evidence.
It beggars belief that none of the undercover cops would have been asked for 40 years what they were doing, where they were living and with whom.
Hewitt insists that senior officers would never have authorised their agents to embark on sexual relationships as a means of securing information.
Of course not and we can be totally confident that there is nothing in writing in the Met archives that acknowledges the grubby depths to which its officers were ready to descend to infiltrate and disrupt legal organisations of peaceful protest.
Police Spies Out of Lives, the body that has provided legal support to the women, refers to a “level of deception perpetrated by state agents seeking to undermine movements for social change” that is more akin to that of the Stasi in East Germany.
The scandal actually smacks of FBI tactics used in the US to infiltrate the Communist Party after the second world war when spies married party members and had children with them before coming out as state agents during the judicial persecution of the CPUSA.
The scale of betrayal experienced by women who believe themselves part of a loving relationship before being abruptly abandoned and learning later that it was all a sham to root out information cannot be overstated.
The psychological effect on children born into these relationships can only be imagined.
At a time, in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks, when politicians are falling over themselves to agree new powers for state intelligence organs, some consideration should be given to the victims of the security state.
Once again, a mealy-mouthed “apology” and financial compensation reflect the price of failure to hold to account those responsible at the highest level for criminal acts against innocent citizens.