British prosecutors have announced their refusal to press charges against police officials who had sex, long term relationships, and even children with women they were spying on in undercover roles. Outrage over the police tactic prompted some to call for rape prosecutions after the secret surveillance was disclosed. How could women consent to having sex with these men, if they didn't know the men were secretly acting under orders of the state to spy on them?

The Crown Prosecution Services took to its official blog to explain why it won't press charges against the officers or the Metropolitan police department, writing that "any deceptions in the circumstances of this case were not such as to vitiate consent and that consequently there is insufficient evidence to prosecute for rape." A host of other possible charges were also rejected.

In order to prosecute for procurement of a woman for sexual intercourse by false pretences, the prosecution would need to show that any deception was carried out as a specific inducement to sexual intercourse, which took place as a direct result of such inducement. There was insufficient evidence to prove this.

In order to prosecute misconduct in public office, the prosecution would have to show that an officer knowingly abused their position in order to bring a sexual relationship about, as opposed to having engaged in a sexual relationship whilst holding the position in question. There was insufficient evidence to show this.

One of the women targeted by undercover police for a sexual relationship dated an undercover cop for four years. She thought they were monogamous. They lived together. Meanwhile, the officer had a wife and kids. Apparently the Crown Prosecution Services thinks that's consent.

Read more on the red squad's sexual targeting of women.