Undercover cop tonight CH4 9PM (14th Nov)

[London_Calling]

In relation to the wider police policy, there is a tricky contradiction in, on the one hand, planning for someone to go undercover for extended periods, to est. and maintain proper, real-life credibility and, at the same time, remain emotionally and physically separate. If you're concerned about informers it's the obv. tell, surely.

So, for the police to say doing that is against da rules is a lie - it absolutely has to be part of the game they play, otherwise their man draws suspicion (like, has he got a relationship elsewhere...). A cover story might work for a while but after a couple of years....

 

[grit]

The question is, have you been sent to that nightclub by your boss to pretend to be someone that you are not, with instructions to snoop around and befriend her and anyone connected to her, finding out whatever intimate details about her and their lives you can, possibly to implicate them in criminal activity precipitated by you, all whilst you're making £250,000 a year? And then you fuck her, like a big piece of meat?

If so, then yes, you've sexually abused her.

Really though, what relevance does being paid have to do with it? (devil's advocate)

 

[trabuquera]

But they're always hopping into bed with 'targets' in SPOOKS and nobody ever complains... srsly (and no I am not trying to minimise the trauma to those women who the undercover copper manipulated this way), are there utterly completely different ground rules for the 'security services' vs the undercover arms/ units / individuals of police forces? and what are the justifications for that?

My own impression was that this guy might well have been further messed up by the 'demands' of his job, but he just struck me as a slippery, squirrelly, evasive sort of a character who probably got into the job in the first place because he enjoyed and was good at playacting (lying / manipulatiing) in this way - so to be all weepy about it now is a bit rich.

Having said that, if his spilling the beans (in a limited way) does raise the public's awareness of what dirty tricks the police are up for - and if it spurs a bit of reflection in police higher ranks about what surveillance techniques are legitimate and which aren't, and how they shoudl be keeping a closer eye on their undercover workers, then great.

 

[girasol]

Under no circumstances are they meant to have sexual relations if they go undercover, that was mentioned last night. Except, people have feelings!

On paper the guy is a liar and not to be trusted, did a really despicable job. I didn't even want to watch the thing. But then I did, and, I don't know, the film maker put his humanity and his case across quite well, I got sucked in!

I don't. He's since gone on to get a job in a private security firm that spys on protestors. I don't feel sorry for him at all.

Is he really working for a security firm? I didn't know this... What the hell, if he really wanted to redeem himself he should support the activistis he fucked over. Maybe he's not that remorseful after all.

 

[girasol]

The most depressing thing was at the end, when he said something along the lines that making his case public has generated massive paranoia amongst activists, so there's less trust towards new people than before.

 

[belboid]

He claimed he was still unemployed last night, didn’t he? I cant really see why any private firm would take him on, as he is instantly recognisable. Not sure what valuable training info he could give either ‘uhh, don’t shag the people you’re spying on’??

 

[Jon-of-arc]

But they're always hopping into bed with 'targets' in SPOOKS and nobody ever complains... srsly (and no I am not trying to minimise the trauma to those women who the undercover copper manipulated this way), are there utterly completely different ground rules for the 'security services' vs the undercover arms/ units / individuals of police forces? and what are the justifications for that?

My own impression was that this guy might well have been further messed up by the 'demands' of his job, but he just struck me as a slippery, squirrelly, evasive sort of a character who probably got into the job in the first place because he enjoyed and was good at playacting (lying / manipulatiing) in this way - so to be all weepy about it now is a bit rich.

Having said that, if his spilling the beans (in a limited way) does raise the public's awareness of what dirty tricks the police are up for - and if it spurs a bit of reflection in police higher ranks about what surveillance techniques are legitimate and which aren't, and how they shoudl be keeping a closer eye on their undercover workers, then great.

Spooks is fiction. Like James Bond. Spies jumping into bed with whoever they want is pretty much a fiction. I doubt it happens much at all.

As for raising awareness of legit techniques amongst senior plod, I imagine the main lesson they'll learn is how not to get caught.

 

[belboid]

Spies jumping into bed with whoever they want is pretty much a fiction. I doubt it happens much at all.

unless you're Mike Hancock

 

[sim667]

Gah i missed it.

What channel was it on? Ill see if its on catch up.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Dirty double crosser double crosses and gets dirty double crossed.

Tough shit.

 

[Maggot]

Gah i missed it.

What channel was it on? Ill see if its on catch up.

Try reading the thread title.

 

[purenarcotic]

It

Gah i missed it.

What channel was it on? Ill see if its on catch up.

It's on 4 OD

 

[sim667]

Wicked, thanks.

 

[William of Walworth]

Most will know about the main Kennedy the Tout thread over on UK P and P, but here's a link just in case

Some more reactions to the prog towards the end of the other thread, and some excellent posts at that.