Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, chief of London’s Metropolitan Police, has officially apologised for the Met’s systematic, ongoing theft of the identities of dead children to create cover identities for its spies, a practice it has engaged in since the 1970s. "However, he has refused to tell any families that the identities of their children had been… READ THE REST
It is a tricky situation: let a family know, the undercover copper is at risk. Let them know about something they never suspected, and again, it seems like causing more harm than good. Those that ask ought to be told, yes, and hopefully a way will be found. Not holding my breath, though.
In a notable omission, no apology was on offer for the…noble… purposes to which these heroic undercover officers put their freshly minted identities, boldly protecting the public from environmentalists and anti-war activists and suchlike rabble. The ‘Special Demonstration Squad’ appears to have been set up entirely for the purpose of infiltrating politically inconvenient groups, sometimes through wacky sexcapades with actual members, in order to try to subvert them.
Truly, the families of the dead children can take comfort in knowing that their involuntary sacrifice was for the greater good!
I’m just surprised that regular police - not SIS or GCHQ or anything - have spies in the first place.
When I listened to the statement, the tone of voice used was ‘I have to do this, but I’m not sorry’. Maybe it’s my southerner ears, mistaking the accent, but I was unconvinced there was any remorse from their spokesman.
Does anyone else think that this kind of practice could explain the story from last month about Lori Kennedy/Becky Sue Turner? http://boingboing.net/2013/06/27/unsolved-mystery-can-you-iden.html
I really unknown the full competences of London´s Metropolitan Police, but infiltrate in political groups and activist groups sounds like a Security Service thing than crimefighting.
Besides, i don´t know why they can´t forge a birth certificate for their covert operations.
It is that terrible? When I was kid, I would have been stoked to know that I would have an afterlife as a spy.
Your single sentence contains four major grammatical errors and one dangerous idea. Do you seriously think it’s prudent to let the London police–assuming their competence to do so–hack into London hospitals and church registries and create imaginary people at will, so perfectly that not even a good hacker can spot the fakes? To be realistic, those identities would have to vote–any guesses on how many of them would vote for whomever the police are backing? Any guesses on how many of the existing undercovers using dead kids’ names have voted that way?
How is this theft, exactly? Does it leave the child bereft of an identity?
I’m still slightly lost as to why this such a terrible thing to do. There are more people than there are names. if they just pulled names out of a hat they’d be sharing them with real people.
Compared to the actual dreadful things the Met have been doing - killing unarmed electricians, killing newspaper sellers, seducing and even marrying people under a false identity, then adopting a name found on a grave stone seems like nothing.
So perhaps there were some grieving parents who started hearing news about Mark Kennedy’s dodgy infiltrations and thought “But our child was Mark as well” then sorry. Sad for them. Happens. An uncle of mine found his name coming up in the news when someone with the same name was convicted of rape. But it wasn’t him.
Dear Woody: Te ruego que me perdones, pero el Inglés no es mi lengua materna, así que es lógico que cometa errores gramaticales.
i suppose they hide babies´s death certificates, if them can steal the identity of a dead person, and they control the death certificate, is almost the same than forging a new identity, ergo, nothing stops them from voting, marrying, buying a house, or other legal acts.
sorry if you find my english disturbing to your eyes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.