>>She'd have been very badly affected if she'd discovered his
>> ID being used my Mark Kennedy or one of the other's named recently in this
>> context.
No clue who Mark Kennedy is or why it matters. Now why she'd have cared about that group more than any other.
>>It seems to me grossly immoral to be sleeping with subjects who you're supposed to be surveilling, never mind,as at least one did, having a kid with them.
It may be immoral in your mind. Perhaps not in others. It is, a best, a subjective term.
>> I suspect at the time it was a bit of a lark and perhaps a perk; no doubt there was bawdy humour about shagging 'crusties'.
Where do you get these emotive terms you like to throw in? Seems a little Freudian at times.
In any case, I suspect not. I suspect that often there was genuine attraction, perhaps sometimes it was felt to be necessary, I doubt it was ever seen as a lark or as a perk. If one is pretending to live a life, then I suspect that relationships would cause suspicion / ill feeling if avoided.
One can only imagine the stress that these people live under and to consider judgement by Daily Mail readers secure at home in their onesies is beyond belief.
What is it with the UK these days?
Every single thing must be approved by 68,000,000 people the vast majority of which know nothing outside their own prejudices and ill informed opinions and if some of them should object, for whatever reason, or if it should be unfair to someone, then the Daily Mail Minions are all up in outrage.
HTF do these idiots thing intelligence on the next potential terrorist bombing is obtained? By a group of boy scouts living within artificial rules imposed by know-nothing fools fired up by the tabloids?
One can't but hope that at least one such t*** gets blown off the face of the Earth in an event that would otherwise have been prevented.
|
