>> I wouldn't, but I guess some might. Not sure about "reasonably" though. Especially since they'd
>> only even know if the Daily s***e told them about it.
I had a cousin, the result of an 'accident' to parents who'd accepted they were too old, but very much a wanted and loved child. He was born with a heart defect and died because of it age 4 almost exactly 40 years ago. Both parents are dead now. My Uncle died a couple of years later. His widow re-married but still had a lot of mementoes of her son, including locks of his hair, when she died in 2013. 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.
>>but hardly a national scandal or against the law.
Obviously they've got to play the role; getting stand offish about social activity would be a give away. Flirting etc is perhaps OK, but no further. 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 should have been a disciplinary offence. 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'.
It would be a disciplinary offence now. I agree though that it's not a place criminal law needs to go.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Feb 21 at 16:58
|
