Is it me? ......

There you go again making personal confrontational comment. I asked a question and acknowledged that we all have different perspectives. From from the outset I made clear it was personal opinion like yours is. I also said I did some serious heart searching and have an imagination and genuinely believe I would not be "devastated" in those circumstances. My attitudes to life and death are shaped somewhat by the fact my mother died when I was 13, moving regions due to my dads work occurred at key moments in my childhood and youth and the transient nature of acquaintances due to my employment all impacted on friendships and socialising.

 

A bit different but have you seen the film 'The Man who never was' based on a true incident from WW2" ? It would have been considered (and in some circles was) unethical but it saved many thousands of lives.

 

I know I'm not the smartest person on here but why do they have to somehow get hold of a real birth certificate of a dead child and use that to create an identity?

Is there not a way for the authorities to create a fake identity for someone without doing this? Has Maxine Carr got the identity of a dead child too?

I understand using a real name because there's no reason not to, just randomly pick a real name that's existed and there you go dead or alive it would work. It isn't stealing an identity it's just a name but why the need to steal birth certificates and use their actual identity?

 

Yes, they chucked his body in the sea complete with briefcase full of secret documents. I was thinking about that when I posted earlier.

 

You’re creating a false equivalence between financial gain and compensation.
You’re doing that, purely based on your opinion, your moral compass, judging others not by any legal or predetermined criteria, but by a moral line you alone decided to draw.

ive no idea what makes you think you have a right to do that, only you can answer that.

 

Not sure why they need to use a deceased’s identity. And not a fake one. What does it achieve. If someone suspects an undercover operation. Would the deceased’s death not be recorded or expunged. From the records. ?

 

It’s a very old and widely used method to invent a false identity.

I don’t like the narrative here though, whilst the identities are being ‘stolen’ the birth certificates are obtained legally.

it’s perfectly legal for someone to obtain a copy of a birth certificate, with which they can open a bank account, from there ... the world is your oyster.

‘Creating’ an identity is a lot less easy, just look at the ID requirements to do anything as an adult, the audit trail starts with a birth certificate, which is a bit bonkers, because they’re cheap and easy ish to get hold of.

 

A tax payerfunded state instrument using that money for these purposes is just sick. The kind of nonsense you'd be convinced only happens in backward **** holes with no oversight of it's public bodies.

Just when you think the Met have found the bottom of the barrel they dig a little further down.

 

Sadly you can't just spin up an ID because the register of births, deaths and marriages are public documents as anyone who has visited Somerset House will know. So even if I had full state backing and re-invented myself as Derek Dogbreath born 01.01.1970 in Lincoln and was given a genuine birth certificate, anyone who looked at the register for births on that date in Lincoln would find no Derek Dogbreath and see straight through my bogus ID. It would require re-writing the entire register for every fake ID. On a similar level, the register doesnt match deaths to births, so inspecting the register for a birth wouldn't cross-reference a death, however sad and premature.
I think the problem here is a like a lot of things, the everyday sucess is completely over shadowed by a couple of rogues. I have read numerous press articles over the years about how undercover cops have thwarted things from contract killings to paedophile rings. The examples with the Met seem to revolve around them being used in a political context. Perhaps that is no coincidence that rules were forgotten, although I did read the book on the Millwall hooligan undercover op of the late 1980s and they said Manchester Police were light-years in front of them

 

So does that mean that it's highly likely then that Thompson, Venables, Carr etc have identities of real deceased people rather than completely made up ones?

 

I have no idea. I also think the people you've just quoted should be made to wear high vis jackets with their real names on so society in general can remind them how hideous they are.

 

They've got one of those already.
Sounds a bit 'day of the jackal' to me all this. I don't think we can put ourselves in another individual's shoes here. Some parents may be proud, some may be genuinely distraught and some may see the chance for a bit of cash or a bit of limelight. I wouldn't know. Personally I would be very upset if a deceased child of mine had been used in this way - it would be a misrepresentation of my child. I'd have a good think before suing though

 

That makes little sense. Financial gain or compensation?? No amount of money will bring a loved one back or compensate for that loss. I therefore fail to see what you are driving at, particularly in this case the 'loss' had already occurred. You seem to be questioning my moral compass by applying and comparing it to your own. As I have said before, the OP was a question I put out there with an opinion for others to respond to. Some like Titus, Rosco, Red Helen, Red24/7 whilst clearly disagreeing with my view managed to do so without making it personal, something I have noticed over many threads you seem incapable of doing, not just mine but others often responding in a very confrontational way and quickly turn it into a personal argument about the poster not subject. You seem to get quite angry quite often.

 

I like tekkytyke

 

Apart from anything else the one thing I always struggle with with things like this is the guilt.
Now I'm not a parent and nothing like this has happened to me obviously but if it did happen I may be absolutely disgusted but if I sued and got money i would just feel so guilty spending it. It would make me feel that I've put a price on my child's memory and I just couldn't do that.

Same when an accident results in someone's death. I couldn't sue and spend that money knowing that it's an amount I accepted or was given in exchange for their life essentially. It would just feel wrong.

 

I understand, compensation where say, negligence or corporate malfeasance has caused a life changing injury and someone has to pick up the pieces is vital, but death of a loved one always cause smental anguish which money cannot compensate.
Whilst it would be difficult to square the circle and making logical decision at such a time near impossible, I believe that if a large corporation making profits was responsible I personally would sue the hell out of them and give any award to some charity or charities. If it was a public taxpayer funded organisation like the NHS the choice would be more difficult since suing especially if a sizeable amount would impact on the services the already overstretched Trust provide. In that situation I am unsure what I would do. Publicly outing the problems and making a lot of noise would probably be more beneficial rather than hitting them in the pockets. That said, suing, taking the money, setting up a Trust and encouraging further donations and ringfencing it to go towards resolving the shortfalls in the system might be another option. Whatever it would not bring a loved one back.
When it comes down to it, all the guff about disrespecting the victim etc. is a smokescreen. They are dead and don't know or care about what follows. Everything is about those left behind, their mental anguish and feelings of those left behind.

 

It’s not compensation for the loss, it’s compensation for the extra needless distress caused.

it only makes no sense to you because you’ve made your mind up and refuse to ‘see’.

Your ‘judgement’ is sprinkled throughout your post, but you see it as an open question.

It’s not; it’s a question you have framed, I’m just disputing your standpoint. I have no skin in the game, but I don’t like people pretending to be open minded when they’re clearly not.

 

You've been blessed with bringing life into this world, a child - you love that child unconditionally and allow yourself to dream of their life to come, the hopes and aspirations, only to have it snatched away from you. You don't grieve for yourself, but for the life and the future that has been lost, of the life that has never been allowed to flourish.

If you are incapable of seeing what possible distress having that the state then resurrects that life - admittedly in name only , the state deigns that it has the right to your lost child's memory in this way, the name you bestowed on your child, its identity - then there's nowhere else to go.

A period of silence on this subject from you would be most appropriate imho.

 

I've got a question regarding that. If it was the case that they had 'just' used the name and nothing else. Literally just the first and last names of the child, no birth certificate used etc would you feel the same way or would that change things for you? It feels like it would be different but as I've said I'm not a parent so I can't be sure.

 

I've nothing else to add.