This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/25/bbc-undercover-series-tv-drama
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| I lived with an undercover officer – this BBC series gets it all wrong | I lived with an undercover officer – this BBC series gets it all wrong |
| (4 months later) | |
| A few years ago I went to talk to the screenwriter Peter Moffat with my co-claimant Helen Steel about our deception by undercover Metropolitan police officers who had intimate relationships with us. He listened sensitively to our stories and shared the outline of his idea for a TV drama called Undercover inspired by our experiences. | A few years ago I went to talk to the screenwriter Peter Moffat with my co-claimant Helen Steel about our deception by undercover Metropolitan police officers who had intimate relationships with us. He listened sensitively to our stories and shared the outline of his idea for a TV drama called Undercover inspired by our experiences. |
| We were surprised that the focus of his storyline included an officer deceiving his lover (then wife) for 20 years, and explained to him that in our experience this was unrealistic. There was no precedent of officers having families with their targets then sustaining a happy marriage for two decades under the guise of their state-sponsored identity. Our true stories, we felt, were sufficiently dramatic without requiring elaboration. These concerns were not taken into account and regrettably, after four episodes, I am left feeling the BBC series takes too many liberties, resulting in a sensationalised representation of how the Met special demonstration squad (SDS) operated. | We were surprised that the focus of his storyline included an officer deceiving his lover (then wife) for 20 years, and explained to him that in our experience this was unrealistic. There was no precedent of officers having families with their targets then sustaining a happy marriage for two decades under the guise of their state-sponsored identity. Our true stories, we felt, were sufficiently dramatic without requiring elaboration. These concerns were not taken into account and regrettably, after four episodes, I am left feeling the BBC series takes too many liberties, resulting in a sensationalised representation of how the Met special demonstration squad (SDS) operated. |
| The characters in our stories are real people whose motivations and impulses have stimulated considerable debate | The characters in our stories are real people whose motivations and impulses have stimulated considerable debate |
| In Moffat’s drama through flashbacks to 1996 we see undercover officer Nick Johnson meet young activist Maya Cobbina at a black justice campaign meeting in Hackney. By episode three he tells her – despite being warned against this by his handler – that he is “falling hopelessly in love”. This is a man with real capacity for emotion who is deeply connected to the woman with whom he goes on to share so much of his life. His conflict is with his work, not another woman. The idea that the undercover officers with whom we shared our most intimate moments had this level of emotional intelligence is difficult for me to process. | In Moffat’s drama through flashbacks to 1996 we see undercover officer Nick Johnson meet young activist Maya Cobbina at a black justice campaign meeting in Hackney. By episode three he tells her – despite being warned against this by his handler – that he is “falling hopelessly in love”. This is a man with real capacity for emotion who is deeply connected to the woman with whom he goes on to share so much of his life. His conflict is with his work, not another woman. The idea that the undercover officers with whom we shared our most intimate moments had this level of emotional intelligence is difficult for me to process. |
| I wish it were true that the relationship I had with Mark “Cassidy” was predicated on mutual love but I don’t believe it was. It was an exploitative dynamic in which I was one of two women being deceived and manipulated by him in his dual domestic role. To give the impression that the undercover relationships that inspired this drama were based on reciprocal love – where no other woman is being cheated on and lied to – is to misrepresent the deceitful individuals involved, and to misunderstand the power dynamics and sexual politics that underpinned them. | I wish it were true that the relationship I had with Mark “Cassidy” was predicated on mutual love but I don’t believe it was. It was an exploitative dynamic in which I was one of two women being deceived and manipulated by him in his dual domestic role. To give the impression that the undercover relationships that inspired this drama were based on reciprocal love – where no other woman is being cheated on and lied to – is to misrepresent the deceitful individuals involved, and to misunderstand the power dynamics and sexual politics that underpinned them. |
| By 1996, SDS officers were required to be married in order to have something to return to. It is implausible that Nick would have been in a position to marry Maya in real life, as he would already have had a wife, and possibly children. By ignoring this fact, Moffat establishes a hierarchy of deceit and in doing so builds our sympathy for his anti-hero’s dilemma. | By 1996, SDS officers were required to be married in order to have something to return to. It is implausible that Nick would have been in a position to marry Maya in real life, as he would already have had a wife, and possibly children. By ignoring this fact, Moffat establishes a hierarchy of deceit and in doing so builds our sympathy for his anti-hero’s dilemma. |
| To my knowledge, the true stories do not involve murders in dark alleyways requiring ministerial cover-ups. Rather they are tales of state-sponsored deception in which women’s emotional and political lives were deemed worthless. I’m sure it won’t have been Mofatt’s intention, but by overdramatising the story he has left me feeling our experiences of emotional abuse by the Met are far less significant than the horrors unravelling in Maya’s life. | To my knowledge, the true stories do not involve murders in dark alleyways requiring ministerial cover-ups. Rather they are tales of state-sponsored deception in which women’s emotional and political lives were deemed worthless. I’m sure it won’t have been Mofatt’s intention, but by overdramatising the story he has left me feeling our experiences of emotional abuse by the Met are far less significant than the horrors unravelling in Maya’s life. |
| Furthermore, there are no cases of the police allowing an officer to remain using his fake identity and then being reactivated. Were an officer to go rogue in this way, everything we know about how whistleblower Peter Francis has been treated suggests the force would disown him as disloyal and unreliable, and do everything in its power to discredit him. The idea that he could be reactivated is preposterous. I am fully aware that there are aspects of our stories that if they weren’t true would also seem absurd – the police stealing dead babies’ identities; officers leading double lives with families and children during the daytime and activist lovers at night, and so on. The difference is that we have evidence for the accounts we tell. The characters in our stories are real people whose motivations and impulses have stimulated considerable debate. To try to understand Nick’s motivation, however, requires too large a leap of the imagination and stretches credibility too far. | Furthermore, there are no cases of the police allowing an officer to remain using his fake identity and then being reactivated. Were an officer to go rogue in this way, everything we know about how whistleblower Peter Francis has been treated suggests the force would disown him as disloyal and unreliable, and do everything in its power to discredit him. The idea that he could be reactivated is preposterous. I am fully aware that there are aspects of our stories that if they weren’t true would also seem absurd – the police stealing dead babies’ identities; officers leading double lives with families and children during the daytime and activist lovers at night, and so on. The difference is that we have evidence for the accounts we tell. The characters in our stories are real people whose motivations and impulses have stimulated considerable debate. To try to understand Nick’s motivation, however, requires too large a leap of the imagination and stretches credibility too far. |
| If we are to suspend our disbelief and allow for a moment the possibility that the police permitted Nick to use his fake persona to marry Maya and build his life with her, are we also to believe he wouldn’t then come clean straight away about his true identity rather than be bullied back into working for them? I understand why Mark “Cassidy” did not confess to me who he really was when he disappeared. Unlike Nick, when we had a pregnancy scare, he did not melt with joy and hug me; he panicked and told me to check it out quickly. He had a life to return to with his wife and children, and a loyalty to his employer. Because of his fierce refusal, we didn’t have children together and we had been in a relationship for five years not 20. He was returning to being himself – whoever that person is. But Nick isn’t in that position. He is married to his activist lover and has three children with her all of whom he is shown to adore. He is devotedly committed to them and no one else, not even his dying father. | If we are to suspend our disbelief and allow for a moment the possibility that the police permitted Nick to use his fake persona to marry Maya and build his life with her, are we also to believe he wouldn’t then come clean straight away about his true identity rather than be bullied back into working for them? I understand why Mark “Cassidy” did not confess to me who he really was when he disappeared. Unlike Nick, when we had a pregnancy scare, he did not melt with joy and hug me; he panicked and told me to check it out quickly. He had a life to return to with his wife and children, and a loyalty to his employer. Because of his fierce refusal, we didn’t have children together and we had been in a relationship for five years not 20. He was returning to being himself – whoever that person is. But Nick isn’t in that position. He is married to his activist lover and has three children with her all of whom he is shown to adore. He is devotedly committed to them and no one else, not even his dying father. |
| As he sits alone in his car in the first episode, after witnessing his father’s further deterioration, Nick breaks down in tears, presumably designed to highlight his internal conflict – torn between two separate worlds. We are invited to empathise with his painfully difficult predicament. This humanising approach is misplaced. From our experience, the only time these officers seem to display fear or disquiet is when they are caught out. | As he sits alone in his car in the first episode, after witnessing his father’s further deterioration, Nick breaks down in tears, presumably designed to highlight his internal conflict – torn between two separate worlds. We are invited to empathise with his painfully difficult predicament. This humanising approach is misplaced. From our experience, the only time these officers seem to display fear or disquiet is when they are caught out. |
| Like many viewers, I welcome seeing black actors take lead roles, and as an activist whose politics involved challenging police racism I appreciate the spotlight being directed at these abuses. The problem, however, with focusing so strongly on institutional racism is that it has overshadowed the institutional sexism I believe is at the heart of our cases. | Like many viewers, I welcome seeing black actors take lead roles, and as an activist whose politics involved challenging police racism I appreciate the spotlight being directed at these abuses. The problem, however, with focusing so strongly on institutional racism is that it has overshadowed the institutional sexism I believe is at the heart of our cases. |
| It would be wonderful if the series brought to wider public attention some awareness of the abusive relationships condoned by the police in the name of law and order, and even better if it sparks viewers’ curiosity to find out more about the true stories. However, my fear is that Undercover is to our stories what The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas was to the Holocaust – a well-produced narrative based on an implausible premise that is both misleading and inauthentic. I’d like to believe that the remaining episodes will address some of my concerns but after discovering I lived for five years with a special branch agent, I’ve learned to expect the worst. | It would be wonderful if the series brought to wider public attention some awareness of the abusive relationships condoned by the police in the name of law and order, and even better if it sparks viewers’ curiosity to find out more about the true stories. However, my fear is that Undercover is to our stories what The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas was to the Holocaust – a well-produced narrative based on an implausible premise that is both misleading and inauthentic. I’d like to believe that the remaining episodes will address some of my concerns but after discovering I lived for five years with a special branch agent, I’ve learned to expect the worst. |
| • For more information about the true stories inspiring Peter Moffat’s Undercover visit policespiesoutoflives.org.uk | • For more information about the true stories inspiring Peter Moffat’s Undercover visit policespiesoutoflives.org.uk |
Previous version
1
Next version