Talk:Supergrass (informant)

Page move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'd like to move this page to Supergrass (informer), as this is a more accurate and specific title. Any objections? Demiurge 11:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

None at all.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origin of 'grass'

The article just said it's been in use since the '30s, not why or what it comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.177.1.127 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Did this come from the expression "snake in the grass"? 69.54.63.225 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mafia supergrass

The Italian Supergrass trials of the 90's should be covered. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Supergrass (movie)

Should this be a reference, a satire on the `supergrass` phenomenon. - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090102/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Supergrass (informer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929134805/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465481&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465481&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

dual use in cases against Ulsters?

Was it not also used when describing Ulsters/ex-Ulster ones during the un-official raiding-terror squads period/s, some captured/interrogated by the IRA/provisionals, when the difference between what was being officially admitted to as a part of the claim by the crown 'legitimate' attempting of keeping order, could not include their 'additional activities' they supposedly undertook on their own initiative/choices, which was later revealed to be actually turned a blind eye to creating distance from the crown, but during the BOTH-directions demands for prosecution on BOTH sides later on, had already been acted on, and despite the Brits claims of inadmissibility of evidence, was still culturally and popularly considered a grass, just as much?

Keeping in mind that is, that a ex-Ulster or while unable to ignore the crimes of his fellows Ulster grassing on his fellow members that did participate in those crimes in addition to the supposedly-legal actions, especially if done outside NI's borders, were in-amongst, someone ELSE's local authority?

i.e. on the other side of the border, the normal organized-crime definition that might seem consistent with who is of the authority, and who is acting-against it, is no-longer parallel, and so a Ulster unable to ignore the hypocrisy, would-be a grass to the immorality, despite the claimed spotless reputations of the Paratroopers and other squads, in a maintaining false-dignity sense? It's one thing to use/mis-use your local authority/courts to deny the evidence of your enemy, it's another to extend that convenience into larger domains, in this case here at Wikipedia, a global-encyclopaedia. What was embarrassing for the crown/loyalists, does not BIND everyone else in the world, to their one-sided avoidance of admitting to having however many grasses undermining their false-spotlessness / false clean-reputation. Awkwardness with TERMS, expressions, like a grass, will not make the dual / bi-directional history somehow disappear. No point, just admit it, and move on. 101.119.113.91 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)