Tradecraft is the term that describes the methods and processes that undercovers, with the assistance of their managers, used to create and maintain fake identities and to infiltrate target organisations. It covers everything from, for example, the practice of using a dead child’s birth certificate to create a false identity through to the psychological techniques used to manipulate activists into a place of trust, to how to withdraw from a group at the end of a deployment without raising suspicion.
Other aspects of tradecraft include renting cover accommodation for undercovers and meeting their managers at an ‘unmarked office’ away from Scotland Yard, the supply and use of vehicles registered to fake identities, altering their appearance and establishing credible fake employment.
Initially, SDS tradecraft was rudimentary, with undercovers on short deployments simply choosing a new name, letting their hair grow out and dressing down, but otherwise putting very little preparation into their background story, known as their ‘legend’. They shared rental cars or sometimes even used their own, asked contacts to pretend they worked for them and spent little time in their cover accommodation.
In November 1968, SDS founder Conrad Dixon set out parameters for future tradecraft in an internal paper titled Penetration of Extremist Groups. These included a maximum deployment length of a year and the need for undercovers to give their managers a written precis of their legend. However, no undercovers have remembered ever seeing the document or following Dixon’s guidelines.
Accounts from undercovers note that tradecraft was essentially handed down by word of mouth. Undercovers preparing to be deployed received some guidance from managers in the SDS office. However, most learning appears to have come from the twice-weekly meetings with those already deployed undercover, which encouraged the trainee undercovers to chat with those in the field and absorb knowledge that way. Other elements of tradecraft, such as report writing, came from previous training as Special Branch officers.
Innovations in tradecraft practice came, for the most part, from the undercovers refining their methods, with the new way of doing things becoming accepted as the norm by managers.
It is worth noting that in the early 1970s, when much of the tradecraft became established, very few managers had undercover experience. Later managers tended not to question the practices they found in place when they joined the SDS, even those who had previously been undercovers.
As undercovers’ deployments grew longer, they put more effort into developing a stronger ‘legend’ that would withstand scrutiny, for example visiting places connected to the children whose identities they had stolen to be able to answer questions about their backgrounds more convincingly. These preparations were undertaken by undercovers working in the SDS back office before they were deployed into what they called ‘the field’.
On average, prospective undercovers spent up to six months in the SDS back office doing administrative work for the unit. Some of this was spent developing their cover, but most of the ‘training’ seems to have been chats with undercovers already deployed during the twice-weekly meetings at the SDS safehouse. Managers would test cover stories or sign off on the cover story of employment but, for the most part, seem to have taken a hands-off approach.
One particularly unpleasant and damaging part of tradecraft was the practice of bolstering the undercover identity by forming a romantic relationship with a female activist. Worse, undercovers who formed these long-term relationships often pretended to have a nervous breakdown then disappeared to extricate themselves quickly from the relationship.
Although not all undercover officers did this, those that did caused the women they deceived deep and long-lasting emotional trauma and psychological harm. For more on this see the page on sexual relationships with women in target groups.
Whether or not they formed sexual relationships, many undercovers formed close personal friendships within the groups they targeted and attended important life events as a result. These relationships were important sources of intelligence of the personal type gathered by the undercovers. There was no filter on what was reported, including details of children, and deeply personal details such as domestic set-ups, sexual orientation and histories, health issues. There were also judgmental comments on people’s appearance and characters that were sexist and racist in nature.
A related piece of tradecraft was to take positions of responsibility within groups to gain access to membership lists, or to the financial administration.
At some point, an effort was made to write up some of the undercover’s experiences, and bring them together in a loose-leaf binder. Its value as guidance seems to have been minimal.[[Footnote: At least one undercover was openly dismissive of its usefulness saying he stopped reading it after several pages. When it is mentioned, it is barely remembered.]]
Eventually, in 1995, all this information was codified into an SDS Tradecraft Manual by undercover HN2 Andy Coles ‘Andy Davey’ and updated in 1996.
For more detailed analysis of different tradecraft aspects see:
- Appearance of Undercovers
- Cover Identities
- Cover Employment
- Cover Addresses
- Cover Vehicles
- Cover Documents
- Befriending individuals as a tactic
- Duration of Deployment
- Exit Story