“…There are too many classifications (the outside multiple-event informant, 'the snoopy'/the inside multiple-event informer, 'the supergrass' (Greer, 1995b: 510)), typologies (based on the informer's operation as a 'snitch,' a 'double-self' or a 'wholly false self', depending on the needs of the police (Levinson 1982: 30-31)), and labels (depending on the informers' intervention in different types of crimes): car theft (Parker, 1986); drugs (Lawler, 1986); corruption (Grabosky, 1991); conspiracy (Haglund, 1990); organised crime (Parker, 1986;Schuberg, 1992); vice and burglary (Skolnick, 1975); vice and liquor activities (Temby, 1991); and certain violent political crimes (Weyrauch, 1986). There are studies about the value of informants (Bennet & Hess, 1994;Hoffman & Riley, 1995); methods for developing informant systems/recruiting (Dunnighan & Norris, 1996;Fitzgerald, 2007); motivational considerations (Billingsley, 2001); compensations (Ferziger & Currell, 1999;Jackson & Fulk, 2005); protection (Boisvert, 2005;Lacko, 2004); abuse (Bloom, 2002); corruption (Clark, 2001); process deviance (Billingsley, 2004); and the management of the informer (Nugent et al, 1991). In fact, the literature has given much attention to the importance of the police informer management and control system (Maguire & John, 1995;Settle, 1995;Williamson & Bagshaw, 2001), from the legal aspects (Harney & Cross, 1968) to informal 'mechanisms' (Lee, 1993;Reuter, 1983) and the ethical dilemmas (Dunnighan & Norris, 1998).…”