We all know who they are. From your mother's tattle-tale to the union's rat to the criminals stool pigeon or snitch.

In a recent story about a trial involving members of organized crime we have: "John "Sonny" Franzese is so old that his recent extortion trial became nap time -- even when his turncoat son testified against him."

The unbiased press coming out with "turncoat" to describe his son testifying against him.

So, my question is, what is the distinction between a tattle-tale, a rat, a stool pigeon, a snitch, a turncoat, and a whistleblower? One gets a movie made of him and the others get villified in the press.

So, what is your distinction?

I suppose one distinction is that some people leak information to "get back" at people, and others because they realise that injustice is happening.

. . . And others because they're paid, or to secure advantage for themselves (like immunity from prosecution, or a lighter sentence).

I think informers are something we feel very divided about. On the one hand, there are lots of activities that ought to be informed on. On the other hand, the informer violates so many things we consider valuable - trust, friendship, loyalty, mateship, solidarity - that it's easy to see him as a despicable person.