On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 06:55:22AM +0000, Rob Cullen wrote:
"fanny" wrote:
"Pete Fenelon" wrote:
********.
Is it absolutely necessary to you foul language to emphasise your point?
So I'm presuming 'fanny' is your real name then?

The correct answer to such prudes is "yes".

--
David Cantrell

The "secret Buckingham Palace" connection to the Victoria Line theory
rears its head every now and again and we have to ask just what its
use would be?

Firstly one assumes Buck House has had some form of air-raid shelter
since WW1 and these would have been upgraded for WW2, The Cold War and
even the "War on Terror".

So why would the Royal Family want to leave this sanctury? Perhaps to
flee the area in the event of revolution, but obviously there would be
no case of boarding a passing Vic Line train and diverting it to
Northolt (for RAF base) or Heathrow. Indeed in the case of such severe
civil unrest, it is most unlikely the LUL system would be running. So
it could be to travel on foot to exit elsewhere, but only to exit at
an existing station, which suggests a Siagon-style helicopter airlift
would be better. And if there is a 'secret' door, surely enough people
have walked the few hundred yards of tunnel where such a connection
would have to be for someone to have seen it?

Another idea would be to use the LU tunnels to link Buck House with
the known government underground bunkers under Whitehall (walk NB Vic
Line to Green Park, the Jub Line SB to Charing X disused). But again,
whilst any palace and government systems are presumably sealable
against 'NBC' forms of attack, no such protection exists in the LU
network. Ah - so wear an NBC suit in the tunnel I hear some people
say, in which case why not travel by military vehicle at street level?

I'm quite sure there's more underground than we're allowed to know
about, but doubt it involves the LU system. There are just too many
people who would have found out about any such provision over the
years, 9999% of whom have never had to sign the OSA Act and are thus
free to speak.

What about the other golden oldie that the Bakerloo Line *was*
secretly built as far as Camberwell Green in the late-40s?

One that *is* true is that the overrun tunnels at Charing Cross
Jubilee were built along the alignment of the Strand to allow for
future Fleet Line extension, plus to allow for the stabling of two
trains each, and reach just short of the Aldwych/Waterloo Bridge
junction.

In message . com, at
09:07:51 on Fri, 30 Mar 2007, remarked:
9999% of whom have never had to sign the OSA Act and are thus
free to speak.

I haven't signed the Theft Act - does that mean I am free to steal from
you?
--
Roland Perry

I'm quite sure there's more underground than we're allowed to know
about, but doubt it involves the LU system. There are just too many
people who would have found out about any such provision over the
years, 9999% of whom have never had to sign the OSA Act and are thus
free to speak.


I think you mis-understand what "signing the Official Secrets Act" means.
Signing it merely acknowledges the fact that the provisions of the OSA have
been brought to your attention. It does not impose any additional conditions
upon you. Everyone is bound by the OSA; signing it just gives you less
mitigation should you breach its provisions (not that there are many get
outs even if you were not aware of the provisions of the OSA).

Regards
Jeff

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:35:46 +0100, "Jeff" wrote:


I'm quite sure there's more underground than we're allowed to know
about, but doubt it involves the LU system. There are just too many
people who would have found out about any such provision over the
years, 9999% of whom have never had to sign the OSA Act and are thus
free to speak.


I think you mis-understand what "signing the Official Secrets Act" means.
Signing it merely acknowledges the fact that the provisions of the OSA have
been brought to your attention. It does not impose any additional conditions
upon you. Everyone is bound by the OSA; signing it just gives you less
mitigation should you breach its provisions (not that there are many get
outs even if you were not aware of the provisions of the OSA).

Some OSA offences concern(ed) actions taken _after_ various
acknowledgements have been made so signing the piece of paper does
make a difference. Other offences can/could only be committed by
certain classes of person whose employment would not have been
continued in the absence of various OSA declarations required to be
made on their first day of employment.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at
09:07:51 on Fri, 30 Mar 2007, remarked:
9999% of whom have never had to sign the OSA Act and are thus
free to speak.

I haven't signed the Theft Act - does that mean I am free to steal from
you?

I think you'll find that it was Betty Windsor who signed the Theft Bill
therefore making it into the Theft Act. Ditto the OSA. Mere mortals sign
a piece of paper stating that they have read & understood certain of the
provisions of the OSA.
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:35:46 +0100, "Jeff" wrote:


I'm quite sure there's more underground than we're allowed to know
about, but doubt it involves the LU system. There are just too many
people who would have found out about any such provision over the
years, 9999% of whom have never had to sign the OSA Act and are thus
free to speak.


I think you mis-understand what "signing the Official Secrets Act" means.
Signing it merely acknowledges the fact that the provisions of the OSA
have
been brought to your attention. It does not impose any additional
conditions
upon you. Everyone is bound by the OSA; signing it just gives you less
mitigation should you breach its provisions (not that there are many get
outs even if you were not aware of the provisions of the OSA).

Some OSA offences concern(ed) actions taken _after_ various
acknowledgements have been made so signing the piece of paper does
make a difference. Other offences can/could only be committed by
certain classes of person whose employment would not have been
continued in the absence of various OSA declarations required to be
made on their first day of employment.

I remember working for the Post Office as a temp Xmas help at Brighton
station in about 78. All we did was unload sacks of Xmas cards from the
local vans and put them on the relevant trains. Before we started we had to
sign the OSA. I have not the slightest idea what secrets I was ever likely
to learn there. Nor why the Post Office was so concerned about it.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:00:56 +0200, "Bill Again"
wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:35:46 +0100, "Jeff" wrote:


I'm quite sure there's more underground than we're allowed to know
about, but doubt it involves the LU system. There are just too many
people who would have found out about any such provision over the
years, 9999% of whom have never had to sign the OSA Act and are thus
free to speak.


I think you mis-understand what "signing the Official Secrets Act" means.
Signing it merely acknowledges the fact that the provisions of the OSA
have
been brought to your attention. It does not impose any additional
conditions
upon you. Everyone is bound by the OSA; signing it just gives you less
mitigation should you breach its provisions (not that there are many get
outs even if you were not aware of the provisions of the OSA).

Some OSA offences concern(ed) actions taken _after_ various
acknowledgements have been made so signing the piece of paper does
make a difference. Other offences can/could only be committed by
certain classes of person whose employment would not have been
continued in the absence of various OSA declarations required to be
made on their first day of employment.

I remember working for the Post Office as a temp Xmas help at Brighton
station in about 78. All we did was unload sacks of Xmas cards from the
local vans and put them on the relevant trains. Before we started we had to
sign the OSA. I have not the slightest idea what secrets I was ever likely
to learn there.

Basically, any information that you might have seen by accident or
design which if passed on could compromise the security of the postal
system or anything passing through it.

Nor why the Post Office was so concerned about it.

You would know why if your (purely as an example) clap clinic
appointment was being talked about in your local pub by the postal
staff or the local rag used the postmen as an information source.

Some OSA offences concern(ed) actions taken _after_ various
acknowledgements have been made so signing the piece of paper does
make a difference. Other offences can/could only be committed by
certain classes of person whose employment would not have been
continued in the absence of various OSA declarations required to be
made on their first day of employment.

There is no reference to "signing" anything within the OSAs, or to specific
offences by persons who have signed or made any declarations.

The only area where there is any additional notification involved is for
persons involved in Security and Intelligence, where the person concerned
must be served with a notice informing them that an additional section of
the 1989 Act applies to them.

Regards
Jeff