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.

"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.

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
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.


Thanks for the elucidation. I had mistakenly thought that the OSA was about
things that could prejudice the safety of the State and so on, not my
appointment at the Hut. One lives and learns. And actually I did learn one
tiny mysterious thing. Post for Pompey, instead of being put on the direct
coastal train to Pompey was put on the train to Waterloo, then later put on
a Waterloo to Pompey train. I pointed out that it would be quicker to send
it direct but was told to shut up and load the wagon. Now I wonder what they
did with it in Waterloo that they couldn't do with it in Brighton?

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

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:22:37 +0100, "Jeff" wrote:

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.

AFAIR the offences concerning retention of documents are very much
dependant on the appropriate bits of paper having been signed for an
offence to be proved. The 1989 Act also applies to "a person notified
that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection" [s.1(1)(b)],
not just "a member of the security and intelligence
services"[s.1(1)(a)].

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.

AFAIR the offences concerning retention of documents are very much
dependant on the appropriate bits of paper having been signed for an
offence to be proved. The 1989 Act also applies to "a person notified
that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection" [s.1(1)(b)],
not just "a member of the security and intelligence
services"[s.1(1)(a)].

Perhaps you should read all of S.1, it relates entirely to "security or
intelligence" which "means the work of, or in support of, the security and
intelligence services or any part of them, and references to information
relating to security or intelligence include references to information held
or transmitted by those services or by persons in support of, or of any part
of, them".

So a notice under S.1. 1(b) relates entirely to persons involved in security
or intelligence; as I said in my previous post.

As far as documents are concerned, again there is not mention in the Acts
about signing anything, just their unauthorised retention or disposal. There
may me a local logging system in place to control the movement of some
documents, but this is normally only for Confidential and above. Restricted
documents in general are not signed for, but are still covered by the Act,
as are many documents that carry no protective marking at all.

Regards
Jeff

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:37:24 +0100, "Jeff" wrote:

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.

AFAIR the offences concerning retention of documents are very much
dependant on the appropriate bits of paper having been signed for an
offence to be proved. The 1989 Act also applies to "a person notified
that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection" [s.1(1)(b)],
not just "a member of the security and intelligence
services"[s.1(1)(a)].

Perhaps you should read all of S.1, it relates entirely to "security or
intelligence" which "means the work of, or in support of, the security and
intelligence services or any part of them, and references to information
relating to security or intelligence include references to information held
or transmitted by those services or by persons in support of, or of any part
of, them".

So a notice under S.1. 1(b) relates entirely to persons involved in security
or intelligence; as I said in my previous post.

A "person notified..." is not necessarily intentionally involved (or
employed) in security or intelligence.

As far as documents are concerned, again there is not mention in the Acts
about signing anything, just their unauthorised retention or disposal. There
may me a local logging system in place to control the movement of some
documents, but this is normally only for Confidential and above. Restricted
documents in general are not signed for, but are still covered by the Act,
as are many documents that carry no protective marking at all.

The "signing" generally referred to is that done when entering or
leaving the affected occupations not on other odd occasions.