"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?