Nuking the Yanks

[Pesty]

98elise said:

Nobody signs the Official Secrets Act.

Erm I had to. Well I wasn't really listening and didn't read it but that's what they said it was.


Most serious looking people I've ever met

When I saw the item I was like what's all the fuss could have told me it was from a washing machine.


Edit oh st I've just realised something, this accident probably didn't have anything to do with me. Erm when was it er made exactly?

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 24th January 23:47

[anonymous-user]

Pesty said:

Erm I had to. Well I wasn't really listening and didn't read it but that's what they said it was.


Most serious looking people I've ever met

When I saw the item I was like what's all the fuss could have told me it was from a washing machine.

The fuss isn't about the document, its about what they will do to you when you break it.

[98elise]

Pesty said:

98elise said:

Nobody signs the Official Secrets Act.

Erm I had to. Well I wasn't really listening and didn't read it but that's what they said it was.


Most serious looking people I've ever met

When I saw the item I was like what's all the fuss could have told me it was from a washing machine.


Edit oh st I've just realised something, this accident probably didn't have anything to do with me. Erm when was it er made exactly?

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 24th January 23:47

What you signed will be a declaration. The act applies regardless of if you sign the declaration or not. I have two, from entry and exit to the armed forces. Neither is the official secrets act.

It no different to your employer asking you to sign a declaration they you will abide by the Health and Safety at work act.

The point is that signing the declaration (or not) makes no difference.

[brrapp]

Garvin said:

98elise said:

Nobody signs the Official Secrets Act.

When I embarked on a career in the defence industry, many moons ago now, I had to sign a declaration that I had read, understood and agreed to be bound by the Offical Secrets Act.

I signed similar when I started work with the Department of Agriculture many years ago. To date I've never told anyone about the carrots we tested . Does that make me some kind of special agent?

[Ayahuasca]

98elise said:

Pesty said:

98elise said:

Nobody signs the Official Secrets Act.

Erm I had to. Well I wasn't really listening and didn't read it but that's what they said it was.


Most serious looking people I've ever met

When I saw the item I was like what's all the fuss could have told me it was from a washing machine.


Edit oh st I've just realised something, this accident probably didn't have anything to do with me. Erm when was it er made exactly?

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 24th January 23:47

What you signed will be a declaration. The act applies regardless of if you sign the declaration or not. I have two, from entry and exit to the armed forces. Neither is the official secrets act.

It no different to your employer asking you to sign a declaration they you will abide by the Health and Safety at work act.

The point is that signing the declaration (or not) makes no difference.

When I took the Queen's shilling I am sure they made me sign something they said was the OSA.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

What you signed was MOD Form 134

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS CONFIDENTIALITY DECLARATION

Signing it declares that you are aware of the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989 and that you are bound by them (both within and post service) as well as the Duty of Confidentiality to the MOD, Crown Copyright, and Queen's Regulations.

[Ayahuasca]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

What you signed was MOD Form 134

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS CONFIDENTIALITY DECLARATION

Signing it declares that you are aware of the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989 and that you are bound by them (both within and post service) as well as the Duty of Confidentiality to the MOD, Crown Copyright, and Queen's Regulations.

I ain't saying nothing then!

[Pan Pan Pan]

jmorgan said:

JawKnee said:

jmorgan said:

How many tests have failed?

The latest one, which you'd assume matches as close as possible the current technologies and procedure.

Who needs enemies when you've got allies like Britain?

How many tests have failed in the time we have been testing them.

More worryingly, how many tests of Russian missiles have failed?
The whole point of any test is to check and make sure a system is working as well as it can, and like with anything made by humans some can go wrong. that is why they are tested.
All trident is, is an insurance policy. Like all insurance policies it is expensive, and when buying it, one does so in the hope of never ever having to use it. But also with insurance policies, it is many thousand times better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have one.

[hidetheelephants]

Pan Pan Pan said:

jmorgan said:

JawKnee said:

jmorgan said:

How many tests have failed?

The latest one, which you'd assume matches as close as possible the current technologies and procedure.

Who needs enemies when you've got allies like Britain?

How many tests have failed in the time we have been testing them.

More worryingly, how many tests of Russian missiles have failed?
The whole point of any test is to check and make sure a system is working as well as it can, and like with anything made by humans some can go wrong. that is why they are tested.
All trident is, is an insurance policy. Like all insurance policies it is expensive, and when buying it, one does so in the hope of never ever having to use it. But also with insurance policies, it is many thousand times better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have one.

The Beeb were reporting that the russian equivalent of Trident has had nearly 50% failure during tests.

[jmorgan]

hidetheelephants said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

jmorgan said:

JawKnee said:

jmorgan said:

How many tests have failed?

The latest one, which you'd assume matches as close as possible the current technologies and procedure.

Who needs enemies when you've got allies like Britain?

How many tests have failed in the time we have been testing them.

More worryingly, how many tests of Russian missiles have failed?
The whole point of any test is to check and make sure a system is working as well as it can, and like with anything made by humans some can go wrong. that is why they are tested.
All trident is, is an insurance policy. Like all insurance policies it is expensive, and when buying it, one does so in the hope of never ever having to use it. But also with insurance policies, it is many thousand times better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have one.

The Beeb were reporting that the russian equivalent of Trident has had nearly 50% failure during tests.

There you go then, OP barking up the wrong democracy.

[alfie2244]

jmorgan said:

hidetheelephants said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

jmorgan said:

JawKnee said:

jmorgan said:

How many tests have failed?

The latest one, which you'd assume matches as close as possible the current technologies and procedure.

Who needs enemies when you've got allies like Britain?

How many tests have failed in the time we have been testing them.

More worryingly, how many tests of Russian missiles have failed?
The whole point of any test is to check and make sure a system is working as well as it can, and like with anything made by humans some can go wrong. that is why they are tested.
All trident is, is an insurance policy. Like all insurance policies it is expensive, and when buying it, one does so in the hope of never ever having to use it. But also with insurance policies, it is many thousand times better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have one.

The Beeb were reporting that the russian equivalent of Trident has had nearly 50% failure during tests.

There you go then, OP barking

FTFY