Discussion
OK, so what happens after these "leaks" that we consistently hear about in the press, I mean to the person leaking the info. I am well aware that in some cases it is an "official source" that may leak something, but in the cases like the Huwaieiwieiw (or whatever it is) 5G leak and the more recent US Ambassador leak, presumably they're not very happy about it, so what is done?
I worked for the state some time ago and recall signing various Official Acts to say i would not disclose stuff, and don't / didn't, it seemed to be a really big deal if I or anyone else had have done.
So how are these leaks happening nowadays, assuming it is a leak and not a hack? Have we become so lacklustre in defence of our Civil Service and other Govt internal workings that it is merely accepted that people will sell s
t to the papers to either make money or further a political aim, or can we assume that there is a crack team from GCHQ on this, and someone is about to get 10 years?
I worked for the state some time ago and recall signing various Official Acts to say i would not disclose stuff, and don't / didn't, it seemed to be a really big deal if I or anyone else had have done.
So how are these leaks happening nowadays, assuming it is a leak and not a hack? Have we become so lacklustre in defence of our Civil Service and other Govt internal workings that it is merely accepted that people will sell s
t to the papers to either make money or further a political aim, or can we assume that there is a crack team from GCHQ on this, and someone is about to get 10 years? Official secrets act is a weird one. The thing you sign is a declaration to say you're aware of it, but current or former crown employees are covered by it regardless of whether or not you've signed the declaration.
However if you've never worked for the government you're not bound by it, so if a journalist gets their hands on a secret document and publishes it, they're not in breach of the OSA, but if a civil servant gives it to the journalist the civil servant is in breach.
However if you've never worked for the government you're not bound by it, so if a journalist gets their hands on a secret document and publishes it, they're not in breach of the OSA, but if a civil servant gives it to the journalist the civil servant is in breach.
Considering the damage that gets done, particularly the US Ambassador leak they need to catch and severely punish the person responsible.
As much as Trump doesn't like the assessment, US Ambassadors are making exactly the same kind of judgements about our politicians. Can you imagine what has been said about May and no doubt the language is more colourful.
It is important that Ambassadors give candid assessments and are not worried about how it would be viewed by the public at large and the person it is about, that is why they are private and should remain so.
As much as Trump doesn't like the assessment, US Ambassadors are making exactly the same kind of judgements about our politicians. Can you imagine what has been said about May and no doubt the language is more colourful.
It is important that Ambassadors give candid assessments and are not worried about how it would be viewed by the public at large and the person it is about, that is why they are private and should remain so.
Exige77 said:
Getragdogleg said:
In many cases leaks are an important way to rein in some of the bad behaviour and dodgy deals done by those in positions of power and influence.
So the leaker decides what’s dodgy or not ?But since people in any position of power or influence are generally rather poor at self regulation or maintaining proper calibration of the old Moral Compass I see leaks as an essential part of being human.
poo at Paul's said:
OK, so what happens after these "leaks" that we consistently hear about in the press, I mean to the person leaking the info. I am well aware that in some cases it is an "official source" that may leak something, but in the cases like the Huwaieiwieiw (or whatever it is) 5G leak and the more recent US Ambassador leak, presumably they're not very happy about it, so what is done?
I worked for the state some time ago and recall signing various Official Acts to say i would not disclose stuff, and don't / didn't, it seemed to be a really big deal if I or anyone else had have done.
So how are these leaks happening nowadays, assuming it is a leak and not a hack? Have we become so lacklustre in defence of our Civil Service and other Govt internal workings that it is merely accepted that people will sell st to the papers to either make money or further a political aim, or can we assume that there is a crack team from GCHQ on this, and someone is about to get 10 years?
It all depends. If you're a woman then it's fine. You only signed it because you were forced into it by a man that was harassing you, so you can just ignore it. Likewise, if you're a bloke but prepared to give it up to become a woman, you'll be a hero.I worked for the state some time ago and recall signing various Official Acts to say i would not disclose stuff, and don't / didn't, it seemed to be a really big deal if I or anyone else had have done.
So how are these leaks happening nowadays, assuming it is a leak and not a hack? Have we become so lacklustre in defence of our Civil Service and other Govt internal workings that it is merely accepted that people will sell s
t to the papers to either make money or further a political aim, or can we assume that there is a crack team from GCHQ on this, and someone is about to get 10 years? If you're a bloke, however, it's Moscow, the Ecuadorian Embassy or 20 years in the pokey.
RizzoTheRat said:
Official secrets act is a weird one. The thing you sign is a declaration to say you're aware of it, but current or former crown employees are covered by it regardless of whether or not you've signed the declaration.
However if you've never worked for the government you're not bound by it, so if a journalist gets their hands on a secret document and publishes it, they're not in breach of the OSA, but if a civil servant gives it to the journalist the civil servant is in breach.
I think you're wrong. Everyone is covered by the OSA, but people working in certain area's sign a declaration (commonly referred to as "signing the official secrets act")However if you've never worked for the government you're not bound by it, so if a journalist gets their hands on a secret document and publishes it, they're not in breach of the OSA, but if a civil servant gives it to the journalist the civil servant is in breach.
You can't just publish secrets just because you have unofficial access to them.
With regard to leaks, some are more official than others. Sometimes information will be given to the press to judge the public's reaction, and then be sidelined if it's not good (and can be denied as ever being policy).
Some stuff is a genuine leak when stuff gets into the public domain that wasn't sanctioned or unintended.
The naivete over this latest 'leak' is amazing. The only way for the leaker to escape detection is if the leak is by the State, or one of its higher ranking members. Or a fall guy.
The Establishment has its objectives that will always be met and judgements are taken on what is required to achieve certain results. The current ambassadorial cobblers is a result of that establishment crapping themselves that WTO terms are looming. In order to prevent that too awful a conclusion is to remove any possibility of a trade deal with USA - that being the first and most important plank with which to Leave with prospects.
So, the best to achieve that? Engineer a top level wedge between UK and a temperamental demagogue that can be laid directly at HM Gov's feet. The truculent potus performs as expected and withdraws 'promises'. The only weapon with which to thwack EU negotiators is removed so they remain adamant and the HoC turmoil is maintained, leading to possible withdrawal of A50.
The Establishment has its objectives that will always be met and judgements are taken on what is required to achieve certain results. The current ambassadorial cobblers is a result of that establishment crapping themselves that WTO terms are looming. In order to prevent that too awful a conclusion is to remove any possibility of a trade deal with USA - that being the first and most important plank with which to Leave with prospects.
So, the best to achieve that? Engineer a top level wedge between UK and a temperamental demagogue that can be laid directly at HM Gov's feet. The truculent potus performs as expected and withdraws 'promises'. The only weapon with which to thwack EU negotiators is removed so they remain adamant and the HoC turmoil is maintained, leading to possible withdrawal of A50.
Getragdogleg said:
In many cases leaks are an important way to rein in some of the bad behaviour and dodgy deals done by those in positions of power and influence.
But in other cases (ala US ambassador) the leak is massively damaging to the individual as well as the government, and if anything the people involved were simply doing their job to the best of their ability. If something was genuinely wrong (bad behaviour or dodgy deals) there are ways of highlighting it and letting the legal system take its course without running to the Daily Mail wanting a cheque.
98elise said:
I think you're wrong. Everyone is covered by the OSA, but people working in certain area's sign a declaration (commonly referred to as "signing the official secrets act")
You can't just publish secrets just because you have unofficial access to them.
No, it specifically states "is or has been a crown servant or government contractor", or if you're notified that it applies to you (which you're only likely to be if doing contract work for the government.You can't just publish secrets just because you have unofficial access to them.
I can't think of any other legislation that only covers a subsection of people like that, and am not sure why it wouldn't cover everyone like other laws do, as it does have a defence of not knowing at the time that the material would be damaging.
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Wednesday 10th July 12:56
RizzoTheRat said:
98elise said:
I think you're wrong. Everyone is covered by the OSA, but people working in certain area's sign a declaration (commonly referred to as "signing the official secrets act")
You can't just publish secrets just because you have unofficial access to them.
No, it specifically states "is or has been a crown servant or government contractor", or if you're notified that it applies to you (which you're only likely to be if doing contract work for the government.You can't just publish secrets just because you have unofficial access to them.
I can't think of any other legislation that only covers a subsection of people like that, and am not sure why it wouldn't cover everyone like other laws do, as it does have a defence of not knowing at the time that the material would be damaging.
Condi said:
Getragdogleg said:
In many cases leaks are an important way to rein in some of the bad behaviour and dodgy deals done by those in positions of power and influence.
But in other cases (ala US ambassador) the leak is massively damaging to the individual as well as the government, and if anything the people involved were simply doing their job to the best of their ability. If something was genuinely wrong (bad behaviour or dodgy deals) there are ways of highlighting it and letting the legal system take its course without running to the Daily Mail wanting a cheque.
1: never write or say anything about a person that you would not say with them stood in front of you.
2: if you do write or say something make sure you either don't care about the fall out if you get found out or make sure you can ride out the consequences.
In this day and age it is prudent to assume you have nothing private.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff