In message , at 19:35:44 on
Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Bruce Fletcher
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.

But the point is that signing that paper has no effect on whether
subsequent actions are legal or not (in particular, not signing it does
not excuse one from the law).
--
Roland Perry

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)].

"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?

Just a point of interest, the Jubilee line tunnels to Charing Cross are not
disused, they are used when the service is disrupted and trains need to be
'turned short' of their destination. The trains are emptied of passengers
at Green Park and then run to Charing Cross empty to reverse and they pick
up passengers at green park going north.


wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

The overrun tunnels at Charing Cross finish just short of where the Aldwych
Station would have been sited. Originally two trains could be signalled
and stabled in each of these overrun tunnels but now only one train can be
stabled in each siding.

Re the Bakerloo tunnels going as far as Camberwell, this is a myth that has
been doing the rounds for years and years. The two tunnels south of
Elephant and Castle are used as stabling sidings holding one train in each
tunnel. At the end of each tunnel is a dome shape cast iron wall. I
believe that at one time land at street level was purchased at various
locations along the proposed extension for stations, substations and
ventilation shafts but I would be very surprised if London Underground still
owned these locations.


wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

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.

In article . com,
writes
What about the other golden oldie that the Bakerloo Line *was*
secretly built as far as Camberwell Green in the late-40s?

The sidings at the south end of the Bakerloo were "swung" - with new
siding tunnels being dug - along the route towards Camberwell. While
they don't extend anywhere near all the way, that's probably the origin
of the story.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:59:17 +0100, wrote:

On 30 Mar 2007 09:07:51 -0700, 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.

For the record, people are bound by the Official Secrets Acts even if
they don't "sign the OSA". Getting them to sign a piece of paper
simply serves as a reminder to them. Not signing one does not mean
that people are free to speak in breach of the acts.

It isn't that simple. Signing the declaration involves aspects of both
civil and criminal law which otherwise don't come into effect. The
civil aspect features in Her Majesty's Attorney General v. Blake and
Another which concerns the spy George Blake.
Declarations also feature in para 8.23 of the NAO Procurement Manual
:-
"8.23

Where a contractor’s staff may have access to departmental information
they must be asked to sign an Official Secrets Act declaration to
ensure that they have read and understood the Act."

In the case of a criminal prosecution under the OSAs the declaration
could make the difference in proving that someone was actually aware
that they were committing a criminal offence. That would not be a
matter of what the OSAs require but of what the judicial systems
require.