In message . com, at
09:07:51 on Fri, 30 Mar 2007, 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?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at
09:07:51 on Fri, 30 Mar 2007, 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.
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont

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).

Regards
Jeff

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.

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.