On 27/09/2022 10:30, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:26:39 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgsgov$gp3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:33:51 on Mon, 26 Sep
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 07:09:19 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tgq9u1$3eesb$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:24:49 on Sun, 25 Sep
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> For many years I had annual clearance to enter Downing Street (indoors
>>>>> as well as out) and The Houses of Parliament, initially through my
>>>>> employer (TVS) and when I went freelance, the BBC, who had me on their
>>>>> roster to be available for elections and the State Opening of
>>>>> Parliament. And yes, I gather I had a fairly thorough vetting. Mind you
>>>>> when I originally joined the BBC I had, allegedly, been vetted by MI5
>>>>> just to work in studios.
>>>>
>>>> There's various levels of vetting, all the way up to the one where they
>>>> allegedly go talk to your schoolteachers and interview you face to face
>>>> for a couple of hours. Some vetting is linked primarily to establishing
>>>> your identity beyond reasonable doubt, and then using that to check
>>>> criminal records and so on.
>>>
>>> The DBS check takes care of basic CRB stuff.
>>
>> DBS isn't the sort of vetting involved here.
>
> DBS is the first stage of further security checks. If you did 2 years for
> GBH they're not going to bother checking you out any further. I speak as
> someone who's been security vetted.
>
>>> I hate to break the news to you but its probably because you were a nobody
>>> going to an irrelevant meeting where there was nobody important who knew
>>> anything important.
>>
>> Oh dear! Even if any of that were true, they don't let just anybody
>> wander in off the street and upstairs to a meeting room.
>
> I imagine they required a party invite.
>

or a bottle in a suitcase.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:35:46 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 27/09/2022 10:29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 19:01:22 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2022 17:15, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> An old Brigadier topping up his army pension checking some staff CVs is not
>
>>> the
>>>> same as MI5 vetting all production floor staff.
>>>
>>> He was just the liaison guy.
>>
>> That web page gave the distinct impression he made the decisions.
>>
>>
>
>He referred new staff to MI5 for the actual vetting.

Then why bother having him? Personel could have sent the info direct.
Your story seems to be unravelling.

In message <tgug4i$1f8v$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:35:13 on Tue, 27 Sep
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 27/09/2022 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tgshpo$3p6t9$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:20 on Mon, 26 Sep
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 26/09/2022 16:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 20:24:49 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 20/09/2022 15:26, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Of course there's one group of outsiders who regularly visit and
>>>>>>spend time
>>>>>> in Downing Street: journalists and TV production crews.  I wonder
>>>>>>how much
>>>>>> vetting they need to gain access?  Presumably they must work for an
>>>>>> accredited publisher/TV company?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For many years I had annual clearance to enter Downing Street (indoors
>>>>> as well as out) and The Houses of Parliament, initially through my
>>>>> employer (TVS) and when I went freelance, the BBC, who had me on their
>>>>> roster to be available for elections and the State Opening of
>>>>> Parliament. And yes, I gather I had a fairly thorough vetting. Mind you
>>>>> when I originally joined the BBC I had, allegedly, been vetted by MI5
>>>>> just to work in studios.
>>>>  Sounds like someone was having you on. MI5 probably had more
>>>>important things
>>>> to do than vet some AV grunt at the BBC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's where you are wrong. It is well established that engineering
>>>recruits[1] as well as production staff, were vetted by MI5 at that
>>>time. I even had to sign the Official Secrets Act.

>> The original security-theatre. Did they get you to sign the Theft
>>Act too, to deter any sticky fingers?

>> I don't ever recall signing the Road Traffic Act, so can I ignore
>>red traffic lights?
>
>You do manage to talk absolute rubbish when you apparently don't know
>what you are talking about.

Whereas I know exactly what I'm taking about. The Official Secrets Act
applies to everyone, even if they haven't been through the security
theatre of signing it.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tgufs4$eiq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:30:44 on Tue, 27 Sep
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:26:39 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <tgsgov$gp3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:33:51 on Mon, 26 Sep
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 07:09:19 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <tgq9u1$3eesb$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:24:49 on Sun, 25 Sep
>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>For many years I had annual clearance to enter Downing Street (indoors
>>>>>as well as out) and The Houses of Parliament, initially through my
>>>>>employer (TVS) and when I went freelance, the BBC, who had me on their
>>>>>roster to be available for elections and the State Opening of
>>>>>Parliament. And yes, I gather I had a fairly thorough vetting. Mind you
>>>>>when I originally joined the BBC I had, allegedly, been vetted by MI5
>>>>>just to work in studios.
>>>>
>>>>There's various levels of vetting, all the way up to the one where they
>>>>allegedly go talk to your schoolteachers and interview you face to face
>>>>for a couple of hours. Some vetting is linked primarily to establishing
>>>>your identity beyond reasonable doubt, and then using that to check
>>>>criminal records and so on.
>>>
>>>The DBS check takes care of basic CRB stuff.
>>
>>DBS isn't the sort of vetting involved here.
>
>DBS is the first stage of further security checks.

DBS is a fairly recent invention.

>If you did 2 years for GBH they're not going to bother checking you out
>any further.

You can't DBS someone coming to a meeting with government in Whitehall,
it's outside the remit of the scheme (and too slow, anyway).

>I speak as someone who's been security vetted.

So do I.
--
Roland Perry

On 27/09/2022 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:35:46 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/09/2022 10:29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 19:01:22 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2022 17:15, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> An old Brigadier topping up his army pension checking some staff CVs is not
>>
>>>> the
>>>>> same as MI5 vetting all production floor staff.
>>>>
>>>> He was just the liaison guy.
>>>
>>> That web page gave the distinct impression he made the decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> He referred new staff to MI5 for the actual vetting.
>
> Then why bother having him? Personel could have sent the info direct.
> Your story seems to be unravelling.
>

Not my story, ask the BBC, they did it.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 27/09/2022 10:50, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tgug4i$1f8v$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:35:13 on Tue, 27 Sep
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 27/09/2022 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tgshpo$3p6t9$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:20 on Mon, 26 Sep
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 26/09/2022 16:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 20:24:49 +0100
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/09/2022 15:26, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Of course there's one group of outsiders who regularly visit and
>>>>>>> spend time
>>>>>>> in Downing Street: journalists and TV production crews.  I wonder
>>>>>>> how much
>>>>>>> vetting they need to gain access?  Presumably they must work for an
>>>>>>> accredited publisher/TV company?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For many years I had annual clearance to enter Downing Street
>>>>>> (indoors
>>>>>> as well as out) and The Houses of Parliament, initially through my
>>>>>> employer (TVS) and when I went freelance, the BBC, who had me on
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> roster to be available for elections and the State Opening of
>>>>>> Parliament. And yes, I gather I had a fairly thorough vetting.
>>>>>> Mind you
>>>>>> when I originally joined the BBC I had, allegedly, been vetted by MI5
>>>>>> just to work in studios.
>>>>>  Sounds like someone was having you on. MI5 probably had more
>>>>> important things
>>>>> to do than vet some AV grunt at the BBC.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's where you are wrong. It is well established that engineering
>>>> recruits[1] as well as production staff, were vetted by MI5 at that
>>>> time. I even had to sign the Official Secrets Act.
>
>>>  The original security-theatre. Did they get you to sign the Theft
>>> Act  too, to deter any sticky fingers?
>
>>>  I don't ever recall signing the Road Traffic Act, so can I ignore
>>> red  traffic lights?
>>
>> You do manage to talk absolute rubbish when you apparently don't know
>> what you are talking about.
>
> Whereas I know exactly what I'm taking about. The Official Secrets Act
> applies to everyone, even if they haven't been through the security
> theatre of signing it.

So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <tguobm$25a9$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:55:34 on Tue, 27 Sep
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 27/09/2022 10:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tgug4i$1f8v$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:35:13 on Tue, 27 Sep
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 27/09/2022 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tgshpo$3p6t9$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:20 on Mon, 26
>>>>Sep 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 26/09/2022 16:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 20:24:49 +0100
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/09/2022 15:26, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> Of course there's one group of outsiders who regularly visit
>>>>>>>>and spend time
>>>>>>>> in Downing Street: journalists and TV production crews.  I
>>>>>>>>wonder how much
>>>>>>>> vetting they need to gain access?  Presumably they must work for an
>>>>>>>> accredited publisher/TV company?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For many years I had annual clearance to enter Downing Street
>>>>>>>(indoors
>>>>>>> as well as out) and The Houses of Parliament, initially through my
>>>>>>> employer (TVS) and when I went freelance, the BBC, who had me on
>>>>>>>their
>>>>>>> roster to be available for elections and the State Opening of
>>>>>>> Parliament. And yes, I gather I had a fairly thorough vetting.
>>>>>>>Mind you
>>>>>>> when I originally joined the BBC I had, allegedly, been vetted by MI5
>>>>>>> just to work in studios.
>>>>>>  Sounds like someone was having you on. MI5 probably had more
>>>>>>important things
>>>>>> to do than vet some AV grunt at the BBC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's where you are wrong. It is well established that
>>>>>engineering recruits[1] as well as production staff, were vetted
>>>>>by MI5 at that time. I even had to sign the Official Secrets Act.
>>
>>>>  The original security-theatre. Did they get you to sign the Theft
>>>>Act  too, to deter any sticky fingers?
>>
>>>>  I don't ever recall signing the Road Traffic Act, so can I ignore
>>>>red  traffic lights?
>>>
>>> You do manage to talk absolute rubbish when you apparently don't
>>>know what you are talking about.

>> Whereas I know exactly what I'm taking about. The Official Secrets
>>Act applies to everyone, even if they haven't been through the
>>security theatre of signing it.
>
>So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?

Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if they've
never been "signed" by them.
--
Roland Perry

On 27/09/2022 14:40, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tguobm$25a9$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:55:34 on Tue, 27 Sep
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 27/09/2022 10:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tgug4i$1f8v$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:35:13 on Tue, 27 Sep
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 27/09/2022 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tgshpo$3p6t9$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:20 on Mon, 26
>>>>> Sep  2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 26/09/2022 16:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 20:24:49 +0100
>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20/09/2022 15:26, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Of course there's one group of outsiders who regularly visit
>>>>>>>>> and  spend time
>>>>>>>>> in Downing Street: journalists and TV production crews.  I
>>>>>>>>> wonder  how much
>>>>>>>>> vetting they need to gain access?  Presumably they must work
>>>>>>>>> for an
>>>>>>>>> accredited publisher/TV company?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For many years I had annual clearance to enter Downing Street
>>>>>>>> (indoors
>>>>>>>> as well as out) and The Houses of Parliament, initially through my
>>>>>>>> employer (TVS) and when I went freelance, the BBC, who had me on
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> roster to be available for elections and the State Opening of
>>>>>>>> Parliament. And yes, I gather I had a fairly thorough vetting.
>>>>>>>> Mind you
>>>>>>>> when I originally joined the BBC I had, allegedly, been vetted
>>>>>>>> by MI5
>>>>>>>> just to work in studios.
>>>>>>>  Sounds like someone was having you on. MI5 probably had more
>>>>>>> important things
>>>>>>> to do than vet some AV grunt at the BBC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's where you are wrong. It is well established that
>>>>>> engineering  recruits[1] as well as production staff, were vetted
>>>>>> by MI5 at that  time. I even had to sign the Official Secrets Act.
>>>
>>>>>  The original security-theatre. Did they get you to sign the Theft
>>>>> Act  too, to deter any sticky fingers?
>>>
>>>>>  I don't ever recall signing the Road Traffic Act, so can I ignore
>>>>> red  traffic lights?
>>>>
>>>> You do manage to talk absolute rubbish when you apparently don't
>>>> know  what you are talking about.
>
>>>  Whereas I know exactly what I'm taking about. The Official Secrets
>>> Act  applies to everyone, even if they haven't been through the
>>> security  theatre of signing it.
>>
>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?
>
> Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if they've
> never been "signed" by them.

So does every other piece of legislation, so what?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <tgv0r4$2ui8$4@dont-email.me>, at 15:20:20 on Tue, 27 Sep
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 27/09/2022 14:40, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tguobm$25a9$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:55:34 on Tue, 27 Sep
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 27/09/2022 10:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tgug4i$1f8v$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:35:13 on Tue, 27
>>>>Sep 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 27/09/2022 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tgshpo$3p6t9$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:20 on Mon, 26
>>>>>>Sep  2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 26/09/2022 16:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 20:24:49 +0100
>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/09/2022 15:26, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Of course there's one group of outsiders who regularly visit
>>>>>>>>>>and  spend time in Downing Street: journalists and TV
>>>>>>>>>>production crews.  I wonder  how much vetting they need to
>>>>>>>>>>gain access?  Presumably they must work for an accredited publisher/TV company?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For many years I had annual clearance to enter Downing Street
>>>>>>>>> as well as out) and The Houses of Parliament, initially
>>>>>>>>>through my employer (TVS) and when I went freelance, the BBC,
>>>>>>>>>who had me on their roster to be available for elections and
>>>>>>>>> Parliament. And yes, I gather I had a fairly thorough
>>>>>>>>>vetting. Mind you when I originally joined the BBC I had,
>>>>>>>>>allegedly, been vetted by MI5 just to work in studios.

>>>>>>>>  Sounds like someone was having you on. MI5 probably had more
>>>>>>>>important things to do than vet some AV grunt at the BBC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's where you are wrong. It is well established that
>>>>>>>engineering  recruits[1] as well as production staff, were vetted
>>>>>>>by MI5 at that  time. I even had to sign the Official Secrets Act.
>>>>
>>>>>>  The original security-theatre. Did they get you to sign the
>>>>>>Theft Act  too, to deter any sticky fingers?
>>>>
>>>>>>  I don't ever recall signing the Road Traffic Act, so can I
>>>>>>ignore red  traffic lights?
>>>>>
>>>>> You do manage to talk absolute rubbish when you apparently don't
>>>>>know  what you are talking about.
>>
>>>>  Whereas I know exactly what I'm taking about. The Official Secrets
>>>>Act  applies to everyone, even if they haven't been through the
>>>>security  theatre of signing it.
>>>
>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?
>> Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if they've
>>never been "signed" by them.
>
>So does every other piece of legislation, so what?

And yet we have this security theatre where people are "invited" to sign
the Official Secrets Act, as if - had they not done so - it wouldn't
apply to them.

I really can't put it any clearer than that.
--
Roland Perry

On 27/09/2022 15:40, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tgv0r4$2ui8$4@dont-email.me>, at 15:20:20 on Tue, 27 Sep
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 27/09/2022 14:40, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tguobm$25a9$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:55:34 on Tue, 27 Sep
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 27/09/2022 10:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tgug4i$1f8v$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:35:13 on Tue, 27
>>>>> Sep  2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 27/09/2022 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tgshpo$3p6t9$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:20 on Mon, 26
>>>>>>> Sep  2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 26/09/2022 16:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 20:24:49 +0100
>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/09/2022 15:26, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course there's one group of outsiders who regularly visit
>>>>>>>>>>> and  spend time  in Downing Street: journalists and TV
>>>>>>>>>>> production crews.  I  wonder  how much  vetting they need to
>>>>>>>>>>> gain access?  Presumably they must work  for an  accredited
>>>>>>>>>>> publisher/TV company?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For many years I had annual clearance to enter Downing Street
>>>>>>>>>>  as well as out) and The Houses of Parliament, initially
>>>>>>>>>> through my  employer (TVS) and when I went freelance, the BBC,
>>>>>>>>>> who had me on  their  roster to be available for elections and
>>>>>>>>>>  Parliament. And yes, I gather I had a fairly thorough
>>>>>>>>>> vetting.  Mind you  when I originally joined the BBC I had,
>>>>>>>>>> allegedly, been vetted  by MI5 just to work in studios.
>
>>>>>>>>>  Sounds like someone was having you on. MI5 probably had more
>>>>>>>>> important things  to do than vet some AV grunt at the BBC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's where you are wrong. It is well established that
>>>>>>>> engineering  recruits[1] as well as production staff, were
>>>>>>>> vetted by MI5 at that  time. I even had to sign the Official
>>>>>>>> Secrets Act.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  The original security-theatre. Did they get you to sign the
>>>>>>> Theft  Act  too, to deter any sticky fingers?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I don't ever recall signing the Road Traffic Act, so can I
>>>>>>> ignore  red  traffic lights?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do manage to talk absolute rubbish when you apparently don't
>>>>>> know  what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>>>  Whereas I know exactly what I'm taking about. The Official Secrets
>>>>> Act  applies to everyone, even if they haven't been through the
>>>>> security  theatre of signing it.
>>>>
>>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?
>>>  Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if they've
>>> never been "signed" by them.
>>
>> So does every other piece of legislation, so what?
>
> And yet we have this security theatre where people are "invited" to sign
> the Official Secrets Act, as if - had they not done so - it wouldn't
> apply to them.
>
> I really can't put it any clearer than that.

Ah you aware of the difference between signing and not signing the act?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:47:58 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <tgufs4$eiq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:30:44 on Tue, 27 Sep
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:26:39 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <tgsgov$gp3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:33:51 on Mon, 26 Sep
>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 07:09:19 +0100
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In message <tgq9u1$3eesb$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:24:49 on Sun, 25 Sep
>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>For many years I had annual clearance to enter Downing Street (indoors
>>>>>>as well as out) and The Houses of Parliament, initially through my
>>>>>>employer (TVS) and when I went freelance, the BBC, who had me on their
>>>>>>roster to be available for elections and the State Opening of
>>>>>>Parliament. And yes, I gather I had a fairly thorough vetting. Mind you
>>>>>>when I originally joined the BBC I had, allegedly, been vetted by MI5
>>>>>>just to work in studios.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's various levels of vetting, all the way up to the one where they
>>>>>allegedly go talk to your schoolteachers and interview you face to face
>>>>>for a couple of hours. Some vetting is linked primarily to establishing
>>>>>your identity beyond reasonable doubt, and then using that to check
>>>>>criminal records and so on.
>>>>
>>>>The DBS check takes care of basic CRB stuff.
>>>
>>>DBS isn't the sort of vetting involved here.
>>
>>DBS is the first stage of further security checks.
>
>DBS is a fairly recent invention.
>
>>If you did 2 years for GBH they're not going to bother checking you out
>>any further.
>
>You can't DBS someone coming to a meeting with government in Whitehall,
>it's outside the remit of the scheme (and too slow, anyway).

You can hardly security vet them the night before either. When I had it done
it took 6 weeks!

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:40:23 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <tgv0r4$2ui8$4@dont-email.me>, at 15:20:20 on Tue, 27 Sep
>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?
>>> Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if they've
>>>never been "signed" by them.
>>
>>So does every other piece of legislation, so what?
>
>And yet we have this security theatre where people are "invited" to sign
>the Official Secrets Act, as if - had they not done so - it wouldn't
>apply to them.

If I was shown something sensitive and hadn't signed then I could quite
easily use the defence of "I didn't know" in court. You can't do that if you've
signed. Its not about whether its all encompasing, its about being able to
successfully prosecute.

The road traffic act is not a good example because when you take lessons and
a test you're supposed to have learnt it and hence saying "I didn't know the
motorway limit was 70, not 170" won't wash.

On 27/09/2022 16:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:40:23 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgv0r4$2ui8$4@dont-email.me>, at 15:20:20 on Tue, 27 Sep
>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?
>>>> Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if they've
>>>> never been "signed" by them.
>>>
>>> So does every other piece of legislation, so what?
>>
>> And yet we have this security theatre where people are "invited" to sign
>> the Official Secrets Act, as if - had they not done so - it wouldn't
>> apply to them.
>
> If I was shown something sensitive and hadn't signed then I could quite
> easily use the defence of "I didn't know" in court. You can't do that if you've
> signed. Its not about whether its all encompasing, its about being able to
> successfully prosecute.
>
> The road traffic act is not a good example because when you take lessons and
> a test you're supposed to have learnt it and hence saying "I didn't know the
> motorway limit was 70, not 170" won't wash.
>

The "I didn't know" defence may win sympathy but it doesn't carry any
weight in law. Signing was intended to remind people of their
obligations and to deter the accidental (as opposed to deliberate)
disclosures. Hence the way people were sometimes asked to sign again
when /leaving/ a job.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:18:19 +0100
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>On 27/09/2022 16:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:40:23 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgv0r4$2ui8$4@dont-email.me>, at 15:20:20 on Tue, 27 Sep
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?
>>>>> Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if they've
>>>>> never been "signed" by them.
>>>>
>>>> So does every other piece of legislation, so what?
>>>
>>> And yet we have this security theatre where people are "invited" to sign
>>> the Official Secrets Act, as if - had they not done so - it wouldn't
>>> apply to them.
>>
>> If I was shown something sensitive and hadn't signed then I could quite
>> easily use the defence of "I didn't know" in court. You can't do that if
>you've
>> signed. Its not about whether its all encompasing, its about being able to
>> successfully prosecute.
>>
>> The road traffic act is not a good example because when you take lessons and
>> a test you're supposed to have learnt it and hence saying "I didn't know the
>> motorway limit was 70, not 170" won't wash.
>>
>
>The "I didn't know" defence may win sympathy but it doesn't carry any
>weight in law. Signing was intended to remind people of their
>obligations and to deter the accidental (as opposed to deliberate)
>disclosures. Hence the way people were sometimes asked to sign again
>when /leaving/ a job.

You can't expect people to obey laws they know nothing about. I'd love to
see a case go to court where someone gave away some secrets not knowing they
were secrets or being aware of the OSA. I suspect the government would lose
badly. They've lost at least 1 court case where someone DID sign.

In message <th0sjj$874$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:20:19 on Wed, 28 Sep
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:18:19 +0100
>Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>On 27/09/2022 16:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:40:23 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tgv0r4$2ui8$4@dont-email.me>, at 15:20:20 on Tue, 27 Sep
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?
>>>>>> Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if they've
>>>>>> never been "signed" by them.
>>>>>
>>>>> So does every other piece of legislation, so what?
>>>>
>>>> And yet we have this security theatre where people are "invited" to sign
>>>> the Official Secrets Act, as if - had they not done so - it wouldn't
>>>> apply to them.
>>>
>>> If I was shown something sensitive and hadn't signed then I could quite
>>> easily use the defence of "I didn't know" in court. You can't do that if
>>you've
>>> signed. Its not about whether its all encompasing, its about being able to
>>> successfully prosecute.
>>>
>>> The road traffic act is not a good example because when you take lessons and
>>> a test you're supposed to have learnt it and hence saying "I didn't know the
>>> motorway limit was 70, not 170" won't wash.
>>>
>>
>>The "I didn't know" defence may win sympathy but it doesn't carry any
>>weight in law. Signing was intended to remind people of their
>>obligations and to deter the accidental (as opposed to deliberate)
>>disclosures. Hence the way people were sometimes asked to sign again
>>when /leaving/ a job.
>
>You can't expect people to obey laws they know nothing about.

That's the default, though. And of course, copies are available online.

>I'd love to see a case go to court where someone gave away some secrets
>not knowing they were secrets

The documents tend to be marked, and one's training will give a pretty
good idea that material is secret.

>or being aware of the OSA.

And that's induction 101, in the rare case that they really haven't ever
heard of it.

>I suspect the government would lose badly. They've lost at least 1
>court case where someone DID sign.

There could be lots of reasons why a court case is lost.
--
Roland Perry

On 28/09/2022 08:20, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:18:19 +0100
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 27/09/2022 16:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:40:23 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tgv0r4$2ui8$4@dont-email.me>, at 15:20:20 on Tue, 27 Sep
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?
>>>>>> Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if they've
>>>>>> never been "signed" by them.
>>>>>
>>>>> So does every other piece of legislation, so what?
>>>>
>>>> And yet we have this security theatre where people are "invited" to sign
>>>> the Official Secrets Act, as if - had they not done so - it wouldn't
>>>> apply to them.
>>>
>>> If I was shown something sensitive and hadn't signed then I could quite
>>> easily use the defence of "I didn't know" in court. You can't do that if
>> you've
>>> signed. Its not about whether its all encompasing, its about being able to
>>> successfully prosecute.
>>>
>>> The road traffic act is not a good example because when you take lessons and
>>> a test you're supposed to have learnt it and hence saying "I didn't know the
>>> motorway limit was 70, not 170" won't wash.
>>>
>>
>> The "I didn't know" defence may win sympathy but it doesn't carry any
>> weight in law. Signing was intended to remind people of their
>> obligations and to deter the accidental (as opposed to deliberate)
>> disclosures. Hence the way people were sometimes asked to sign again
>> when /leaving/ a job.
>
> You can't expect people to obey laws they know nothing about. I'd love to
> see a case go to court where someone gave away some secrets not knowing they
> were secrets or being aware of the OSA. I suspect the government would lose
> badly. They've lost at least 1 court case where someone DID sign.
>

I agree it's good practice to tell people about their duties. AFAIK
civil servants are still told both when joining and when leaving that
they are subject to laws (the Official Secrets Acts and other) which
protect certain categories of official information. But that does not
require the formality of the old-style declaration (with excerpts of the
Act on the reverse) signed, witnessed and 'sealed' with the office
stamp. The only formal requirement I know of - to "notify" an employee
or contractor of the provisions in the 1989 Act on disclosure - can be
and AFAIK still is covered in employment contracts.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message <26f6e127-fb0f-171a-03fe-821dee7ce4e1@outlook.com>, at
14:31:08 on Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> remarked:
>On 28/09/2022 08:20, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:18:19 +0100
>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On 27/09/2022 16:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:40:23 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tgv0r4$2ui8$4@dont-email.me>, at 15:20:20 on Tue, 27 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?
>>>>>>> Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if they've
>>>>>>> never been "signed" by them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So does every other piece of legislation, so what?
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet we have this security theatre where people are "invited" to sign
>>>>> the Official Secrets Act, as if - had they not done so - it wouldn't
>>>>> apply to them.
>>>>
>>>> If I was shown something sensitive and hadn't signed then I could
>>>>quite easily use the defence of "I didn't know" in court. You can't
>>>>do that if you've signed. Its not about whether its all
>>>>encompasing, its about being able to
>>>> successfully prosecute.
>>>>
>>>> The road traffic act is not a good example because when you take
>>>>lessons and a test you're supposed to have learnt it and hence
>>>>saying "I didn't know the motorway limit was 70, not 170" won't wash.
>>>
>>> The "I didn't know" defence may win sympathy but it doesn't carry any
>>> weight in law. Signing was intended to remind people of their
>>> obligations and to deter the accidental (as opposed to deliberate)
>>> disclosures. Hence the way people were sometimes asked to sign again
>>> when /leaving/ a job.

>> You can't expect people to obey laws they know nothing about. I'd
>>love to see a case go to court where someone gave away some secrets
>>not knowing they were secrets or being aware of the OSA. I suspect
>>the government would lose badly. They've lost at least 1 court case
>>where someone DID sign.
>
>I agree it's good practice to tell people about their duties. AFAIK
>civil servants are still told both when joining and when leaving that
>they are subject to laws (the Official Secrets Acts and other) which
>protect certain categories of official information. But that does not
>require the formality of the old-style declaration (with excerpts of
>the Act on the reverse) signed, witnessed and 'sealed' with the office
>stamp. The only formal requirement I know of - to "notify" an employee
>or contractor of the provisions in the 1989 Act on disclosure - can be
>and AFAIK still is covered in employment contracts.

In my part-time job the employer is quite keen on complying with GDPR,
and all employees have to go on annual refresher courses [online these
days, naturally]. They are under no illusions what aspects of the
organisation's operations might fall within its remit (and ditto FOI
responsibilities). It's absurd to suggest that civil servants working on
secret material won't have gone through a similar process.

And no-one got me to sign the GDPR (or indeed even gave me a copy to
read).
--
Roland Perry

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>You can't expect people to obey laws they know nothing about.

Alas. Ignorance of the (criminal) law is no excuse.

https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/commentary/halsburys-laws-of-england/criminal-law/mistake-or-ignorance-of-law

--
Usenet: The world's first (and best) social network.

On 28/09/2022 23:23, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> You can't expect people to obey laws they know nothing about.
>
> Alas. Ignorance of the (criminal) law is no excuse.
>

But there can be laws which only apply to people who have been told they
do and, as I mentioned yesterday, one such is in the OSA 1989 - see
section 1(1)(b)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6/section/1

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message <736a7d17-a92a-3d1b-c1b5-a2286dcd2dfa@outlook.com>, at
09:35:28 on Thu, 29 Sep 2022, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> remarked:
>On 28/09/2022 23:23, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> You can't expect people to obey laws they know nothing about.
>> Alas. Ignorance of the (criminal) law is no excuse.
>
>But there can be laws which only apply to people who have been told
>they do and, as I mentioned yesterday, one such is in the OSA 1989 -
>see section 1(1)(b)
>
>https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6/section/1

I suspect you didn't see the word "or" in there.

Similarly subsection 3, which has the words "otherwise than as mentioned
in subsection (1) above".

--
Roland Perry

On 29/09/2022 10:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <736a7d17-a92a-3d1b-c1b5-a2286dcd2dfa@outlook.com>, at
> 09:35:28 on Thu, 29 Sep 2022, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> remarked:
>> On 28/09/2022 23:23, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can't expect people to obey laws they know nothing about.
>>>  Alas. Ignorance of the (criminal) law is no excuse.
>>
>> But there can be laws which only apply to people who have been told
>> they do and, as I mentioned yesterday, one such is in the OSA 1989 -
>> see section 1(1)(b)
>>
>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6/section/1
>
> I suspect you didn't see the word "or" in there.
>
> Similarly subsection 3, which has the words "otherwise than as mentioned
> in subsection (1) above".
>

I did see the word "or". What I didn't see was any need, in the context
of Sir Arthur's post, to acknowledge that the law in question also
applies to some /other/ people whether or not they have been told that
it does.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message <250a8cb7-2cca-c221-bfc4-5a7f103d8b04@outlook.com>, at
10:49:21 on Thu, 29 Sep 2022, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> remarked:
>On 29/09/2022 10:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <736a7d17-a92a-3d1b-c1b5-a2286dcd2dfa@outlook.com>, at
>>09:35:28 on Thu, 29 Sep 2022, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> remarked:
>>> On 28/09/2022 23:23, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can't expect people to obey laws they know nothing about.

>>>>  Alas. Ignorance of the (criminal) law is no excuse.
>>>
>>> But there can be laws which only apply to people who have been told
>>>they do and, as I mentioned yesterday, one such is in the OSA 1989 -
>>>see section 1(1)(b)
>>>
>>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6/section/1

>> I suspect you didn't see the word "or" in there.
>> Similarly subsection 3, which has the words "otherwise than as
>>mentioned in subsection (1) above".
>
>I did see the word "or". What I didn't see was any need, in the
>context of Sir Arthur's post, to acknowledge that the law in question
>also applies to some /other/ people whether or not they have been told
>that it does.

It's a very poor example to choose, given that the need to notify is so
limited and the amount of notification only comprises one sentence.
--
Roland Perry

On 28/09/2022 15:17, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <26f6e127-fb0f-171a-03fe-821dee7ce4e1@outlook.com>, at
> 14:31:08 on Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> remarked:
>> On 28/09/2022 08:20, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:18:19 +0100
>>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>> On 27/09/2022 16:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:40:23 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tgv0r4$2ui8$4@dont-email.me>, at 15:20:20 on Tue, 27 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic acts then?
>>>>>>>>    Like the Official Secrets Act, they apply to someone even if
>>>>>>>> they've
>>>>>>>> never been "signed" by them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So does every other piece of legislation, so what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet we have this security theatre where people are "invited"
>>>>>> to sign
>>>>>> the Official Secrets Act, as if - had they not done so - it wouldn't
>>>>>> apply to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I was shown something sensitive and hadn't signed then I could
>>>>> quite  easily use the defence of "I didn't know" in court. You
>>>>> can't do that if  you've  signed. Its not about whether its all
>>>>> encompasing, its about being able to
>>>>> successfully prosecute.
>>>>>
>>>>> The road traffic act is not a good example because when you take
>>>>> lessons and  a test you're supposed to have learnt it and hence
>>>>> saying "I didn't know the  motorway limit was 70, not 170" won't wash.
>>>>
>>>> The "I didn't know" defence may win sympathy but it doesn't carry any
>>>> weight in law.  Signing was intended to remind people of their
>>>> obligations and to deter the accidental (as opposed to deliberate)
>>>> disclosures.  Hence the way people were sometimes asked to sign again
>>>> when /leaving/ a job.
>
>>>  You can't expect people to obey laws they know nothing about. I'd
>>> love to  see a case go to court where someone gave away some secrets
>>> not knowing they  were secrets or being aware of the OSA. I suspect
>>> the government would lose  badly. They've lost at least 1 court case
>>> where someone DID sign.
>>
>> I agree it's good practice to tell people about their duties.  AFAIK
>> civil servants are still told both when joining and when leaving that
>> they are subject to laws (the Official Secrets Acts and other) which
>> protect certain categories of official information.  But that does not
>> require the formality of the old-style declaration (with excerpts of
>> the Act on the reverse) signed, witnessed and 'sealed' with the office
>> stamp.  The only formal requirement I know of - to "notify" an
>> employee or contractor of the provisions in the 1989 Act on disclosure
>> - can be and AFAIK still is covered in employment contracts.
>
> In my part-time job the employer is quite keen on complying with GDPR,
> and all employees have to go on annual refresher courses [online these
> days, naturally]. They are under no illusions what aspects of the
> organisation's operations might fall within its remit (and ditto FOI
> responsibilities). It's absurd to suggest that civil servants working on
> secret material won't have gone through a similar process.
>

Not a lot secret about what I do (or did), literally millions of people
saw it.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 17:57:57 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28/09/2022 15:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In my part-time job the employer is quite keen on complying with GDPR,
>> and all employees have to go on annual refresher courses [online these
>> days, naturally]. They are under no illusions what aspects of the
>> organisation's operations might fall within its remit (and ditto FOI
>> responsibilities). It's absurd to suggest that civil servants working on
>> secret material won't have gone through a similar process.
>>
>
>Not a lot secret about what I do (or did), literally millions of people
>saw it.

So you were Fathers 4 Justice, dressed at Batman on top of a tree!

On 30/09/2022 14:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 17:57:57 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/09/2022 15:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In my part-time job the employer is quite keen on complying with GDPR,
>>> and all employees have to go on annual refresher courses [online these
>>> days, naturally]. They are under no illusions what aspects of the
>>> organisation's operations might fall within its remit (and ditto FOI
>>> responsibilities). It's absurd to suggest that civil servants working on
>>> secret material won't have gone through a similar process.
>>>
>>
>> Not a lot secret about what I do (or did), literally millions of people
>> saw it.
>
> So you were Fathers 4 Justice, dressed at Batman on top of a tree!
>

Not with my vertigo :-)

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.