In message <th4iql$n0kn$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:57:57 on Thu, 29 Sep
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>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.

They saw one thing, but you may have see much more as a result of being
there before and after. And it's that which might be a secret worth
keeping.

However, that misses the point, which is that civil servants working on
routine 'Secret' material can't possibly have not been told what was
expected of them, just as part of their ordinary training.
--
Roland Perry

On 03/10/2022 06:49, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <th4iql$n0kn$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:57:57 on Thu, 29 Sep
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> 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.
>
> They saw one thing, but you may have see much more as a result of being
> there before and after. And it's that which might be a secret worth
> keeping.

But rare enough that routine signing of the act by BBC staff is a bit of
an excessive reaction.

>
> However, that misses the point, which is that civil servants working on
> routine 'Secret' material can't possibly have not been told what was
> expected of them, just as part of their ordinary training.

Agreed.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <thevco$28t4q$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:33:44 on Mon, 3 Oct
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 03/10/2022 06:49, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <th4iql$n0kn$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:57:57 on Thu, 29 Sep
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> 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,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    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.

>> They saw one thing, but you may have see much more as a result of
>>being there before and after. And it's that which might be a secret
>>worth keeping.
>
>But rare enough that routine signing of the act by BBC staff is a bit
>of an excessive reaction.

If you've been following the thread, you'll know I think that the
"signing" theatre isn't entirely necessary. But I also know there are
certain circumstances where however remote it might be that regular
vistiors might overhear or see something secret, that it kicks in as a
so called necessary procedure.

Just out of interest, were you always accompanied by someone, every
minute of every visit, or were you sometimes unaccompanied?

>> However, that misses the point, which is that civil servants working
>>on routine 'Secret' material can't possibly have not been told what
>>was expected of them, just as part of their ordinary training.
>
>Agreed.
>

--
Roland Perry

On 04/10/2022 08:34, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <thevco$28t4q$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:33:44 on Mon, 3 Oct
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 03/10/2022 06:49, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <th4iql$n0kn$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:57:57 on Thu, 29 Sep
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> 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,
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what was all the rubbish about the theft and traffic
>>>>>>>>>>>>    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.
>
>>>  They saw one thing, but you may have see much more as a result of
>>> being  there before and after. And it's that which might be a secret
>>> worth  keeping.
>>
>> But rare enough that routine signing of the act by BBC staff is a bit
>> of an excessive reaction.
>
> If you've been following the thread, you'll know I think that the
> "signing" theatre isn't entirely necessary. But I also know there are
> certain circumstances where however remote it might be that regular
> vistiors might overhear or see something secret, that it kicks in as a
> so called necessary procedure.

When I had to sign it my future was supposed to be working solely in
the West London television studio complexes. (TV Centre, Lime Grove,
Television Theatre, Golders Green Hippodrome).[1] It wasn't until I went
freelance 23 years later that I got involved with BBC outside broadcasts.

>
> Just out of interest, were you always accompanied by someone, every
> minute of every visit, or were you sometimes unaccompanied?

Visits to what?

[1] Also I was definitely not, repeat not, supposed to be transferred to
the non-existent BBC bunker at Evesham in the event of nuclear war.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <thgvkv$2k37s$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:23 on Tue, 4 Oct
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>> Just out of interest, were you always accompanied by someone, every
>>minute of every visit, or were you sometimes unaccompanied?
>
>Visits to what?

The Downing St area.
--
Roland Perry

On 08/10/2022 15:45, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <thgvkv$2k37s$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:23 on Tue, 4 Oct
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>  Just out of interest, were you always accompanied by someone, every
>>> minute of every visit, or were you sometimes unaccompanied?
>>
>> Visits to what?
>
> The Downing St area.

Always part of an outside broadcast crew, rather than one of the news
crews that are regularly there. We'd have special passes for the period
we were there and had to show them at the entrances to Downing street,
and were obviously restricted as to where we could go indoors, but
didn't have minders with us all the time, unlike when on Royal Rota duties.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <ths3kc$74io$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:05:48 on Sat, 8 Oct
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 08/10/2022 15:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <thgvkv$2k37s$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:23 on Tue, 4 Oct
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>  Just out of interest, were you always accompanied by someone,
>>>>every minute of every visit, or were you sometimes unaccompanied?
>>>
>>> Visits to what?

>> The Downing St area.
>
>Always part of an outside broadcast crew, rather than one of the news
>crews that are regularly there. We'd have special passes for the period
>we were there and had to show them at the entrances to Downing street,
>and were obviously restricted as to where we could go indoors, but
>didn't have minders with us all the time, unlike when on Royal Rota duties.

"Minders" are the accompanying people I was thinking about. The point
being that without them you might stray (accidentally or deliberately)
somewhere you could acquire restricted information. And getting back to
the original theme, your training (or even a more recent briefing)
should include that it would be unlawful to reveal such information.

Getting you to "sign the Official Secrets Act" isn't the only way you
could be warned about that.

I was once in a series of regular meetings in the Home Office (the old
one across the road from St James's Park station) and if "airside" so to
speak (they also had some "landside" meeting rooms), would invariably
have an "accompanied" visitors pass. To be "unaccompanied" you had to
have some collateral credentials such as employment in the Civil
Service, police, or be on a ministerial team.

After one meeting, two of us got accidentally detached from the group
being escorted to the lifts. I looked at my colleague (who was a senior
ex-policeman, and somewhat resented having been demoted to an
"accompanied" pass) and said "what now?". "What's the worst that could
happen", he said, "they could throw us out, but we are intending on
leaving anyway". So we made our own way to the lifts.

Nowadays you'd probably find there were some doors requiring an
entry-/exit card en-route (and even for the lift), so you'd be isolated.
--
Roland Perry

On 09/10/2022 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ths3kc$74io$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:05:48 on Sat, 8 Oct
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 08/10/2022 15:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <thgvkv$2k37s$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:23 on Tue, 4 Oct
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>  Just out of interest, were you always accompanied by someone,
>>>>> every  minute of every visit, or were you sometimes unaccompanied?
>>>>
>>>> Visits to what?
>
>>>  The Downing St area.
>>
>> Always part of an outside broadcast crew, rather than one of the news
>> crews that are regularly there. We'd have special passes for the
>> period we were there and had to show them at the entrances to Downing
>> street, and were obviously restricted as to where we could go indoors,
>> but didn't have minders with us all the time, unlike when on Royal
>> Rota duties.
>
> "Minders" are the accompanying people I was thinking about. The point
> being that without them you might stray (accidentally or deliberately)
> somewhere you could acquire restricted information. And getting back to
> the original theme, your training (or even a more recent briefing)
> should include that it would be unlawful to reveal such information.
>
> Getting you to "sign the Official Secrets Act" isn't the only way you
> could be warned about that.

As I said, when I originally signed it there was absolutely no prospect
of me working anywhere but the BBC studio complexes in West London.

When I was wanted to work in Downing Street/Parliament I needed separate
clearances, as did my freelance colleagues who'd never worked for the BBC.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <thts28$em0t$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:08:56 on Sun, 9 Oct
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 09/10/2022 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ths3kc$74io$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:05:48 on Sat, 8 Oct
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 08/10/2022 15:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <thgvkv$2k37s$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:23 on Tue, 4
>>>>Oct 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>  Just out of interest, were you always accompanied by someone,
>>>>>>every  minute of every visit, or were you sometimes unaccompanied?
>>>>>
>>>>> Visits to what?
>>
>>>>  The Downing St area.
>>>
>>> Always part of an outside broadcast crew, rather than one of the
>>>news crews that are regularly there. We'd have special passes for
>>>the period we were there and had to show them at the entrances to
>>>Downing street, and were obviously restricted as to where we could
>>>go indoors, but didn't have minders with us all the time, unlike
>>>when on Royal Rota duties.

>> "Minders" are the accompanying people I was thinking about. The
>>point being that without them you might stray (accidentally or
>>deliberately) somewhere you could acquire restricted information. And
>>getting back to the original theme, your training (or even a more
>>recent briefing) should include that it would be unlawful to reveal
>>such information.

>> Getting you to "sign the Official Secrets Act" isn't the only way
>>you could be warned about that.
>
>As I said, when I originally signed it there was absolutely no prospect
>of me working anywhere but the BBC studio complexes in West London.

Quasi-government institution gold-plates their induction process.
Nothing to see here.

>When I was wanted to work in Downing Street/Parliament I needed
>separate clearances, as did my freelance colleagues who'd never worked
>for the BBC.

Clearances are entirely disjoint from being required to partake in the
"signing" theatre. And more to the point, having those clearances
doesn't stop them subsequently imposing this theatre on such
individuals.

In particular, no-one who has gone through the vetting process can
possibly be unaware of the concept of "Official Secrets".

There are some nuances: at one time part of my role was to hand out
blank forms to be filled in, to facilitate obtaining information. They
had "Restricted" printed at the top. I had a steady stream of people
questioning why I was doing that (which goes to show that they *did*
have some clue about the protective marking scheme, and such things as
Official Secrets did exist).

But what it meant was that the form *when filled in* was Restricted, the
form itself was in the public domain. I couldn't have issued a blank
form with "Restricted when filled in" printed at the top, because that
phraseology simply didn't exist.
--
Roland Perry

On 09/10/2022 11:06, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <thts28$em0t$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:08:56 on Sun, 9 Oct
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 09/10/2022 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ths3kc$74io$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:05:48 on Sat, 8 Oct
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 08/10/2022 15:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <thgvkv$2k37s$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:50:23 on Tue, 4
>>>>> Oct  2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Just out of interest, were you always accompanied by someone,
>>>>>>> every  minute of every visit, or were you sometimes unaccompanied?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visits to what?
>>>
>>>>>  The Downing St area.
>>>>
>>>> Always part of an outside broadcast crew, rather than one of the
>>>> news  crews that are regularly there. We'd have special passes for
>>>> the  period we were there and had to show them at the entrances to
>>>> Downing  street, and were obviously restricted as to where we could
>>>> go indoors,  but didn't have minders with us all the time, unlike
>>>> when on Royal  Rota duties.
>
>>>  "Minders" are the accompanying people I was thinking about. The
>>> point  being that without them you might stray (accidentally or
>>> deliberately)  somewhere you could acquire restricted information.
>>> And getting back to  the original theme, your training (or even a
>>> more recent briefing)  should include that it would be unlawful to
>>> reveal such information.
>
>>>  Getting you to "sign the Official Secrets Act" isn't the only way
>>> you  could be warned about that.
>>
>> As I said, when I originally signed it there was absolutely no
>> prospect of me working anywhere but the BBC studio complexes in West
>> London.
>
> Quasi-government institution gold-plates their induction process.
> Nothing to see here.
>
>> When I was wanted to work in Downing Street/Parliament I needed
>> separate clearances, as did my freelance colleagues who'd never worked
>> for the BBC.
>
> Clearances are entirely disjoint from being required to partake in the
> "signing" theatre. And more to the point, having those clearances
> doesn't stop them subsequently imposing this theatre on such individuals.

Which was rather my point in the first place.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
news:tgv3v0$1r74$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:47:58 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>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!
>

I have been subject to a number of vetting procedures over the years and the
time taken for a result and the information I was been asked for varied
massively depending on what I was getting access to and the role.

The fastest (and first) took a couple of minutes: I gave some basic details
to someone with a laptop who typed them in and, after a short pause, was
told I was OK. The slowest was actually the most recent and it took a bit
under 8 months. Somewhere along the way I also did a DBS check fairly
recently and AFAIR I filled in a form online and was able to access the
certificate the next day.

--
DAS