(no subject)

[mirrorshard]

An article in today's Guardian talks, in barely circuitous terms, about the Keogh/O'Connor case and what a judge told them they couldn't print.

We cannot even report - or link to - what Larry Miller, said about the trial and the document in his Letter from London for the American channel and website, CBS.

That letter would be here. I recommend reading it.

Comments

[aca.livejournal.com]

Interesting reading. I wonder what provisions there are within the Official Secrets Act regarding whistleblowing. If there were none it wouldn't surpise me but that situation does strike me as dangerous.

[vashti.livejournal.com]

Get sleetersoulfire to give you his Talk about the Official Secrets Act. It does not say what most people (even those who've signed it) think it says, and is written to be deceptive.

*makes a big wave of Sleeter-attracting*

[sleetersoulfire.livejournal.com]

There is no general defence of public interest in the OSA 1989, and the whistleblower legislation we do have in this country specifically states that anything covered by the OSA is not covered by it. Interestingly there is a general defence of necessity[1], hence why the case against Kathrin Gunn was dropped.

"There are serious principles at stake, the erosion of free speech and openness..."

This line made me smile. The wording of s. 2 of the OSA 1911 was even more far reaching[2] than the current incarnation we have at the moment. Openness is not something the British Government has practiced for many generations, no matter what colour party has been in power.

--
[1] 'Necessity' only applies when it's something done in order to prevent a greater crime or in order to protect life, so I don't face charges of criminal damage for smashing your window and pulling you from the burning wreckage of your car, for example.

[2] It was an offence to tell anyone secret information such as the colour of the carpet in a ministers office, or how many cups of tea were consumed in a week in a government department.