HASC: Theresa May On ‘Official Secrets Act’ 17th March

Theresa May, Home Secretary, facing the Home Affairs Select Committee on the 17 March 2015, addressing questions about the application of the Official Secrets Act to child abuse and high level cover-up witnesses.

Keith Vaz asking a very precise question about the OSA at 03:10 and receives an answer that he restates at 5:02. The Home Secretary’s further reply is that she ‘hopes and expects’ that those who contravene the Official Secrets Act will not be prosecuted, but it must be for Justice Goddard and the Attorney General to decide.

Advertisements

36 Comments

Filed under Abuse, HASC, News, Politics

36 responses to “HASC: Theresa May On ‘Official Secrets Act’ 17th March

  1. Pingback: HASC: Thersa May On ‘Official Secrets Act’ 17th March | Alternative News Network

  2. jubei

    Chairman “Do you know who gave that instruction?” Reply: “I do not know who gave that instruction chairman…” How many times are we gonna hear that response?

  3. Don’t ask me why but I don’t trust Teresa may I hope I’m wrong

  4. Terry should sort out her own department that’s covering up things

  5. RobDK

    Well, she agreed that the instruction was given. She did not deny that. She admitted that the senior police officers shut down that enquiry. That is at least a good sign…

  6. Paddy, As long as there are paedophiles in both Houses of Parliament, you can trust that Teresa May can be trusted to keep their well-known and well-documented activities from being published by their thought-disordered pals in the BBC or Fleet Street, where the tendency to deprave and corrupt has become the order of the day? Jimmy Saville proudly pimped for all those people who were photographed beside him, and documents exist which prove that Margaret Thatcher was more interested in keeping herself in power than allowing her Tory Party backers and its network of homosexual sodomites to be prosecuted. She used the Official Secrets Act to stop police from prosecuting far more than those two who have just stopped breathing! And isn’t she now involved in the organised cover up by police and social services, since they tried to arrest the Russian mother of Elisa and Gabriel Draper whose allegations against their father, Ricky Dearman and their head teacher in the Hampstead branch of Jimmy Saville’s VIP Satanic Club or Network were totally ignored by the police last September? We are not supposed to say so: but homosexuality and child sexual abuse is part of the scholastic education of the rich ruling members of our society: where they are taught to turn a blind eye to the institutionalised child abuse taking place within those private schools. i.e. “Give me a child until he is seven – and I will give you the man… Thus you get the likes of Tony Blair who have condoned same-sex marriage wherein orphans will doubtless become just as confused about their sexuality. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law!” is the revised Satanic slogan! – So don’t trust any M.P. who turns a blind eye

  7. Strange but true: amongst signatories of politicians in favour of Freedom of Information act was none other than a certain Cyril Smith MP

  8. dpack

    pmq’s was interesting ,cameron did (apparently reluctantly)say that the osa should not prevent witnesses speaking ,there were some rather uncomfortable looking mp’s on both benches because the wording of the question was rather robust .

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05gxcmb

    from just after 16 mins is the relevant bit ,watching the faces is educational .

    • The official perverts act

    • noun: official secret; plural noun: official secrets
      a piece of confidential information that is important for national security.
      “it is a crime to disclose an official secret”

      So that’s clear then

      • Anon

        Well they would say that wouldn’t they.

      • P’s: for anyone following the Peter Watts case January 1976
        It was documented as “MURDER BY PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN ”

        Begs the question why was it not investigated.

        Chester maybe?

        Just saying..

    • “Official Secrets Act 113. The Home Office has bid for a legislative slot in the next session to amend the Official Secrets Act 1989. (At the time of publication it was still awaiting confirmation of its place in the timetable.) The Home Office has informed the Committee that, in its view, the proposed Bill should remove the common law defence of ‘duress of circumstance’ in order to address unauthorised disclosure by members, or former members, of the intelligence and security Agencies. The Bill should also put an element of the associated ‘authorisation to disclose’ procedure onto a statutory footing and increase penalties. This proposal has yet to receive policy clearance across Whitehall.”

      I note that when looking for more information on this on Gov website I noted

      ” page can not be found ”

      Maybe it was digitally shredded

  9. chrisb

    The question to be asked loud and clear is what has the Official Secrets Act got to do with people giving evidence of criminal activity? (Don’t shout out, we all know the answer). Why is the identity of paedophiles secrets of the state? Why are people with knowledge of child sexual abuse not being forced to state what they know?

    • @Chris b “defence of the realm dear boy we can’t have johnny forerner or others knowing our dirty deeds or we’ll suffer from blackmail

      Look at Kincorra at least we were able to put a stop to all that stuff by setting up a rigged enquiry to deliver a verdict we wanted “

  10. HI gojam

    we can stop this BS about OSA there is an easy fix. john, Simom, Tom and all the other politicians that support this can make it quite clear if anyone is arrested or their pension threatened under OSA, them John and all will submit to police custody for encouraging such a crime. You have access on your twitter feed to propose this. so I hope you do and spread the word. because this is bloody nonsense.

  11. The Last Of The Truffle-Snorting Heroes

    The OSA should be no barrier here. Talk of it is obfuscation. Anyone holding relevant information and an ounce of courage should surely do the decent thing. It’s being used as an excuse for those ‘in the know’ to justify withholding evidence.

    • True but the OSA was used to good effect with Kincorra because an abuser was working for security services and the only concern there was that he was prone to blackmail that’s all they cared about nothing about the boys being abused and harm being done to them
      Then rumours and others were trying to bring it to attention so number ten instead of checking out the abuse crimes set up the intentionally rigged enquiry knowing full well it would deliver the outcome it wanted.
      Which was ” no nothing happened at all guv”
      And all documents all went awol

      • The Last Of The Truffle-Snorting Heroes

        Exactly. Nothing to see here folks, move on and go back to watching the X Factor.

      • penguinface

        But the irony is that the abuser could only be prone to blackmail if the information was kept hidden (as it was).

        You can’t possibly blackmail someone if the material that you’re threatening to leak has already been released by the authorities into the public domain!
        The covering up literally CREATES the opportunity for blackmail.

        The establishment’s whole “risk of blackmail” argument as a reason for covering up is provable nonsense that seriously needs debunking.

      • Penguinface of course. Especially if the outcome of the sham enquiry has already been decided right from number ten itself
        Sounds familiar with what’s going on recently

  12. The Last Of The Truffle-Snorting Heroes

    The braver amongst us have pissed all over the OSA when they deemed it’s use to be against the public interest. Sarah Tisdall, Cathy Massiter. They were not afraid and stuck to their principles. Surely someone who has evidence of child rape or worse has similar guts.

    I’d rather be jailed for the rest of my days for breaching the OSA, D Notice or any similar bluff than die a yellow bellied coward afraid to expose the truth.

    There are too many public ‘servants’ who value their status & gold plated pensions, which we are all overtaxed to provide for, who have consistently refused to uphold the values of the jobs we paid them to do.

  13. Sam

    I wonder if May is following OSA guidelines when talking to the panel?

  14. dpack

    i might worry more about being the keeper of a secret that could die with me that i would about telling truth as loudly and as soon as possible.

    • http://m.themercury.com.au/news/breaking-news/uk-pm-wants-abuse-whistleblowers-protected/story-fnj6ehik-1227268807193

      CAMERON WANTS WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTED.

      Yet Damien Green says OSA doesn’t need amending

      Funny old party. Tories are they on same page?

    • Subsection (2) below applies where—
      (a)any information, document or other article protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act has come into a person’s possession as a result of having been—
      (i)disclosed (whether to him or another) by a Crown servant or government contractor without lawful authority; or
      (ii)entrusted to him by a Crown servant or government contractor on terms requiring it to be held in confidence or in circumstances in which the Crown servant or government contractor could reasonably expect that it would be so held; or
      (iii)disclosed (whether to him or another) without lawful authority by a person to whom it was entrusted as mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) above; and
      (b)the disclosure without lawful authority of the information, document or article by the person into whose possession it has come is not an offence under any of those provisions.
      (2)Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he discloses it without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act and that it has come into his possession as mentioned in subsection (1) above.
      (3)In the case of information or a document or article protected against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above, a person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above unless—
      (a)the disclosure by him is damaging; and
      (b)he makes it knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it would be damaging;and the question whether a disclosure is damaging shall be determined for the purposes of this subsection as it would be in relation to a disclosure of that information, document or article by a Crown servant in contravention of section 1(3), 2(1) or 3(1) above.
      (4)A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above in respect of information or a document or other article which has come into his possession as a result of having been disclosed—
      (a)as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) above by a government contractor; or
      (b)as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(iii) above,unless that disclosure was by a British citizen or took place in the United Kingdom, in any of the Channel Islands or in the Isle of Man or a colony.
      (5)For the purposes of this section information or a document or article is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act if—
      (a)it relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations within the meaning of section 1, 2 or 3 above or is such as is mentioned in section 3(1)(b) above; or
      (b)it is information or a document or article to which section 4 above applies;and information or a document or article is protected against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above if it falls within paragraph (a) above.
      (6)A person is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to have come into his possession as a result of a contravention of section 1 of the M1Official Secrets Act 1911.

      I like the bit about ” damaging ” its not clear about who may be ” damaged “

  15. dpack

    that probably covers almost everything from how many lightbulbs defra change in a year and at what cost to the go codes for the boomers.

    i recon carry on as usual.

  16. dpack

    oops my pack ran off

  17. Pingback: CARMICHAEL EXPLAINS why he voted ‘no’ on the Official Secrets Act ammendment – The Vole stands chastened but firm. – The Orkney Vole