PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Alleged UFO or UAP, 1990, Calvine, Scotland
Old 10th Feb 2022, 12:11
  #79 (permalink)  
Matthew Illsley
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Official Secrets Act (OSA)

Originally Posted by chevvron
Then you will know that he wasn't operating the 'UFO desk' like people try to make out but was just a glorified clerical officer who filed things.
I still have a photocopy of the list of duties carried out in that section but I can't reveal it because of the OSA.
Hello,

I've just been re-reading the thread.

With regard to comments re: the Official Secrets Act or OSA, and being very mindful of not wanting to cause any offence or coming across as flippant, I understand that any release of material must be considered "damaging" for prosecution under OSA to take place, that the length of time between an "unauthorised or unlawful disclosure" and the event or situation it relates to is a significant factor in whether to prosecute, and that there's less than 1 prosecution per year under OSA as per https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-7422/. When one also considers the cases listed in the Commons document, the punishments seem very slight and very few for anyone except obvious spies clearly endangering national security and others clearly risking others' lives and limbs, e.g.

In July 2007, a senior civilian worker at Scotland Yard was jailed for eight months for leaking information about a planned al-Qaeda attack on the West, but that was on a charge of "wilful misconduct in public office", not for breaching the Official Secrets Act.
Also in 2007/8, a Cabinet Office official was fined £2,500 under the Official Secrets Act after he left classified papers relating to al-Qaeda and Iraq on a train.

Thus, one might argue that someone showing us a 1990 list of duties or a 1990 photo of an unidentified aircraft that they perhaps shouldn't strictly have kept, especially after the passage of 32 years, wouldn't seem to be particularly "damaging" (though, again, I appreciate others might feel differently). We also don't ask people to send us stuff or tell us things if they themselves feel it's a breach of OSA or of loyalty, and we understand many ex-military people still feel bound "in conscience" even after retiring.

As an addendum, it was also pointed out to me that attempted prosecution would be "all but impossible" in this instance because if someone did, say, have a copy of any of the 6 photos, they sent them to me, and the state found out, not only would the "damage" to national security be essentially nil (How would a clearer photo be any more damaging than the photocopy, for example?), but instigating prosecution would in itself confirm the truth of the story, which is what the government has been at pains to prevent all these years (e.g. with the MoD always claiming that the incident was "of no defence significance").

Thanks
Matthew Illsley is offline