Oh dear, this ridiculous British bureaucratic obsession with "signing" the Official Secrets Act. I haven't signed the Road Traffic Act or the Public Order Act. Does that mean I'm able to speed and riot with impunity, or am I just as bound by them as I am any other law? How does signing change this? Am I somehow especially bound by the OSA? Am I even more bound by it due to multiple signings? It's an interesting and novel legal concept, that!
The second (or maybe the third) time I was "asked' to sign the OSA I mischievously told them that I'd already done so previously so there was no need. I was told in a rather snotty manner that I "had to sign it" so I asked why, if I had already done so it clearly wasn't necessary to do so again and pointed out the logic used above, but no, I had to sign it again. I then asked for a copy of the act to read first as no one ever signs something without reading the small print. That almost got them cross, they didn't have one! I pointed out that a contract made under duress is invalid and if I couldn't read the Act but "had" to sign it then this was clearly compulsion. Despite this being done in a humourous spirit they were pretty crinkly-mouthed about it and I was told sharply that I signed or didn't get the job.
Interesting to know the legal position on this. If you're forced to sign something the "agreement" is invalid, that's a very basic legal fact, is it not?
Does that also nullify your basic obligation to obey the law that you had before you signed it? And what principle in Law makes adherence to any particular one more binding than the obligation you already have? Variable levels of adherence to a law depending on a signature? Fascinating concept.
Any Lawyers like to comment on this bizarre business?
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 15th Jul 2012 at 08:46.