Under 18s and the Official Secrets Act
Thread Starter
Under 18s and the Official Secrets Act
Before the Trident thread appeared here I was arguing the toss about it with others on another thread. Someone has suggested that 16-18 year olds in the Forces could not be held to the terms of the OSA because of their age. Is this true? If yes, do boy entrants 're-sign' the Act at 18? (And girls of course.)
Ta.
CG
Ta.
CG
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I signed it at 16 I think as part of my joining up, I was attested at the CIO and did all of the paperwork before I left.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well, criminal responsibility starts at the age of 10, and everyone is bound by the OSA whether or not they've signed the certificate. In fact I'm fairly certain the only purpose of the certificate is to make it harder for one to claim ignorance as a mitigating circumstance if convicted of an OSA offence.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I have signed several times, the last when I took a job with the CS. When I retired they sent a pack and a new form. I didn't bother to return it and they never chased me either.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
During WWII Alan Turing joined Dad's Army. After a while he became bored and stopped attending. He was reminded that he had signed a form in which was the question "are you aware that you will be subject to military discipline?". Turing pointed out that he had written "no" as the answer. Not a lot you can say after that.
I signed it at 16 and again at 18. The main difference was the contract that existed between me and MoD. Under 18 it is with your parents/guardian and you sign the OSA in their presence. Over 18, you're on your own. Not sure if that has changed over the years. The rules are so vague this was probably one man's interpretation at the time.
An interesting piece of legislation that is very out of date and very difficult to implement. I've submitted quite a few written pieces to MoD in recent years asking permission to make public, each time expecting more redactions than approvals. The only time they said no was a reference I wanted to make to a short internal report - that I should seek it under FoI so they could redact first. When it was asked for, they denied its existence, which meant I could refer to it anyway. Bizarre.
An interesting piece of legislation that is very out of date and very difficult to implement. I've submitted quite a few written pieces to MoD in recent years asking permission to make public, each time expecting more redactions than approvals. The only time they said no was a reference I wanted to make to a short internal report - that I should seek it under FoI so they could redact first. When it was asked for, they denied its existence, which meant I could refer to it anyway. Bizarre.
slight thread drift, but surprised people are saying OSA will inhibit people from giving evidence to the child abuse enquiries. Surely (and I don't have the Act to hand and I am not a lawyer) there must be a caveat in the act for due legal process. (or maybe it is "convenient" to claim there isn't)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
problem is that the OSA is seen as pretty draconian - and in the past it has been (mis-) used on all sorts of small misdemeanours
I'm sure you'll still get a jury to convict on a spying case or similar but in the age of facebook, Twitter and 24 hr rolling news the basic mindset of the Great British Public is generally in favour of disclosure
I'm sure you'll still get a jury to convict on a spying case or similar but in the age of facebook, Twitter and 24 hr rolling news the basic mindset of the Great British Public is generally in favour of disclosure
...surprised people are saying OSA will inhibit people from giving evidence to the child abuse enquiries. Surely (and I don't have the Act to hand and I am not a lawyer) there must be a caveat in the act for due legal process. (or maybe it is "convenient" to claim there isn't)
I signed it at 16 and again at 18. The main difference was the contract that existed between me and MoD. Under 18 it is with your parents/guardian and you sign the OSA in their presence. Over 18, you're on your own. Not sure if that has changed over the years. The rules are so vague this was probably one man's interpretation at the time
The Official Secrets Act isn't as out-of-date as all that, the current version having been enacted in 1989. Internet or no internet, it still makes sense for criminal sanctions to be available for genuinely serious breaches. Although it is fairly unlikely that any under-18 would have access to the types of sensitive information protected by the Act, as others have said there is no special exemption for that agegroup.