jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (12/01/88)
In article <379@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >Mrs. Thatcher isn't very happy with Peter Wright. Publishing memoirs >about dirty deads inside MI5 and MI6 is a no-no. The book's banned >in Britain. I have nothing but distaste for the present Thatcher regime and I totally disapprove of most of its actions. However, your remarks about the book being banned in the UK are wrong. The Government decided that Wright's book was a threat to "national security" - in reality it was politically embarrassing - and tried to prevent its publication in the UK under the Official Secrets Act. They also tried (and failed) with the same tactic in Commonwealth countries such as Australia. While the case was going through the courts, there was an injunction in the UK to prevent the distribution or sale of the book. [It was not an offence or a contempt of court to own a copy of the book. Many people brought copies home from places like USA and Eire where it was freely on sale.] The Government's case was laughed out of court even after a succession of appeals that only made the Government look more and more ridiculous. With no more court proceedings, the book can now be sold. It was (is?) a best-selling book in the UK, although the UK publishers have been grumbling about lost sales because of all the American, Irish etc copies that were bought when the Spycatcher affair started over a year ago. Jim -- ARPA: jim%cs.strath.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk UUCP: jim@strath-cs.uucp, ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!jim JANET: jim@uk.ac.strath.cs "JANET domain ordering is swapped around so's there'd be some use for rev(1)!"
childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (12/09/88)
In article <1283@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk writes: >...the book being banned in the UK are wrong. The Government decided that >Wright's book was a threat to "national security" - in reality it was >politically embarrassing - and tried to prevent its publication in the >UK under the Official Secrets Act. I understand that was just upgraded to "The Official Secrets Bill", and it is now an Even More Serious Offence to share Official Secrets with anyone, ever, throughout your life. I also understand that the author of _Spycatcher_ is still staying out of Great Britain, as he is a wanted man by the government. I don't expect this will change. >... The Government's case was laughed out of court even after a >succession of appeals that only made the Government look more and more >ridiculous. I wouldn't count on that alone as a sufficient bulwark against injustice. It seems clear they are intent on concealing a profusion of misdeeds that are just waiting for another responsible individual to share them with the public, which would no doubt bring down the current government. I've heard the BBC discussing things like MI5 interfering in Sir Harold Gilliam's (??) communications and such, damaging his period as Prime Minister seriously - because he was a Communist. Ah, the free world struts its stuff, again !! It was only a year ago that BBC, as a whole, went on strike when the government attempted to establish its "right" to control what the BBC said. The tensions remain, and the BBC is fighting for its freedom even as we speak, as you can rest assured that the parties that mounted the last assault on the BBC haven't given up. The Bill Of Rights is out the window if you're *accused* of being a terrorist ( who's seen the movie _Brazil_? ), what's next ? House-to-house searches without a warrant, I'll bet ... Now, they say that you can't discuss any State Secrets with anyone ever, as long as you live, under threat of Life Imprisonment or worse. This is best viewed by comparing it with the USSR's disinclination towards letting Soviet Jews leave the country, only recently translated into a specific amount of time that must lapse before people with sensitive information are allowed out. What does Britain have that must be kept a lifelong secret ? Torture ? Sabotage and murder, a la the French Secret Service ? Whatever it is, I'm sure a lot of people are becoming more and more curious about what dirty laundry they need to hide, *who* needs to hide it, and why, and I'm sure this discussion will have more substance as time goes on. >UUCP: jim@strath-cs.uucp, ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!jim -- richard -- * "... where there is no movement, there is no perception." * * Ribot, _The Psychology of Attention_ * * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho * * AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D *
cl@datlog.co.uk (Charles Lambert) (12/14/88)
[NOTE: I have redirected followups to misc.misc, because I think it's broad enough to stay out of talk.politics, which I never read anyway.] In article <424@avsd.UUCP> childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes: >In article <1283@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk writes: >> >>UK under the Official Secrets Act. > >I understand that was just upgraded to "The Official Secrets Bill", and it >is now an Even More Serious Offence to share Official Secrets with anyone, >ever, throughout your life. Hey ho. It's interesting to see your own system viewed through the glass of another culture's media. Difficult to know whether it's more or less distorting than your own media. I'm not flaming you, Richard; I guess you got this from the same kind of 30-second journalists that we all have to suffer. (To forestall those who see red and hit 'F' on the first page, this is not about to be a defense of the "Freedom of Information" Bill; please read me through.) To begin with, and Act (of parliament) is the statutory instrument: a Bill is just an attempt to place a new Act on the statute. So the "Freedom of Information" Bill (which you are referring to) is not in itself a more powerful statute, it is an attempt to replace the Official Secrets Act. Having said that, if the Bill becomes law it will IMHO be a much more oppressive attack on personal conscience. It is a much narrower but more powerful piece of legislation. It defines categories of protected information and makes it an absolute offence to disclose such information under any circumstances. The existing Official Secrets Act (also a piece of Big Brotherism) made the blanket claim that *all* government information (including the amount of tea consumed by civil servants) is secret and that disclosure *might* lead to prosecution; but it did leave room for a defence based on the public interest. No such defence will be allowed under the proposed law. The categories defined by the Bill are, at first sight, eminently sensible: military tactics and strategy; information likely to aid a criminal; I forget the others. But look more closely. If the Chief Constable of a police force states publicly that a particular brand of burglar alarm is hopelessly defective, he will be open to prosecution for disclosing information likely to aid criminals. Under another category, it will be a criminal offence for a journalist to reveal that someone's phone was tapped by police, even if the tap was illegally placed. >I also understand that the author of _Spycatcher_ is still staying out of >Great Britain, as he is a wanted man by the government. I understand that Peter Wright is living in Tazmania because he's very comfortable there, thankyou. > I've heard >the BBC discussing things like MI5 interfering in Sir Harold Gilliam's (??) ^^^^^^^ Wilson >communications and such, damaging his period as Prime Minister seriously - >because he was a Communist. He is a Socialist; different thing. That's a distinction I found very difficult to explain when I lived in the States. At any rate, he is not a Communist; no, no, no; honestly; please don't nuke us. >It was only a year ago that BBC, as a whole, went on strike when the >government attempted to establish its "right" to control what the BBC said. The BBC, as a whole, has never been on strike. Different unions or factions have struck at various times for the usual reasons, sometimes blacking out the service. I don't recall any industrial action following the government's recent, sordid attacks on its editorial independence. > The Bill Of Rights is out the window There never has been a Bill of Rights in Britain other Magna Carta, which was drawn to protect the interests of the Barons against the absolute power of the Monarchy. Certain rights are protected by legal principle, such as "habeas corpus", which should protect you from indefinite detention without trial; but these are always vulnerable to Emergency Powers. There is now a campaign called "Charter 88" that is calling for a Bill of Rights. Charlie