main index Narrative
|
"The Official Secrets Act is not there to protect Secrets, it is there to protect Officials."
"That's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's being charged under section 2A of the Official Secrets Act."
This is what you break when you leak UK government secrets to the media. (It is also the legislation that covers spies and other more serious breaches of secrecy than "the minister for health called the pop celebrity "poofy"" level stuff that tabloids love.) Its enforcement is famously spotty and erratic when it comes to media leaks; for example, a document that is generally positive toward the government will not get investigated, even if it cannot legally be released. Yes Minister explains quite well why you never tend to see the leaker's name published.
— Bernard Woolley Yes Minister
"If the leaker is an official, then you can't publish because that is not fair. Ministers are there to take the blame. Conversely, if the leaker is a Minister, you can't publish because if you do, he will reveal all the other leaks he knows about. But mostly you can't publish because the leak came from ..." Indicates upward, signifying the Prime Minister's Office*.
This is not quite as accurate anymore but still has a certain truth to it. In order to commit an offence you must be aware that telling people is an offence, the disclosure must cause harm to the UK or her interests and you must know or should know that harm could occur from it. There are certain reasons you can break the act, but since the 1989 version every politician's favourite get out clause "it was in the public interest" is no longer a valid defence.
"Signing the Official Secrets Act" is a common expression, but only done these days for security-cleared posts and it applies regardless.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||