FMD and the Official Secrets Act
Colin
I came across the following report on BBC CEEFAX just now, and I'm
wondering if anyone knows more about it:
> 117.00 CEEFAX 1 117 Wed 13 Jun 17:52/36
>
> CLIMBDOWN OVER FARM VIRUS SECRECY BID
> The Government has backed down from a
> move to force all farmers affected by
> the foot-and-mouth outbreak to sign the
> Official Secrets Act.
>
> It comes after Northumberland farmer
> Bobby Waugh said it would compromise
> his ability to fight a prosecution by
> Trading Standards officers.
>
> His Heddon-on-the-Wall farm was where
> the first outbreak was detected.
>
> Signing the Act could jeopardise his
> ability to mount a defence, he said.
At the time of posting (31/6/01 19:20), the report's still at page 117
on CEEFAX 1 and 2, and a similar (almost word for word) report on ITV
Teletext page 311. I've done a quick search on news.bbc.co.uk, but
either they aren't reporting it, or they haven't got around to it yet.
No mention on the BBC evening news.
I'm having a little difficulty figuring out how the MAFFia or anyone
else in the govt. could reasonably think that the F&M epidemic comes
under the 'national security' banner (even if they do appear to have
backed down for the present).
Anyone know more about this?
Regards, Colin.
Pat Gardiner
"Colin" <co...@harlond.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn9ifc6s...@harlond.demon.co.uk...
> [cross-posted to uk.c-e.f&m and uk.politics.censorship]
>
> I came across the following report on BBC CEEFAX just now, and I'm
I saw it too - and posted the following to uk.business.agriculture a few
moments ago...
The following is a faithful transcript of BBC ceefax page 117 13th June: an
almost identical report was on ITV teletext. A news item was scheduled and
trailed in the programme for channel 4 tonight, but was not transmitted.
Quote
CLIMBDOWN OVER FARM VIRUS SECRECY BID
The Government has backed down from a move to force all farmers affected by
the foot-and-mouth to sign the Official Secrets Act.
It comes after Northumberland farmer Bobby Waugh said it would compromise
his ability to fight a prosecution by Trading Standards officers.
His Heddon-on-Wall farm was where the first outbreak was detected.
Signing the Act could jeopardise his ability to mount a defence, he said."
Unquote
The writer has long complained publicly about events during last years Swine
Fever outbreak, long before FMD and the military involvement.
Here is some more information, that until now he kept to himself.
1. Nick Brown visited East Anglia, without notice, on Nov. 14/15. There were
a number of meetings. It was his only visit to the Swine Fever area.
2. One meeting was to the home of a former, very senior officer, of one of
Britain's most secretive military units. I understand the official name of
his unit was 23 Regiment - and that the man concerned was OiC for a period.
Brown was accompanied by senior MAFF ( specifically, State Veterinary
Service ) officials. The writer has independently verified that the former
officer is still very much in touch with his former colleagues
3. It was well known that the writer intended to complain to the Agriculture
Select Committee of the House of Commons about the failure of MAFF to deal
with allegations of Blood Test faking by MAFF officials.
4. In a clear attempt to intimidate, "frame" or maybe discredit the writer's
evidence to the Select Committee, the existing cleansing contactors were
dismissed and replaced by the above mentioned former army officer. He
arrived at our home, countermanded the lawful instructions given by previous
MAFF officials and claimed "I have full authority" to do so.
5. It was only after a direct appeal to secretary to the H of C Committee,
and the threat to call the police that MAFF eventually reacted and withdrew.
The ex-officer continued to be employed by MAFF on FMD duties.
6. Following further blatant faking of documentation, MAFF mounted an
internal investigation, without the co-operation of the writer. Although
this was completed months ago, no further information has been received
despite promises.
I still don't know what they were up to, but it is quite clear that MAFF
were hiding something important that the writer stumbled upon by accident.
They were fully prepared to undertake criminal activities to enforce his
silence. It was only when the writer threatened to go into political asylum
abroad, that the pressure was removed.
It seems that they continue to invoke legislation to enforce secrecy. But
the Official Secrets Act? Have they taken leave of their senses?
What the hell are they hiding? It still looks as if there is some link
between the CSF and FMD outbreaks. We obviously live in a Banana republic.
--
Regards Pat Gardiner
Demand an investigation into MAFF
see http://www.users.waitrose.com/~patgardiner/
"
Peter Crosland
and farmers could delete it.
--
Peter Crosland g6...@hotmail.com
"Colin" <co...@harlond.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn9ifc6s...@harlond.demon.co.uk...
Trish
Hi Colin
Yeah, I just found the same thing on text pages then checked in here. Can't
understand how it's not been picked up on anywhere else, I looked everywhere
including Reuters. Anyhow this is truly bizarre, as if it had gone ahead
then indeed - what possibe reasons could there be for farmers to have to
sign OSA?!!
Trisha
"Colin" <co...@harlond.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn9ifc6s...@harlond.demon.co.uk...
Pat Gardiner
The reference to 23 regiment should have read 22 regiment.
Pat Gardiner
Kelly and Sandy
<Patga...@no.spambtinternet.com> writes
>Signing the Act could jeopardise his ability to mount a defence, he said."
Signing the Act would mean acting as an accomplice to the
government, and a TREASON.
Sandy
/* C A U T I O N E X P L O S I V E B O L T S
-- REMOVE BEFORE ENGAGING REPLY
//
// Kelly and Sandy Anderson <kel...@explosive-alma-services-bolts.co.uk>
// (alternatively kelsan_odoodle at ya who period, see oh em)
// Alexander (Sandy) 1B5A DF3D A3D9 B932 39EB 3F1B 981F 4110 27E1 64A4
// Kelly 673F 6751 6DBA 196F E8A8 6D87 4AEC F35E E9AD 099B
// Homepages http://www.explosive-alma-services-bolts.co.uk/
*/
Kelly and Sandy
<t_we...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>Yeah, I just found the same thing on text pages then checked in here. Can't
>understand how it's not been picked up on anywhere else, I looked everywhere
>including Reuters. Anyhow this is truly bizarre, as if it had gone ahead
>then indeed - what possibe reasons could there be for farmers to have to
>sign OSA?!!
So they can the more easily commit their treason. They're trying to
destroy all of British livestock farming, as quietly as possible. (But
if you listen to Radio 4, this will sound out of the question and absurd
to you. However, it's Television that is the main fitting on their
silencer.) Only when whole towns and cities are threatening to explode
into mass violence and communicationless chaos is the norm, only then
will aspects of today's FMD fiasco start to be truly revealed.
"Stand Sure"
Trish
http://www.channel4news.co.uk/home/20010613/Story04.htm
(I've copied it across incase story disappears!)
Trisha
---------
CHANNEL 4 NEWS
SPECIAL REPORTS
Farmers and secrecy clause
Broadcast: June 13, 2001
Reporter: Andrew Veitch
Officials at the new Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, have
declared an end to one of the old Ministry
of Agriculture's lesser known practices.
It's emerged that until today, farmers
whose animals got foot and mouth disease
had to sign the Official Secrets Act in order
to claim certain kinds of compensation.
The secrecy clause came to light at the farm in
Northumberland where it's suspected foot and
mouth disease may have started.
The pig farmer Bobby Waugh, objected
because he feared that promising to abide by
the Official Secrets Act would jeopardise his
defence in a forthcoming court case.
There is a "contract for services" that farmers
with foot and mouth disease must sign so that
MAFF will pay them for disinfecting their farms:
Clause 17 invokes the Official Secrets Act:
"The supplier shall keep secret and not disclose
and shall procure that his employees will keep
secret and do not disclose any information of a
confidential nature."
Today MAFF's successor, Defra, said the
secrecy clause had been in all such contracts
since as long as anyone in the old Ministry
could remember.
But the clause was irrelevant - farmers could
cross it out without affecting the contract.
For the ministry's leading critics, at a meeting
today organised by the organic research
centre, Elm Farm, it symbolised an obsession
with secrecy.
Professor Bob Michell, London University:
"I'm appalled but not surprised because I am
aware that those who work in agricultural research institutes, I believe,
still
have to and until very recently had to sign the official secrets act. Now
unless
someone is engaged in military research this is entirely inappropriate,
this is
Moscow centre and George Smiley, not openness, accountability and
transparency."
Bob Michell is the former president of the vets professional body, the
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons - they've joined opposition MPs in
calling for a swift inquiry into the handling of the disaster - even
though
Maff itself has been culled.
Lembit Opik MP, Lib Dem, Agricultural Select Affairs Committee:
"Well while the names have changed in the ministry much of the staff have
remained the same and I'm sure that many of the working practices won't
have
changed overnight either. So this inquiry which really must take place
should
be an inquiry researching into what could have been done better. We have
got
to avoid the blame game and make sure that we are completely focused on
making sure that this type of fiasco will never happen again."
The disclosure that farmers have been asked to sign the official secrets
act before decontaminating their farms can only add to the pressure for a
public inquiry. Whether the prime minister who took control of the fight
against foot and mouth disease will actually agree to one we will see.
Colin
>It was reported on Channel 4 news at 1900. MAFF stated it was out of date
>and farmers could delete it.
Thanks - although that still begs the question of why they even
considered using the OSA against the main victims of the FMD
outbreak (presumably to censor unwanted publicity).
Did the C4 report give any more information on this? Was it, for
example, claimed as some sort of admin' error, or does the tone
of the teletext reports (i.e. that the OSA was tried and only
dropped when legal objections were raised) sum it up more
accurately?
Regards, Colin.
--
"Leave me out of your life's plans, you little wierdo!"
Susie Derkins to Calvin.
Peter Crosland
> Peter Crosland <g6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >It was reported on Channel 4 news at 1900. MAFF stated it was out of date
> >and farmers could delete it.
> [...]
>
> Thanks - although that still begs the question of why they even
> considered using the OSA against the main victims of the FMD
> outbreak (presumably to censor unwanted publicity).
>
> Did the C4 report give any more information on this? Was it, for
> example, claimed as some sort of admin' error, or does the tone
> of the teletext reports (i.e. that the OSA was tried and only
> dropped when legal objections were raised) sum it up more
> accurately?
The whole question of the OSA signature is absurd and always has been.
Everyone in the country is subject to the law regardless of the fact they
may not know the law. Just intended to keep a few more civil servants in
jobs administering it.
Peter Crosland g6...@hotmail.com
Colin
>Peter Crosland <g6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>It was reported on Channel 4 news at 1900. MAFF stated it was out of date
>>and farmers could delete it.
>[...]
>
>Thanks - although that still begs the question of why they even
>considered using the OSA against the main victims of the FMD
>outbreak (presumably to censor unwanted publicity).
>
>Did the C4 report give any more information on this? Was it, for
>example, claimed as some sort of admin' error, or does the tone
>of the teletext reports (i.e. that the OSA was tried and only
>dropped when legal objections were raised) sum it up more
>accurately?
Following up myself <blush>. But Trish's posted a URL and the text
of the C4 report which answers the above, to some extent. It does
look more like incompetence than conspiracy at the moment.
john
> else in the govt. could reasonably think that the F&M epidemic comes
> under the 'national security' banner (even if they do appear to have
> backed down for the present).
>
The maff vets have to sign it, but not TVI vets. They tried to get
slaughtermen to sign it, some may have. Nothing like keeping all of your
cockups and ulterior motives under wraps if you can get away with it.
john
Chris Croughton
<t_we...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Today MAFF's successor, Defra, said the
> secrecy clause had been in all such contracts
> since as long as anyone in the old Ministry
> could remember.
Although I personally prefer the conspiracy theory, this does seem
likely. Certainly 20 years ago virtually every contract with a
government organisation used the OSA as a matter of course, and still
many companies use it even though they aren't involved in anything
affecting the "security of the state".
> But the clause was irrelevant - farmers could
> cross it out without affecting the contract.
I'd want that in writing!
> Professor Bob Michell, London University:
> "I'm appalled but not surprised because I am aware that those who
> work in agricultural research institutes, I believe, still have to
> and until very recently had to sign the official secrets act. Now
> unless someone is engaged in military research this is entirely
> inappropriate, this is Moscow centre and George Smiley, not openness,
> accountability and transparency."
Well, he's an academic. Even the American FoI act allows the government
to keep some things secret. Admittedly, the British government had and
still has an attitude of "let's classify it just in case", but this is
more of a "cover your arse" reaction than a deliberate policy.
> The disclosure that farmers have been asked to sign the official
> secrets act before decontaminating their farms can only add to the
> pressure for a public inquiry. Whether the prime minister who took
> control of the fight against foot and mouth disease will actually
> agree to one we will see.
Indeed. After all, he's got in now, he doesn't have to try to woo the
electorate for at least another 3 years. We can't impeach him...
Chris C
Ray Milne
against the Crown and State, therefore signing the O.S.A. could NOT be an
offence against either.
--
Ray
Life is like a sewer,
What you get out of it depends on what
you put in it.
"Kelly and Sandy" <ju...@almide.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0542Z5AN...@almide.demon.co.uk...
---
Ray's mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.261 / Virus Database: 131 - Release Date: 06-06-01
Peter Crosland
"Ray Milne" <ray....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9gavee$4o$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Dear Kelly and Sandy, Please get your facts right. TREASON is an offence
> against the Crown and State, therefore signing the O.S.A. could NOT be an
> offence against either.
> said."
> >
> >
> > Signing the Act would mean acting as an accomplice to the
> > government, and a TREASON.
Apart from making some remarkably stupid remarks Kelly & Sandy never seem to
check their facts before launching into print. A little research, that took
less than five minutes, reminded me of the basics about treason.
Treason (formerly High Treason but the distinction between this and Petty
Treason ceased in 1828 when the latter was abolished) is an offence under
The Statute of Treasons 1351. It is the act of killing the Monarch or the
heir to the throne, levying war against the monarch in their realm or aiding
the monarch's enemies.
As for signing the OSA it is difficult to see how this would jeopardise
anyone's ability to mount a defence escapes me. Perhaps some would like to
explain this?
Peter Crosland g6...@hotmail.com
Polarpuppy
"john" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9gaf1k$mmq$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
when I worked as a Civil Servant in Shepherd's Bush, classified the
pre-printed toilet rolls under OSA so that they wouldn't be nicked for use
at QPR home football matches:-).
PP
Kelly and Sandy
Smokers under threat
--------------------
WHEN Mike Woolnough, a Norfolk hotelier, arrived at Dover with his
father-in-law in a tiny Fiat Punto, carrying 90 pouches of tobacco and
4,000 cigarettes for his mother-in-law, he did not expect to face a two-
hour grilling by customs officials who, disbelieving that these were for
personal use, confiscated both goods and car.
Despite the fact that the car belonged to his mother-in-law, the
customs men said she must have known about the plan to import the
cigarettes illegally and they were therefore entitled to impound it.
When this all-too-typical story was reported last week, HM Customs
admitted that, in the year since they were given an extra £209 million
to "crack down" on "illegal" imports of tobacco and alcohol from the
Continent, they have confiscated no fewer than 7,000 vehicles, or 20 a
day, mostly belonging to travellers who believed they were entitled to
bring in such goods for their own use.
Since normally the only form of appeal against such confiscations is
to HM Customs and Excise themselves, this would seem to be yet another
breach of the ancient right under Magna Carta, that the state cannot
confiscate property without either authorisation from a court or paying
compensation.
The story becomes even murkier, however, when one considers the
threat by Frits Bolkestein, the European Commissioner for the "internal
market", that he may take the UK Government to court, on the grounds
that harassing travellers in this way breaches single market law.
In fact the relevant directive, 91/12, relating to the abolition of
duty free within the single market, is typical of the woolly drafting of
EU legislation. On one hand, it specifically allows people to import
unlimited quantities of tobacco and alcohol on which tax has already
been paid, so long as this is "for private use".
On the other, it offers guidelines as to what quantities might
reasonably be considered to meet this definition (for example, 800
cigarettes), and it is these which the British Government is now
enforcing as if they were law.
The real paradox, of course, is that the Government is caught
between its support for the single market and its refusal to abandon the
most draconian excise duties in Europe.
It dare not reduce taxes on tobacco and alcohol, which still yield
- L13 billion a year, even though revenue lost through imports from
the
continent now amounts to - L8 billion or more.
So all that is left is to carry on persecuting thousands of innocent
people, until Brussels brings a legal action which could end in the
Government being ordered to pay millions of pounds in compensation for
vehicles confiscated by its officials in breach of the law. What a sad
mess.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/
news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F08%2F05%2Fnbook05.xml
Andy Mabbett
<ju...@almide.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> Smokers under threat
Nothing to do with Censorship; nothing to do with foot & mouth.
--
Andy Mabbett
A 1998 survey of 48 restaurants' chicken tikka masalas
found that the only common ingredient was chicken.
Kelly and Sandy
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote
>Nothing to do with Censorship; nothing to do with foot & mouth.
What kind of sleep-walking fool are you?!
You think that Customs and Excise -- now a mere lackey money-raising
organization for whoever's been elected -- stealing goods and vehicles
from people has nothing to do with censorship??
You think the Customs and Excise story isn't pertinent to how the
Government has manoeuvred Foot and Mouth to manufacture a crisis in
British Farming??
. . . . .
But I know you.
By not crying "Fire!" and remaining in your theatre seat,
unflappable to the last, you're somehow going to will the flames all
around out of existence, and then applaud politely at the final curtain.
Very well then. Persist in your folly.
Titanically,
FCS
news:rWEYMLFM...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
> In article <toePZKAq...@almide.demon.co.uk>, Kelly and Sandy
> <ju...@almide.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> > Smokers under threat
>
> Nothing to do with Censorship; nothing to do with foot & mouth.
In fairness it may have something to do with priorities. Such as which is
more important to the nation?
Border controls to keep infectious diseases out.
Border controls to prevent people smoking themselves to death.
Rest censored.
John
Jim Webster
>
> The anarchy on our streets reflects our lack of liberty
>
a good agricultural topic
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Clive D. W. Feather
>to HM Customs and Excise themselves, this would seem to be yet another
>breach of the ancient right under Magna Carta, that the state cannot
>confiscate property without either authorisation from a court or paying
>compensation.
Which clause of Magna Carta would this be ?
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 4037 (D-fax) | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Kelly and Sandy
<cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote
>Which clause of Magna Carta would this be ?
The sanity clause?
Colin
>In article <rWEYMLFM...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>, Andy Mabbett
><an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote
>
>>Nothing to do with Censorship; nothing to do with foot & mouth.
>
>
> What kind of sleep-walking fool are you?!
Andy has recently categorically denied being a Traffic Warden.
I choose to believe that denial. 8-P
> You think that Customs and Excise -- now a mere lackey money-raising
>organization for whoever's been elected -- stealing goods and vehicles
>from people has nothing to do with censorship??
C&E have been (and to an extent continue to be) involved with censorship
of sexually explict material being brought into this country, by dint
of siezing it with questionable justification.
C&E have been (and continue to be) involved in the unlawful siezure of
vehicles and goods (e.g. tobacco) legally imported for personal use.
Conflating these two seperate issues does not justify discussion of the
second in a censorship forum, which, I believe, was Andy's point.
> You think the Customs and Excise story isn't pertinent to how the
>Government has manoeuvred Foot and Mouth to manufacture a crisis in
>British Farming??
Perhaps you should drop uk.p.c from the Newsgroups: line, and offer a
fuller explanation of the connection in uk.c.f., for the benefit of those
of us who may be interested.
[Ad hominem and broken .sig snipped]
Regards, Colin.
--
"I killed it; and now I am going to eat it." - Worf the philosopher.
Colin
as to fix the "References:" lines in your posts, please?
I've just spent several minutes trying to figure out why my newsreader
highlighted this thread, and it turns out to be because you've managed
to include a reference to <slrn9ifc6s...@harlond.demon.co.uk>
in the headers - so my newsreader is not unreasonably assuming that
it's a followup to one of my own posts.
That article was 1) posted nearly two months ago. 2) Is not in any
meaningful way referenced by your article. 3) Has absolutely fuck
all to do with your "Smokers under threat" thread.
In the event that you're not aware that you're doing this, please
learn how to work your newsreader correctly, in particular with
regard to the correct method of starting a new thread (hint - they
should *not* simply be spawned from the tail end of a pre-existing
thread with the Subject: line suitably altered, as many of your
posts appear to be.
Regards (if somewhat strained), Colin.
And now, I'm finally off to bed, before it gets light.
Clive D. W. Feather
<ju...@almide.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Which clause of Magna Carta would this be ?
>
> The sanity clause?
You may consider it a joke; I don't. Which clause of Magna Carta are you
referring to, or are you just full of noise ?
Ray Milne
--
ConfuseUs says,If your herd of cattle lie down
in field , you have a group of lazy cows.
Ray
"Colin" <co...@harlond.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn9n42ti...@harlond.demon.co.uk...
---
Ray's mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release Date: 07-08-01
ScatMac
Andy...grow up you sad twat!
What the Fuck has this stupid survey got to do with this group....now fuck
off to alt.muppet.andy.mabbett.lamer.uk.gov
Jim Webster
>
> Paris is Burning
>
so our tame loonies have got to the stage where to pamper their egos they
cross post anything, whether relevant to the groups or not.
Smelly John
Wasn't it relevant?
--
Read the official ULY Welcome at:
http://www.uklocalyorkshire.com/
By the way I'm not a member of the non-public 'clique' group set up "to
compliment (sic) uly"
Go on King Queen, cancel this one!
Jim Webster
Smelly John <smellyj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ck5doto3mecba0aet...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:13:24 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
> >
> >Kelly and Sandy <ju...@almide.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:eVjTGVAr...@almide.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> Paris is Burning
> >>
> >so our tame loonies have got to the stage where to pamper their egos they
> >cross post anything, whether relevant to the groups or not.
>
> Wasn't it relevant?
to uk.current-events.foot-and-mouth?
unless of course Paris burning is just another way of covering rampaging fmd
and bse on the continent