XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: Evremonde@bastille.com 
  
 Ian Jackson  posted 
 > 
 >Why do you think that the fact that a meeting took place would not be 
 >covered by the OSA? The fact that people are not routinely taken to 
 >'The Tower' does not mean that what they leak or reveal is not an OSA 
 >issue. Even to reveal that the latest delivery of paper clips was not 
 >up to the usual standard could be an offence - 
  
 No, it couldn't. That criticism used to be made of the 1911 Act, but the 
 Act was rewritten in 1989 to make disclosures actionable only if they 
 are 'damaging'. This means approximately that they endanger the 
 interests of the UK or its citizens abroad, or the work of its 
 intelligence services or armed forces. 
  
 >and its not up to ordinary mortals to take it upon themselves to decide 
 >whether it is or not. 
  
 It is, in the sense that a citizen can decide for themselves whether to 
 disclose information, and wait to see their decision is backed by a 
 court whose job it will ultimately be decide whether an offence has been 
 committed. That was true even before the 1989 rewrite and is even more 
 true now. 
  
 -- 
 Evremonde 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)