Great, atmospheric pictures and I’m really pleased it was another success.

Just a thought – your first sentence could be misleading…..;)

This, as always, throws the debate wide open.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Your post has widened the debate considerably and begs a further question. How many earlier conflicts would have taken place and how would the “winners” have been perceived if the 21st century ease of access to information had been available.There is much we now know which was unknown then and that knowledge might have informed the nature of conflict and ultimately re-written history.

There will always be disagreement over the justification for conflict and what is heinous for one man may not be for another. No doubt acts of perceived moral outrage have been perpetrated in the name of the greater good and who is to say what is wrong and what is right in that context?

Within the parametres set by the title of the thread my view remains the same that if one harbours doubts about one’s ability to adhere to the Act, then it should not be signed. There may be those, of course, who intentionally put themselves in the position in order to make mischief. Either way it is a criminal offence.

I signed the official secrets act myself,but I still have a conscience.
If I found something being concealed that I knew to be profoundly wrong,I couldn’t live with myself if I kept quiet about it.
But what if I had a family dependent on me,knew my action would maybe make me unemployable ? That’s the question that interests me.

I omitted to respond to your second, key, question. And the answer, of course, is that there is no answer. Each one of us will act with an eye to both our conscience and the realities of our lives, if we can. However if we are aware that there is the slightest chance that one or the other could be sacrificed then surely we do not put ourselves in that position.

All of us were aware of what we were signing. My employer made me fully aware of it and asked me if I was totally happy about signing. I was made aware prior to the interview that I would have to sign the Act so I had plenty of time to reconsider.

There is no excuse for accepting the obligation and then reneging on it.

Clearly the timing for trying to get money out of “ordinary ” people is about as bad as could be – this October! You would have thought that at the £72,000 p.a. level Dr P would have his fingers close to the wallets of any number of those people to whom a hundred thousand is neither here nor there, in addition to the beneficent Sir Jack.

So it ends up, as I suggested earlier, being a matter of degree. I wonder about the wording of the Act – I signed it in 1969 and have long forgotten the detail and no longer possess my copy. Does it make any reference to illegal acts? Do you still have your copy?

Interesting. Right and wrong are seldom black and white and often subjective judgements. So I would turn the dilemma round the other way and suggest that if anyone has any doubt about their ability to adhere to the that law they should not sign. And as I suggested in my reply to Al, the fact that individuals are not prepared to respect the Act makes a mockery of it.

I would agree that there is an element of degree about it but nevertheless in a world rapidly becoming devoid of principle the way these matters are dealt with should be reviewed.

I understand your sentiments, Al, but surely if you extend your logic, what is the point in anyone signing the Official Secrets Act. I had to many years ago, and left that employment many years ago but I still respect it. If you know that you might not respect it, why sign it?