Westonman, that's exactly the point Bradley Manning's mum made in the article in the Mail, though I couldn't find it in tge online version.

That's very interesting. I haven't seen the article, neither online nor in paper form.

Of course not but you need to keep perspective and not accept as fact why a document is restricted.

Unless you are working in the defence industry you should ask yourself why is the material so marked? Is it of use to an enemy? Or it is so marked to protect private industry? Or to keep information from the public which perhaps they should be privy too?

I bet a lot of reports around the fracking issue are being withheld on the basis they contain information that the practice is bad for the environment

If it were not for the whistle-blower who passed the information on MP's expenses to the Telegraph we would be none the wiser and they would still be ripping the UK taxpayers off for £Millions.
I bet that material was also so called protectively marked. Hell I bet they would have prosecuted the whistle blower under the OSA if they think they could have got away with it.

Even when they were forced into publishing an official report they redacted much of it, in the so called interests of MP's security. A few of the worst offenders were thrown to the wolves and given short prison sentences that bear no reflection on what a private individual would have got if they had thieved the same sorts of money.

The long and short of it is you cannot trust them as far as you can throw them!!

Geezer, thanks for that reply to SOT. I planned on composing a reply this morning that I hoped wouldn't in any way cause offence. But you have done the job for me.

To add to my comment above to Geezer and SOT, here is an example of how sensitive the 'authorities' can be to publications of their actions. Note; this example has NOTHING to do with national defence.

Back in April I posted a link to a video of a 1 day old baby being forcibly removed from its parents by the local authority. Here is the link to that post:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1041

This is the content of what I said in that post:

The video rightly shocked a number of people. It also rattled the authorities concerned so much that they insisted, under threat of prosecution, that the UK Column remove the video from their site. If we check the link today at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1041 we find that the video has been removed.

Why would any public authority that purports to serve the public and be protective towards children be so sensitive about having a private video of a baby being removed from its parents insist that the public should be denied from seeing what 'public servants' do in our name, and with our money? It was the father of the baby who made the video in order to let the world know what is really going on in the name of 'public service'. What is it with public authorities that they are so secretive and afraid of exposure? If these public bodies are truly working in the public interest then let them be open and above board. Let them explain to the public, who happens to forcibly fund them, why they are taking certain actions – if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear – well, that's what they like to tell us. All prosecutions and court cases should be held in public – but for some strange reason public bodies seem to favour secret courts behind closed doors - as does Kenneth Clarke MP.

Here is a recent article that highlights the lengths that secretive public bodies will go to spy on people, the same kind of public bodies who can't tolerate exposure of their actions:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... opers.html
There is something very nasty and underhanded going on in 'public service' these days. Everywhere we look in the UK we are being spied on, monitored, watched, questioned, compelled to explain, forced to use the 'correct language', compelled to surrender our sense of morality, legally required to deny our conscience, and all the while we are denied the right to ask questions and expect a straight answer from 'public servants'.

Bradley Manning leaked the existence of this video to wikileaks which led to a public disclosure request forcing the US authorities to release it.




It shows a US Apache chopper engaging insurgents/civilians/journalists in Iraq and then later firing on a van with children inside simply because they could.

Manning also leaked sensitive material which did compromise security and for that he should be punished but the rules are also there to stop material such as this entering the public domain.

And that is exactly my point!

Yes it would be wrong - indeed has been wrong - for certain situations where restrictions on the public release of information has been abused. I strongly believe that those local authorities and others guilty of such action should be strongly bought to book.

However, it is clear that there is a huge amount of information that simply must remain away from the pubic gaze. I am aware that Mr Snowden has been freely sharing certain info with others - information that is not controversial in any way, but may (for example) prejudice UK defence operations.

That is not acceptable and does not fit the profile that some have made of him being a heroic public spirited whistleblower. He is not. He is a reckless vandal and traitor and may turn out to be a co conspirator with others if any UK citizen is hurt or killed as a direct or indirect result of his indiscretion and releases.

Incidentally, to repair some of the damage that his unnecessary and malicious releases have caused to UK PLC is likely to cost us all £millions. This is our public cash that should be spend elsewhere in these days of austerity

Rumour has it he's in the Big Brother House, where people once went for instant fame and celebrity

That is an interesting use of the words 'traitor' and 'co-conspirator' to describe one who has acted to reveal what he sees as true treason and conspiracy in high places.

A dictionary describes TREASON this way:
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

It seems to me that the real traitors and co-conspirators are those who wield power in the name of so-called democracy and act directly against the principles of a representative democracy - that is, the political elite who claim to represent the bulk of the so-called Western democracies, including here in the UK.

Both the above definitions of 'treason' apply equally well to the Conservative, Labour, and Lib Dem Parties, and all leaders of those parties for the last several decades. 'Co-conspirator' also equally applies to the same parties and their leaders, and the undemocratic elitists who occupy other power centres, such as the EU, the UN, the World Economic Forum, and the Bilderburrgers.

The UK's membership of the EU and its binding treaty for ever-closer political union with foreign powers and agents without the express wish of the people is a case of arrogant conspiratorial treason against the British people, and the people of Europe.

The myth of man-made global warming/climate change is another example of treason and political conspiracy against the British people by the elitist political class. The selling off of taxpayer funded public assets, such as water, electricity, and gas to foreign agents; with roads, the NHS, Royal Mail, and education to follow are also the results of conspiratorial treason against the British people.

The UN's Agenda 21 is an act of conspiratorial treason against all the people of the world, especially the people of the so-called free democracies of the West. This Agenda 21is resulting in the destruction of freedom and the centralising of powers across the globe; and this again is being done to us without any reference to the democratic wishes of the peoples of Western democracies.

The same applies to political correctness that seeks to control our use of language and thought. It is another act of conspiratorial treason by the international political elite against our inalienable God-given rights to think and speak for ourselves. But these self-appointed elitist political traitors have assumed the right to deny us what is ours by the very nature of our humanity.

It seems to me that we are hyper-sensitive to the actions of one individual who has acted according to his conscience, and blind to the real criminals who are openly masquerading as loyal public servants, while actually destroying our freedoms and preparing us for the greatest act of treason in human history.

Bradley Manning is extremely small fry compared to the so-called democratic political leaders of the Western world and their banking friends– the real criminals and conspiratorial traitors.

And let us not forget, it is the real conspiratorial traitors of the world who decide what should be secret, and what is fit for public knowledge. The real traitors decide that the at the likes of Bradley Manning and Ed Snowden are guilty.

As for: "malicious releases have caused to UK PLC is likely to cost us all £millions". I recall one release of a deliberately malicious political document that falsely claimed that WMD from Iraq could threaten the West within 45 minutes. And that document was used to justify a cost to the UK taxpayer of many £millions, the loss of British lives, and the loss of thousands of Iraqi lives.

With the same mindset you would have Dr David Kelly up on charges of breaching the OSA?

Is that right?