[Closed] The Sub-mariner wiki leaker

Can anyone explain to me who would invade Britain and why?...Ow, bugger, my eye, who shot that arrow?

I can't comment on the things he said but, if he broke the Official Secrets Act in releasing material, then find him, lock him up and throw away the key.

No excuses.

Rachel

Let's say he'd released a load of docs from MI5/6 about known paedophiles who'd been let off as they had friends in high places?

Still feel the same way about it?

ninfan - Member

Ow, bugger, my eye, who shot that arrow?

To be fair, citybuster nuclear strikes might not be an entirely proportional or timely response here

I think some people are missing Rachel's point here. To some extent signing the OSA to work in defence related stuff (as I have done) has to be an absolute thing. Releasing stuff into the public domain because you think it is in the public interest is a dangerous thing to do, because you don't know what connections the enemy might be able to make from it. Summed up by this comment:

[quote=allthegear ]This sailor is not in a position to know whether the information allegedly leaked can be combined with other information to create a serious security issue.

I'm trying to think of an example, but it's quite difficult as even mentioning the sort of information would be a security issue, despite it seeming innocuous to most people.

Remember the HMS Astute shooting?

I remember helping to look after 'em in SGH.

Shocking event.

Releasing stuff into the public domain because you think it is in the public interest is a dangerous thing to do, because you don't know what connections the enemy might be able to make from it.

aracer - Member

Releasing stuff into the public domain because you think it is in the public interest is a dangerous thing to do, because you don't know what connections the enemy might be able to make from it.

But that's kind of the point; if the allegations are true or even slightly true then not releasing it can also be dangerous. So it stops being about absolutes. This is why you absolutely have to have a good reporting chain but (again if true) if that's not the case then that's really the fault of the organisation not the whistleblower.

Probably stuff has happened and some stuff may be exagerated, but due to secrecy laws us the tax payer will never find out.

Having met one submariner i definately wouldnt want to be submerged in a giant steel sausage with nuclear bombs and a nuclear reactor for company.

On the tangent of submariners being a bit bonkers..

A family friend of my dad's was a career-long submariner, started out on the diesel fleet boats then moved over to the missile boomers.
He worked his way up the ladder til he was one of the two blokes stop in the missile launch room with one of the keys - his ultimate (& probably final) job was to be Britain's last line of defense, turn the key and call down armageddon.
He did that job for ten years, & was then posted to a desk job prior to retirement.
He proceeded to have a breakdown, his wife was called in to see the Medical Officer/head doctor to have explained to her just what his job had been, and why the stress of that job had cracked him up when he was told he was surplus to requirements.
His wife never knew what he did, she knew his rank, and his boat and that was it. The job was never discussed, never alluded to, even though he was gone for 3 months at a stretch.

Doesn't sound like a job many could cope with tbh.

Footflaps:

Let's say he'd released a load of docs from MI5/6 about known paedophiles who'd been let off as they had friends in high places?
Still feel the same way about it?

Yes, absolutely

Rachel

Let's say he'd released a load of docs from MI5/6 about known paedophiles who'd been let off as they had friends in high places?

Uncomfortable though it might be, but what if that Mi5/6 information led to the blackmailing of a senior leader in a terrorist organisation, giving information that directly and uniquely led to the prevention of numerous terrorist attacks and saved hundreds of lives.

Not wishing to infer any names of course...

I concede that we are unfortunatley headed into benthamism/utilitarianism here.

Yes, absolutely

Rachel

What if the govt was involved in an undercover operation to circumvent democracy and get the present govt re-elected by fiddling the results?

What if they were arranging to kill the current leader of say the Green party?

None of this could be spoken out about because they signed up to the OSA
again i am not seeing a reason here as to why it ALWAYS must be obeyed

Maybe the entire thing is a double bluff?

Lull our "enemies" into a false sense of security by them thinking that our Nuclear Deterrent is a bit pony, but really, it's fine?

#tinfoilhattery

What if the paedophiles who MI5/6 are protecting are heavily involved in the arms industry and perpetuating war?

How about if the enemy (who thus far has no reason to invade the UK), is only the enemy because MI5/6 and their counterparts in CIA etc supplied them with weapons in the 1st place and then stirred up trouble?

[quote=maxtorque ]Maybe the entire thing is a double bluff?
Lull our "enemies" into a false sense of security by them thinking that our Nuclear Deterrent is a bit pony, but really, it's fine?
#tinfoilhattery

That would seem like an extremely bad way to use a nuclear [b]deterrent[/b] - which is what makes me think in this case (which isn't anything like revealing a paedophile cover up) the leaked information is extremely damaging to national security. It doesn't really matter much if it's a bit crap so long as everybody thinks it's fully functional.

Didn't the Daily Wail publish a load of Shock! Horror! exposé stuff fairly recently about the current state of (un)readiness of our nuclear boats? In which case this is a classic case of horse/stable-door/bolting.

my bro-in law is an officer in the RN, he did some time on a sub (non trident), iirc his main complaint was that it was very smelly!

he does have some interesting stories regarding getting his ship refitted and modernised being a complete balls up, massively overran, MOD having a leaky contract that let the company (possibly bae?) walk away with no penalties, despite making a series of huge mistakes

I dont think anyone is surprised by that type of poor organisation and management, so Id be inclined to believe the leaker about [u]some[/u] of his stuff, but at the same time he does sound like a bit of a gullible twonk, and a lot seems to be based on rumours and hearsay

Have a little knowledge of this and he is speaking absolute crap. Without any disrespect someone of his rank would not have the education, training or experience to understand the majority of things that he is talking about.

He also seems to miss out the 500 Royal Marines based in Faslane to protect the submarines. Whoops!!

Can anyone explain to me who would invade Britain and why?

Foreigners, because they want jobs, housing and access to the finest health service in the world. Clearly we need to be able to nuke them before they get here 🙂

Bloody foreigners, clogging up our national health service with their skills and work ethic!!

In other news, [url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/18/fallon-urged-act-whistleblowers-claims-trident-nuclear-subs ]a 2nd whistleblower has come forward echoing the claims[/url]

Euan Bryson, 25, told the Guardian that McNeilly’s concerns about security breaches “rang true from my experience”. He described how a shipmate routinely used a blue bank card to get past security into his base after losing his Royal Navy identity card on a night out.

Bryson, who served on HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious and was based at Faslane before leaving the service in 2013, said there were “manning issues” across the board meaning that relatively junior employees were often tasked to do jobs they did not have the security training or clearance to carry out

There's a [url= https://www.change.org/p/ministry-of-defence-crown-office-don-t-prosecute-the-trident-whistle-blower ]petition[/url], if like me, you think responsible whistleblowers should not be prosecuted

He described how a shipmate routinely used a blue bank card to get past security into his base after losing his Royal Navy identity card on a night out

No doubt the conversation started with 'pull up a bollard' ended with the phrase 'true dit' and our mystery shipmate was named 'Harry Losters' 😆

For those who reckon it's all made up... At that point, I suppose they can't charge him with leaking secrets 😆

But I dunno, I'm seeing lots of people spending a lot of time targeting the silly stuff- like the gym in the missile bay, which is just standard practice- and basically trying to undermine him as a witness for the daft stuff, while ignoring the more serious stuff, some of which also seems more credible. It'll be interesting to see what he can substantiate (like the sws manual video frinstance)

The lad is young and quite naive and full of idealism as we all were when we started out. He probably joined the Navy with an idea that everything would be perfect, disciplined and hunky-dory. Unfortunately he is serving in a submarine that is known to be at the end of its service life and we all know about the political arguments surrounding its replacement. It's possible that the older members of the crew have been winding him up as well, sensing his naivety and idealism.

In all walks of life you can be over-concerned by the small details while ignoring the bigger picture. I know that at that stage in my working life I saw things that I thought were wrong and felt like blowing the whistle; I still do towards the end of my working life but the bigger picture is that my employer is in rude good health, doing well and recruiting every month.

I fear the worst for him once the Navy catches up with him.

The removal of Charles I head demonstrated that the king was not above the law,

Neither should our govt be above the law.

What is needed is a mechanism for absolute protection of whistleblowers while providing security for the information until it is assessed by an independent (of the govt dept/arm) body.

If those subs were in London, would you prefer to know about his allegations or not?

I support his actions, but he has taken a road that leads to consequences.

If there is a crowdfunding for his defence, I'll contribute.

Not that any of his allegations sound actually serious, but you still need proper whistle blower's protection for the Official Secrets Act. In this particular case, he just seems to be attention seeking.

What is needed is a mechanism for absolute protection of whistleblowers while providing security for the information until it is assessed by an independent (of the govt dept/arm) body.

you cannot just say he signed a piece of paper so no matter what someone finds out in their employment no matter how bad or illegal or dangerous they just cannot say anything about it ever.

Its draconian. I still dont understand why folk think like this tbh

"independent body"

oh my aching sides, are you lot really that quick to support yet another branch of government, solely concerned with the processing and welfare of whistleblowers. Lets tie it in to the snoopers charter.

you dont know who is behind that and you dont know where the money to fund the creation of a small secure cleared team will come from

but if the media suggests it, its essential.

By all means feel free to engage in a debate and explain why you think whistelblowers dont need protection or some such but hurling [gentle]insults without really making any substantive points [ whilst its very STW] has not really help me persuaded to your view point- nor fully understand what it is.

FWIW I have no idea what "the media" thinks on this issue - can I criticise your view for being the same as the "security services" or other stazi type figures?

Given that we can't get an effective working whistleblowing structure in place within the NHS, do you really think that could work with information critical to the nations defence?

^ there is your starter if you want it JY.
It is a hugely complicated area, populated by both "evil empire" and "confused conspiricists"

In principle i agree that the government, military, police cannot be above the law. I also understand that full transparency does not simply mean to UK citizens but the entire planet which in matters of gov, mil, pol is clearly unfeasible.

(take the media critisicm over the coverage over the hostage situation in Aus - full immediate disclosure seriously compromised the operation.)

Who says what is released and when and how?
Who determines, who that "Who" is?
Who overseas all of that?
How can we ever get JHJ to stop thinking they have scaley skin.

feel free to go round and round in circles over this one tho.

soobalias, people have been calling for this for years- Deepcut, GW1 and 2 (*), you name it. It's neither new or media led.

ninfan - Member

Given that we can't get an effective working whistleblowing structure in place within the NHS, do you really think that could work with information critical to the nations defence?

It might be hard, so let's not bother? It's even more important to have good systems in place for military matters due to the security concerns. The inevitable result of not having something durable in place, is leaks and risks.

(*That'd be GW, and MTBEL, both a clear and present danger)

Humans cannot do many things perfectly ...except argue 😛
We cannot do child protection that means ever child is safe. I dont think this means we just dont bother
The principle of supporting whistle blowing is what we are debating. I am not going to do a policy initiative with a fleshed out plan of how to implement it for the sake of an internet debate. I do , of course, accept that its implementation would be fraught with difficult questions but we are debating whether it is legitimate for someone who signs the OSA to be able to Whistle blow

If you are happy to accept that whistle blowing should be allowed I am happy to accept it would be difficult to implement for some of the reasons noted above.

my bro-in law is an officer in the RN, he did some time on a sub (non trident), iirc his main complaint was that it was very smelly!

he does have some interesting stories regarding getting his ship refitted and modernised being a complete balls up, massively overran, MOD having a leaky contract that let the company (possibly bae?) walk away with no penalties, despite making a series of huge mistakes.

Last summer my son spent two weeks in industry as part of his year 10 studies. He spent the first week at my company, where he was kept busy and where time passed quickly. He definitely learned a bit about business and was impressed by the professionalism of the staff, if not his Dad!

By contrast he spent week two at BAE Systems where despite the huge prestige of the company he was bored, he received no tasks and apart from the tours of the facilities he learned nothing but the art of male banter and the avoidance of work; he says that in one week he saw very little real work actually happening.

whether it is legitimate for someone who signs the OSA to be able to Whistle blow

to the media, to the internet, to the public - no
through an officially sanctioned channel - yes

and there are already channels in place, just because the individual doesnt think those channels can be trusted to act/react in a manner which they deem appropriate, does not give the individual the right to circumvent the process.

you cant bring down the system from the outside.

So he's back and in custody. I guess he'll just have to wave a blank piece of blue card and he'll be out again.

to the media, to the internet, to the public - no
through an officially sanctioned channel - yes

My motives are clearly to protect the people and land. Whatever happens, don’t worry about me; I’ll be alright.

there are already channels in place, just because the individual doesnt think those channels can be trusted to act/react in a manner which they deem appropriate, does not give the individual the right to circumvent the process.

This, the Chain of Command exists for a reason, if you really feel your concerns are being ignored, go higher up it.

Over the years working for many customers ive heard numerous stories about wrong doings at workplaces and lots of stories about how they where covered up to protect the guilty, who where either promoted or just told to leave.

Stuff happens everyday in the industrial sector and the services along with the nhs,fire and police.

the Chain of Command exists for a reason, if you really feel your concerns are being ignored, go higher up it.

What if the chain of command is the one doing the ordering and sanctioning of it?

On a practical level could a lowly person get an appointment with the boss in any organisation never mind the armed forces.
If you moaned at every level and just kept going over their head you would be viewed as a trouble maker no matter what your concerns were
Its not that practical a suggestion

What if the chain of command is the one doing the ordering and sanctioning of it?

If you moaned at every level and just kept going over their head you would be viewed as a trouble maker no matter what your concerns were