X Files to be Destroyed

[tycroes1]

 
Seems like we are going to be kept even further in the dark........Don't ya just love this free society we live in? 
 
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/UFO-Future-Unidentified-Flying-Object-Reports-To-Be-Destroyed-By-MoD-Memo-Reveals/Article/201002415562027?lpos=Strange_News_Carousel_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15562027_UFO%3A_Future_Unidentified_Flying_Object_Reports_To_Be_Destroyed_By_MoD%2C_Memo_Reveals

[Mike]

Is that legal? Once a file is created by a public office, I didn't think it could be just destroyed simply to avoid a "Freedom of Information" request or having to explain to the public. There is something not quite right here. If a member of the British public reports an anomalous or suspicious  incident to a recognised authority, there must be a record made of that report. To subsequently destroy it must be wrong, no matter how much utter crap you may fill the files up with.
Hmmm. This is not right! We seem to have an unbelievable arrogance creeping into the attitudes of our public servants who are, after all, paid out of tax payers money. First we have Members of Parliament who don't know their place... now, it seems, the military and their civil servants are getting a bit above themselves. Ever get the impression that our government isn't fit for purpose any more? 

Is anybody else angry about this?... Or is it just me rabbiting on in the corner here? 

[Steve Watkins]

I am annoyed as well Mike - the trouble is it's like anything. The NHS archives material for so long but in the end some of it can be destroyed under certain circimstances etc - I think it is to reduce the level of storage space needed otherwise we would need buildings just for paperwork!

[Melanie]

Is there anything we can do to stop this?

[Mike]

May be, rather than destroying the files out of hand - by whose authority, btw? - it could be suggested that they are offered to interested parties or an appointed voluntary "guardian" organisation with a genuine interest. This would have to be a nominated recipient. Obviously some fine tuning required, but something like this might work. Chances are, with UFO/ET anomalies, we are going to run out of time anyway, or be overtaken by events, at the very least, so perhaps there is no point in getting steamed up about it now. Could be the authorities know that too! 

The worrying aspect about this trend to be a bit cavalier with official documents is that it might spread to other publicly submitted "reports", for example regarding the misbehaviour of say police officers, civil servants, local councillors or other public figures and employees. How long before... for a small consideration... any report can be made to disappear without question. Objections to planning applications, for example. Looks as if we have a potential nest of vipers developing here.... 

[t2hlim]

The worrying aspect about this trend to be a bit cavalier with official documents is that it might spread to other publicly submitted "reports",
===========================================
 
exactly....
 
their attitude seems to be...
 
1. we've kept secrets...
2. youve found/asked too much...
3. FOI has given you some info so we're seen to be NOT hiding anything...
4. now you can pi** off cos we're gonna burn everything (except we're not going to) so you cant get to it...
 
hmmm..
 
these people are unbelievable....
 
dog...I wish I was suddenly a dictator...dog..I'd punish these bas****s !!! 
 
 
rgds
 
T-pot     ---- (like 'pol' only bigger)
 
 
 
 

[jillh10]

PMSL@T

[Steve Watkins]

Is there anything we can do to stop this?

Well Melanie have a look at this site:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1

namely at this section:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_9#pt8-l1g77

The way iI read this is they are destroying information to prevent disclosure so it is an offence?


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_9#pt8-l1g77

77Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure(1)Where—
(a)a request for information has been made to a public authority, and
(b)under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] DataProtection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject topayment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordancewith that section,
any person to whom this subsection appliesis guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroysor conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intentionof preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, ofthe information to the communication of which the applicant would havebeen entitled.
(2)Subsection (1) applies to thepublic authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officerof, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority.
(3)A person guilty of an offenceunder this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine notexceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(4)No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted—
(a)in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;
(b)in Northern Ireland, except by theCommissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of PublicProsecutions for Northern Ireland.

[Mike]

Nice one Steve! I had a feeling there was an offence involved somewhere, but hadn't a clue where to start looking. A point to raise with one's local MP, I suppose. For starters, anyway. 

[jillh10]

Right...I think we need to get this out in the open...but who do we talk to?  We need to do something but, I usually end up doing whatever it is on my own because no bugger elkse turns up