Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
The 30 year rule?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
Or the 100 year rule?
Can there be a justifiable reason why certain documents are kept hidden from public view, for 30, 50, or even 100 years. It is perfectly understandable, when such documents may be regarded as pertaining to national security(Military), however., it is quite obvious, that other documents are only withheld to prtect certain individuals reputations. Take the file's on the Craig/Bentley case. A case that has been argued over now for almost 60 years. Yet, I beleive the files of this case are marked, "Not to be opened until 2052." A century after the events for which they were compiled... and again, with the recent reference to Hillsborough. Why do such files have to be kept hidden from the public. If they are "above board", why do such documents need to be kept secret??? Is it not a fact that Britain really is a fascist state, and is becoming moreso, by the day??? -
Message 2
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
An interesting question.
I just found out that all records to "Buster Crabb" have been deemed of such sensitivity that they will not be opened till the 2050's
Which seems a long,long time to me.
Vf -
Message 3
Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
Can there be a justifiable reason why certain documents are kept hidden from public view, for 30, 50, or even 100 yearsΒ
With the exception of papers which contain current military hardware secrets and IMO only of course , - No. -
Message 4
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
The rule, originally 50 years, but reduced to 30 years by Harold Wilson in 1968, was designed to ensure that the release of government papers did not embarrass any minister or official who might still be holding public office. The longest span between first being appointed to the Cabinet and finally leaving it is probably the 47 years held by Sir Winston Churchill who was appointed President of the Board of Trade by H.H.Asquith in April 1908 and finally retired as Prime Minister in April 1955. The longest span between first entering and finally leaving the government is probably the 58 years held by Lord Palmerston who was appointed a Junior Lord of the Admiralty by the Duke of Portland in 1807, a few months after first becoming an MP, and who died in office as Prime Minister in October 1865.
However these terms are exceptional and most ministers' careers do not last much beyond 20 years (Wilson's span in Cabinet lasted from September 1947 to April 1976 so, even under the 30-year rule none of his Cabinet papers were released whilst he was still in government although those during the Attlee Government were released whilst he was still an MP) and there is a formal retiring age of 60 for senior civil servants. This ensures that the papers are of historical interest alone and cannot be used as weapons of current political controversy.
The rule also ensures that a new government cannot release the papers of their defeated opponents in order to embarrass them politically. Of course whilst a government can waive the 30-year rule to maintain secrecy in policy areas such as national security and diplomatic relations and other areas, such as matters concerning the Royal Family (many of the papers concerning the Abdication of Edward VIII are still kept under wraps) the waiver can also go the other way. For example, Attlee ordered that the whole of the Cabinet archives covering the period of WWII be transported to Chartwellso that Churchill could research his war memoirs and he was allowed to quote and reproduce them extensively.
The longest potential span in Cabinet by a current politician is probably that of Ken Clarke who first entered the Cabinet, on Mrs Thatcher's appointment, as Paymaster-General in September 1985 (having been first appointed as an Assistant Whip by Edward Heath in April 1972). So, conceivably, if the Conservatives are returned to office at the next election, he could still be sitting in Cabinet when the papers for this period are released at the beginning of 2016. -
Message 5
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
Alan D,
A succinct summary if ever I saw one. But to chew over the morality of the whole ruling. As one who worked in a safety related industry where I served as a Union rep' and often had to defend fellow workers for misdemeanors, could I make a few comments?
One of the most unfair aspects (well, as far as I was concerned) was that I sometimes represented staff who, with only seconds available to make up their minds, made mistakes. These errors were then scrutinized by much higher paid management, who with rule books before them and with plenty of time for deliberation then sat in judgement. The decisions were usually fair but sometimes not so.
Take for example the Moorgate train crash in 1975. Here a driver Newson ran at full speed into the blocked end of a tunnel with sadly loss of life. In the immediate aftermath the press were full of stories of Drivers reading books while driving. Drivers hanging bags on the 'Dead Man's Handle' to negate the safety device. Stories of drink related incidents. When the driver's body was examined and no traces of noxious substances were found in his bloodstream then 'BIZARRE FORM OF SUCICIDE' was trumpeted in the press. Meanwhile of course the family of the driver and the victims had to endure the attentions of the media and suffer as a result. When the inquest at last deliberated, no cause for the crash was established, except the likelihood that the driver actually mistook his location and continued at full speed thinking at the terminal was two stations away instead of the next. Meanwhile the facts that the sand-drag (an arrangement of sand spread between the over-run area of the tracks to slow any accidental over-run had been so depleted over the years that it was virtually useless (where had the safety checks been carried out?) and the 'Trip-cock' device (a ground based safety device) had been removed so that the 'turn-round time' of the trains could be faster during the peak hours seemed to have been overlooked. Both these devices though perhaps not preventing the accident might well have saved at least some lives. As far as I'm aware the names of those responsible for these actions never received the same publicity as Driver Newson. Sorry to be so long winded but to me this is an example of how publicity can be an enemy of the whole truth.
When we come to politics then I think the problems are manifestly worse. Protect our National secrets by all means; but is there anyone out there who thinks that democracy is best served by the suppression of a politicians mistakes? Is it right that we should concern ourselves with the fiddling of expense accounts when some actions that might have led to the unnecessary deaths are hidden from view to protect a mistake or a man's reputation? Should not a man who receives perhaps a high salary and enjoys a lifestyle far above that of an Underground driver face the same 'justice' as that of an ordinary man?
I can recall too a certain Prime Minister seeking an injunction against the publication of 'Spycatcher' by Peter Wright. Freedom of speech threatened because 'the publication might embarrass MI5' to use the oft quoted words. Yet there was consistency at least. I regret that I will be dead by the time the truth about the Belgrano affair, for one recent example. ever sees light, if it ever does. (What a shame it prevents me a further rant!)
Is it right that the great and the good can sit in their chambers of office and pontificate on the activities of those in foreign lands knowing full well that they can rely on complete anonymity for their own misdeeds?
Like Samuel Pepys 'I wonder if at this moment in time and in this place we cannot tell the truth.' -
Message 6
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
Yet as far as I'm aware books such as Bravo Two Zero and moreso Immidiate Action seem to get overwhelming publicity when they us not very much IMHO. Tho IA was near the knuckle when it came to the stuff with "The Det" in Ulster.
-
Message 7
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
I was under the impression that it had something to do with life expectancy, much like Census records? Perhaps a decision was taken somewhere along the line, no doubt as you suggest by officialdom wishing to protect reputations or such like, that sensitive material should only be made public when the public had "forgotten" the details?
Maybe someone can enlighten me a bit here! -
Message 8
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Thursday, 23rd April 2009
Excellently succinct Spruggles.
I made mention of the Craig/Bentley case. It seems that the way that that case was conducted added up to Judicial murder. A young man, who illegally on the roof of a building which he and his friend intended to rob. A policeman (P.C. Miles) is shot dead by the younger Craig (who was too young to hang). Bentley, who was reputed to have been in police custody at the time that PC Miles was shot, is reputed to have said, "Let Him Have It Chris!" Although, to what Bentley was refering, or whether he ever made such a remark has always been open to speculation. The fact is, that within about six weeks of the events of the night, Bentley was taken to a place.... And hung by the neck until he was dead.
So, the question remains, should those in any position of power, have the right, within a so-called democratic society, to withhold information which is of releveance to the truth and facts of a case, especially when the life of a potentially innocent person is at stake??? -
Message 9
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Thursday, 23rd April 2009
Craig/Bentley was an open and shut case of police perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice actively and enthusiastically supported by the then Lord Cheif Justice and Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Secretary, but I can't see what it had to do with the 30 year rule which applies to cabinet papers and other official govt. documents.
The rule is part of the Victorian model of the British Constitution as outlined by Bageot. Britain is a representative democracy in which MPs are elected as representatives not deleagtes, i.e, they are put into power to exercise judgement on behalf of the electorate and not to do what the voters want at any given moment. The voters will have their oppotunity to pass judgement on the people in office only after they have exhausted their term of mandate.
That is why there would be no place in the British system for the American system of recall elections whereby voters can petition for an early vote to remove an unpopular office-holder.
There are many problems inherent in this system, mainly based around the fact that the folks in power get to decide how much power they should have (The Sovereignty of Parliament) which is in theory held in check by the Soverignty of the People expressed in elections, but which is compromised when voters are left with what economists would call imperfect information with which to make their choices.
And I think we all know what happened to Commander Crabbe, but not what communications passed between London and Moscow in the aftermath, and how any of that might relate to the Litvinenko murder as a potential breach of any 'understandings' that might have been previously agreed. -
Message 10
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 24th April 2009
Amphion,
Ta for your response. I did not refer to the Craig/Bentley fiasco, excellent example as it is because I wanted to use a civil case rather than a criminal one where in my opinion justice was in error.
However, another aspect of these Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Office rulings also causes me some anxiety. How can we be sure that these documents when filed away are a complete an accurate account of the matter in hand, for example, a cabinet meeting of some import? Can we be sure that they are not amended or abridged or to use a modern parlance, 'sexed up' in any way? Of course, if at some future date they don't quite tally with other accounts then the only way to be absolutely sure
of their authenticity is to cross examine, under oath either the person responsible for the statements or the recorder ... er .. but they're all dead and buried aren't they. Am I just an old cynic or does the smell of certain rodents pervade other nostrils as well as my own? -
Message 11
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Friday, 24th April 2009
Exactly. By the time such documents are released, those responsible for same are all dead.
And, of course, when viewing moments in time from an Historical viewpoint, there is the danger that the modern day historian will view such matters from a modern day stand point, rather than putting such events into the context of the time the events relate too. (An example, would be the modern day view of those soldiers who were shot at dawn during the great war, as opposed to the view which was popular at the time of the war itself, that these men were all cowards, who would let the nasty hun ravage their own mothers rather than defend her honour!) -
Message 12
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 24th April 2009
Greetings Amphion,
Absolutely. The habit of judging events or people by modern standards has always annoyed me too. Your point about those shot at dawn is a valid one. Interviews with the fellow soldiers of that time certainly show little sympathy for those who deserted. -
Message 13
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th April 2009
Maxwell-Fyffe who was the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Secretary at the time of the Craig-Bentley case and loudly criticised by the Labour Opposition at the time for not giving a reprieve to Bentley (he could not overturn the murder conviction of Bentley but could have substituted life imprisonment instead of the death penalty) is reported to have said that, had he given Bentley a reprieve, there would probably have been a police strike in the Met, if not nationally, and he was receiving hundreds of letters every day from police officers threatening to resign if he gave Bentley a reprieve.
-
Message 14
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Saturday, 25th April 2009
'Ah judgement. thou hast fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason'.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.