Despite claims from some of our politicians that they are in favour of the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act there is little evidence of any fervent enthusiasm for this. Would it really make a difference in any case? There will undoubtedly be exclusions – commercial confidentiality, national securtiy and no doubt “protection” for various groups will surely all play a part in restricting our access to information.
There may indeed be a few cases where secrecy is necessary. However, minutes should be kept of all government meetings. Yet we discover from a UK MP, no less, that high level meetings between the UK Justice Department and their island “counterparts” were not always recorded in the past
There are regular meetings between officials in the Ministry of Justice and their counterparts in the Isle of Man and it would not be possible to list each one. Some of these meetings have taken place in the Isle of Man, some in the Ministry of Justice and some in other Government Departments. In general no formal or permanent record of these meetings is kept and most often action points are agreed between the respective officials.
This sounds very much like the Chatham House Rule so valued by Common Purpose. Why the secrecy? Do Common Purpose practices play a part in our government? Do we have Common Purpose graduates within government? This is essential information and should be openly available to the public. If a secret society is operating within the civil service then this cannot be ignored.
Blanket secrecy is merely one step beyond jargon. And the entire point of jargon is to baffle the bright inquisitor into believing that something quite simple is in reality unfeasibly complex. The recurring bleat of the security services when they have screwed up bigtime is that something must be kept secret “because the ordinary citizen cannot possibly comprehend what’s at stake”. About 10% of the time, I am persuaded to accept that. In the remaining 90% of cases, the only thing at stake is some incompetent bureaucrat’s pension.
Whether it was the original intention or not, secrecy breeds injustice: that ill-defined 10% of secrecy is necessary to protect the fluffy tendency from its own gullibility. But nine times out of ten, secrecy is a cloak to hide mediocrity, depravity, corruption, perversion, and every other form of moral weakness.
The article linked above is well worth reading.
(Taking the secrecy issue a step further the writer goes on to quote instances of cover-ups linked to paedophilia – a topic that isn’t going away ):
I offer the following to you as facts, although a combination of gagging orders and libel laws mean I cannot type those facts which prove my claims beyond all reasonable doubt:
* In the south-west of England, Masonic influence in the judiciary has enabled serial paedophiles to get away with, literally, murder.
* In the West Midlands and North Yorkshire, endemic paedophilia hidden with the connivance of Common Purpose has kept many a Labour Party local government disgrace secret.
* In the Principality of Wales and the English Home Counties, both Common Purpose and the Masons have been implicated in the illegal protection of paedophiles from justice. In one case, some of the most powerful legislators and administrators in the Land have found themselves the helpless victims of blackmail in this regard
The bottom line is that only we can put a stop to unncessary secrecy. If we don’t demand it then our MHKs will assume that they and their pensions are safe for another term.