SCRO

[observer]

Mr Dastardly,

For our foriegn readers -

The UK Official Secrets Act: almost everyone in the employ of a UK government agency, police force, armed force, contracters, etc, sign the Act at the start of their employment. There have been occasions when re-signing is required.

It is not exclusive to "secure government jobs". If you don't sign it, you don't work. It is a requirement. Chief Constables and dinner ladies sign it.

When you leave your employment with a UK agency your responsibilities under the Act do not end - when you sign, it is a contract for life.

___________________________________________

When the Justice 1 Committee reported, the Scottish Executive accepted every aspect of their report bar one: Cathy Jamieson, Justice Minister, disputed the Committee's surprise that there was no aspect of the McKie settlement that required both sides no longer discuss the matter publicly.

The settlement for the four now-redundant and one redeployed SCRO experts contained a non-disclosure agreement. (my rumour was that it was five pages long, but that was a pub rumour)

Yesterday, three weeks after this agreement, Mr McKie and Mr Mike Russell were promoting, in public, in the presence of the media, reported by the media, their new book on the saga. One side of the saga.

The Executive is happy for Mr McConnell, First Minister and Ms Jamieson, Justice Minister, to discuss the matter whenever they wish. But it must be remembered that the six SCRO experts were not party to the settlement, they were excluded from it by the Executive.

The question must inevitably be: if it was acceptable to the Scottish Executive, via the Justice Minister, that they were happy that the McKie side of the story continues to be told, why did they demand - they undisputably did - that the now-redundant experts sign non-disclosure agreements?

Are there any experts, who haven't picked a side, who really want to know?

Regards
O

[Dick Dastardly]

I am, not for the first time, confused.

Apart from the fact that not everyone in government employment does "sign the official secrets act" [and how ridiculous your suggestion is is demonstrated by what you say], my confusion is this: when was it allegedly signed by SCRO employees? Was it before Miss McBride spoke with the media? Or did they agree to a gagging order as it has been put, at the time they were threatened with the sack?

Simple question. Can no one provide a simple answer?

It is wrong to say that SCRO were "not involved in the settlement". They gave statements to the Executive (and not the McKie's side for reasons best known to them). The Executive was plainly unimpressed by them, and SCROs position. They therefore settled. I accept that SCRO did not make the offer, but they can hardly claim not to have some bearing on the result.

Can we look forward to them suing if anything in the book suggests that they were wrong and incompetent? No doubt their wealthy union would fund such litigation. And where was that union when the hard negotiation was done to sack them?

Just another mystery. And I must look at the Official Secrets Act to see if dinner ladies really must sign it. YOu learn something new every day.....

[Daktari]

Unfortunately much of Itiel Dror’s can not be independently reassessed, that why it is not taken too seriously by any one other that McKie and his supporters. I think it may have been Pat Wertheim who said that it seems nowadays almost anyone can have ‘research’ published.
What further diminishes Dror’s work is his propensity to have it reviewed primarily by well-known McKie supporters.
I’m afraid to say that’s a bit like your own, Steve

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Daktari, I do not believe it was me who said "that it seems nowadays almost anyone can have 'research' published." I might suggest that at any time since the invention of the printing press, anybody can publish anything he wants. Actually, I believe that nowadays valid research is published in peer reviewed journals more than ever before, which makes it harder to get invalid research published than in the past. If you look back at Identification News or Fingerprint Whorld prior to peer review being instituted, much more silliness was printed then than today.

The problem with Itiel Dror's work is that it is being used in ways never intended by Dr. Dror himself. He has consistently warned against making broad application of his research to try and prove that fingerprints are unreliable. I believe he has especially spoken out against using his research in this particular case, too.

The critics of fingerprint reliability such as Dr. Dror, Dr. Simon Cole, Steve Horn, and Lisa Steele (who I include because she posts regularly on this site) all have stated that they believe a majority of fingerprint identifications are reliable because they involve large areas of print with clear detail. I believe I am correct in interpreting their criticisms to apply to small, distorted latent prints that lack the large area of clear detail we see in most fingerprint identifications.

If we take Dr. Dror's research, Dr. Cole's work, Mr. Horn's observations, and the work of other researchers seriously, we can learn much of value from them. If we dismiss them and their work simply because they are "critics," we do them a disservice and we ignore some very real problems they expose. My disagreement with them is an issue of scale. I believe the problems they expose are real, but apply to only a very small number of cases. I believe the general reliability of fingerprint identification is well established and goes well beyond "a reasonable doubt."

It seems to me that in the murder of Marion Ross, the issues of whether this party or that committed perjury, who took a settlement and who did not get a fair settlement, who remained silent when they could have spoken up, who was or was not here or there, did or did not have sex, did or did not know something or the other, slandered another or merely exposed slander, should all be irrelevant to the fingerprint community. The issues that should be of concern to us are these: First, were the identifications of Y-7 and QI-2 erroneous? Second, if dishonest or incompetent actions occured on the part of fingerprint experts, have those persons been dealt with fairly and properly? Third, what can we learn from it all and how can our community move forward with confidence that we have reduced the chances of another situation like this developing?

I believe that in the absence of a Judicial Enquiry, the answers to those questions will be virtually impossible to assess.

[charlton97]

Pat, thank you for your support of our research, though I suspect such support will only serve to give Daktari the ammunition he so desperately craves.

The trouble is that you are quite right, research can be all things to all men. Opinion and dogma cloud good science. You know, once upon a time there were a few scientists who dared to stand up against accepted practice. The accepted ways were Bertillionage, that is to say anthropometric measurement of humans. Then came along fingerprints. At first there was horror at the way bertillion and his science was treated. Fingerprints became established. Now we are in the domain of post 911 and guess what, biometrics are adopting much of what Bertillion used, that is to say head measurement, gait etc etc.

My point? Embrace scienec and new thinking Daktari because it just might have a point to make it it may not be as bad a message as you obviously think it will be. Are you afraid Daktari of the possible outcome? Or just the scientific research process? There is nothing to be afraid of in good science. By the way, it may not be taken seriously by you Daktari, but the British Psychological Society thought it worthy enough to award me, as Dr dror's researcher to be awarded the prestigious outstanding researcher award for new and upcomong researchers last year. Academia take our work very seruiously, scientisists take our work very seriously, the judiciary take our work very seriously. I am afraid that if fingerprints community share your opinion then it will be fingerprints with egg on face, not me or Dr Dror.
I am a fingerprint expert who has discovered there is life beyond dogma. Join me.

[Thomas Taylor]

Another interesting article:
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=593982007

Be sure and read the comments posted on the same page following the article. Much fun there, as here.

[H. B. James]

Interesting article. The book should be an interesting read.

Seems to me, if I were being slandered in a book, that is if lies were being told about me, I would threaten to sue for slander or libel. On the other hand, if an uncomfortable truth were being told that would potentially ruin my career, reputation, marriage, etc., I would threaten to sue to stop publication.

I'm just an interested reader, so what do I know? But I'm curious why anyone would threaten to sue to stop publication, then not actually follow through. Maybe because there was no basis for the suit to begin with? After all, you can't sue someone for publishing the truth.

[observer]

Mr Dastardly,

I must apoligise if I contributed to your confusion. I sometimes say "if you don't say what you mean, how can people know if you mean what you say..." In my last quote I mentioned "...police force, armed force, contracters (contractors)." Because of the context of the sentence I made a presumption that "UK government agencies" would be understood as those agencies concerned with national security, crime, diplomacy, affairs of the State, etc. My presumption, of course, was ridiculous.

However, below are a random selection of links regarding the requirement of these kinds of government agencies, police; plus a passage from the UK Act. Other readers don't have to trawl through them, but the important part is that it seems the organisations require ALL employees to adhere to the Act.

http://pso.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/pso81 ... ts-act.htm
http://www.north-wales.police.uk/_globa ... eaflet.pdf
http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/v3/ ... /index.htm
see ‘information for candidates’
http://www.durham.police.uk/recruitment/jobsonline.php
There are four post advertised. To save you looking, each contains:

9. OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS
Upon appointment with Durham Constabulary all employees will be
subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts, 1911, 1920 and
1989 and will observe secrecy in all matters that may come to their
notice whilst in the performance of the duties allotted to them and will
only divulge such matters if compelled by law or upon the instructions
of the Chief Constable, or other supervisory officer.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Uk ... htm#mdiv12
Please see point (e)

"Crown servant" and "government contractor".
12.—(1) In this Act "Crown servant" means—
(a) a Minister of the Crown;
(b) a person appointed under section 8 of the [1973 c. 36.] Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (the Northern Ireland Executive etc.);
(c) any person employed in the civil service of the Crown, including Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, the civil service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Court Service;
(d) any member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, including any person employed by an association established for the purposes of the [1980 c. 9.] Reserve Forces Act 1980;
(e) any constable and any other person employed or appointed in or for the purposes of any police force (including a police force within the meaning of the [1970 c. 9 (N.I.).] Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970);
(f) any person who is a member or employee of a prescribed body or a body of a prescribed class and either is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph or belongs to a prescribed class of members or employees of any such body;
(g) any person who is the holder of a prescribed office or who is an employee of such a holder and either is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph or belongs to a prescribed class of such employees.

Yep, even the dinner ladies. Who do you think serves the Chief Constable his soup? Who picks up his paperwork when he walks away from the table leaving it behind? Yep, the dinner lady. You do, indeed, learn something new every day?

Now, hopefully, that is settled.

But Mr Dastardly, when you say of the OFA "allegedly signed by the SCRO employees", it is inconceivable that as employees of Strathclyde Police Joint Board they would have not signed it. You are using "allegedly" in a disingenous manner, I believe.

With regards to SCRO employees speaking to the media (McBride and Dempster) I understand neither was investigated in terms of the Official Secrets Act, but in relation to the organisation's Media Policy.

You say 'It is wrong to say SCRO were "not involved in the settlement"'. Parties 1 and 2 excluded parties 3 to 6 on the day. They had that power and used it.


Now that you have learned something today, could you re-phrase your simple question, please.

Regards
O

[Thomas Taylor]

It seems to me that in the murder of Marion Ross, the issues of whether this party or that committed perjury, who took a settlement and who did not get a fair settlement, who remained silent when they could have spoken up, who was or was not here or there, did or did not have sex, did or did not know something or the other, slandered another or merely exposed slander, should all be irrelevant to the fingerprint community. The issues that should be of concern to us are these: First, were the identifications of Y-7 and QI-2 erroneous? Second, if dishonest or incompetent actions occured on the part of fingerprint experts, have those persons been dealt with fairly and properly? Third, what can we learn from it all and how can our community move forward with confidence that we have reduced the chances of another situation like this developing?

Sorry, Pat. They just aren't listening.

[Dick Dastardly]

Outsider

I am sure it is only you who don't understand the point.

It was represented in the press that at the time of their "sacking", the six SCROs were gagged.

When asked why they agreed to that, it was suggested that in fact it was the Official Secrets Act that prevented them from speaking.

My point was that the two are inconsistent. Either they could not speak because of the Act ("signed" at the outset of their employment) or because of an agreement reached at the time of the sacking.

If it was the former, then Miss McBride, at least was in breach of it. If it was the latter, then why did they agree to it. (With me so far outsider???)

As an aside, I doubted that the Official Secrets Act applied. Your quote from the Act does nothing to help. Where, in the definition do SCRO fit? Remember please that the Strathclyde Joint Police Board denied that they had employed SCRO and were dropped from the action. So they were not police employees. This is a matter of public record. Surely SCRO know that!

This aside is not what is important. Can you just clarify, was it a voluntary gagging order, or was it under the ACt, agreed at the ouset of employment? Help me learn something new today as well.

[observer]

Mr Dastardly,

I am confused this morning, too. Not for the first time OUTSIDER and OBSERVER are getting the blame for each others' posts. Please take more care.

Now I understand you a little better, although Mr Outsider will be scrolling through his previous posts, wondering what he did wrong to deserve your surly tones.

My quotes from the Act informed you that dinner ladies, to whom I sensed you were a mite disrespectful, indeed have to sign/adhere to the Act when they get a job in a police organisation. You denied this.

"The Joint Board denied that they employed SCRO, and they were not police employees," you stated. I am indeed confused. Until the 1st April 2007 all civilian employees in the Glasgow Bureau were SPJB employees. You are making stuff up. Being disingenuous again.

Now that our asides are aside, "voluntary gagging order". That was a question for another forum member.

My question was, why did the Justice Minister agree with every aspect of the Justice 1 Commitee report, bar one, the committee's surprise that no non-disclosure/further public discussion agreement was made at the time of the McKie court settlement, while at the same time, as reported, (and repeated by yourself) that the four now-redundant/one re-deployed SCRO experts had such an agreement (voluntary or not) insisted upon by the Scottish Executive?

Why are one side out there, selling books about the story, and the rest of us want to know more of the other side, that side has been gagged? Why has one side been so effectively silenced?

You seem intent on suggesting that they signed it 'voluntarily', because they are happy to go, happy to keep their dirty secrets to themselves until the grave. That is where you are particularly disingenuous.

Regards
O

[Dick Dastardly]

Sorry outsider.

Observer:

No, I wish I was making it up. This was said by Lord Hodge (the whole opinion being available on http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006CSOH54.html.

The history of the action
[11] At the outset the pursuer's advisers were uncertain as to which public body was in law vicariously liable for alleged wrongs committed by officials of SCRO. To protect the pursuer's interests, her counsel raised the action against the Strathclyde Joint Police Board ("the Police Board") as well as the Scottish Ministers and also included the four officials who signed the report of 10 April 1997 as the third to sixth defenders. As pleaded until after the Procedure Roll debate, mentioned below, the pursuer's first plea-in-law, which encapsulated the legal ground on which she sought damages, was that she had suffered loss, injury and damage "through the fault and negligence, or deliberate acts of the third to sixth defenders".
[12] The uncertainty as to who was vicariously responsible for the acts of the third to sixth defenders appears to have been shared by the Police Board and the Scottish Ministers as both denied any such liability. This uncertainty resulted from the complex arrangements by which SCRO was funded and managed by the eight police authorities of Scotland and by the Scottish Executive but the Police Board employed the fingerprint experts within SCRO. Mr Doherty QC informed me that the Scottish Ministers, despite doubts as to the correct locus of vicarious liability, took the pragmatic approach of accepting that they had such liability. As a result, on 13 December 2002 the action so far as directed against the Police Board and the third to sixth defenders was dismissed and the action proceeded thereafter against only the Scottish Ministers. On 3 July 2003 the Court granted a motion at the instance of the Scottish Ministers for the recovery and inspection of the fingerprints, doorframe and tin by an advocate with the technical assistance of Mr John MacLeod, an independent fingerprint expert. Both parties obtained court orders for the recovery of documents.

It should be understood: first, that the confusion was as a result of a denial of liability (denial of employment that is); second, that the Police Board were denying that the SCRO were employed by them; and third that the SCRO officers were individually sued and they seemed unable to enlighten the confused.

You would think I had made it up? But, regrettably, not even my fertile mind for fiction could have made this one up.

So where does it leave us. Official Secrets Act or not?

I am not being disingenuous. I am saying, clearly, that this looks to me like a feeble excuse. How can it be that the SCRO are saying they are gagged under the OSA? [you know the script now, McBride blabbing....and added to that apparently a written denial in court by the Police Board of a suggestion that they might have employed the SCROs]

So, was it a voluntary gagging order, for a price by SCRO? I think we should be told. All a bit convenient.

What I find so irritating is that there are some out there who suggest that Shirley ran away. The reality is that SCRO continue to pretend that they cannot talk, and the reasons they give are spurious. And, to agree with comments on Scotsman web site, if they did actually talk, what Lord Advocate would dare to prosecute? Especially if the position is that the Crown Office were somehow complicit in them being hard done by.

[H. B. James]

In the overall scheme of things, this seems like such a minor little point Dick and Observer are debating. But I have to wonder about the claim that the SCRO experts have never had a chance to present their side of the story. First, several of them testified at the trials of David Asbury and Shirley McKie. Second, there seem to have been a lot of articles in the newspapers following Shirley McKie's trial for perjury. Third, they had a chance to give evidence to the inquiry headed by James MacKay, but as I understand it, they invoked their right to remain silent and not give evidence. Fourth, there seem to have been (and continue to be) several people posting on this forum using alias names who have inside information and make emotional postings that would indicate they may be inside or close to the SCRO. Fifth, and I believe Dick made this point, what if some of those who are now "retired" were to speak out? What if the four of them, or the six if you include the other two for whom the axe may soon fall, did speak out? What further punishment would be dealt out to them? What if one or more of them wrote a book or got a ghost writer to help them with one -- what could possibly be done to them for such impertinence? I guess the point I am trying to make is that if they really wanted to broadcast their side of the story to the world, what is truly stopping them?

[observer]

Mr Dastardly,

If they were not employed by Strathclyde Police Joint Board, then who paid their wages from 1997 to 2007? Ten years wages to six staff. I know the answer, and so do you.

SPJB and the Scottish Executive lawyers disputed who was responsible for them...? Well, we are dealing with lawyers, but I would throw in a wild guess that, beside not wanting to be the one paying, we are looking at the impact of devolution in 1999 where the split between central and local government funding for SCRO 51-49% later changed to 100% central....but we'll leave that out of this. That changes nothing because SPJB paid them for the last ten years.

In my earlier post I said that parties 1 and 2 excluded parties 3-6, you disputed this. But your quotation [12] confirms that 3-6 were excluded from the final decision, "...thereafter against only the Scottish Ministers."

Your last paragraph, about what irritates you, and Mr James's post seem to ask the same thing: can the experts speak out? Why don't they break whatever "gagging order" in place? I don't know. But, from press reports, there appears to be such a thing in place.

My question still remains: "voluntary" or not, why does it exist for them and not the other side?

Regards
O

[Dick Dastardly]

O

You are seeking to divert from what this debate commenced on. The Official Secrets Act.

It is absolutely clear from what was said by Lord Hodge that Strathclyde Police Joint Police Board denied having employed the SCROs. It was said that although they as a matter of fact handed over the money every month, the did so from funds provided by others. I cannot remember whom. But - and this is the important point - if they denied employment, where does this sit with the OSA?

I think we can all safely assume that the reason that SCRO will not talk is nothing to do with the OSA. As has been pointed out in this thread, although SCRO have been happy to talk (e.g. to the Scottish Executive's solicitors, but not to McKie's; in statements to the parliamentary inquiry; to the press; through their union to the BBC; through others on this and other sites and perhaps in person on this site) what they have not agreed to is an open and pubic debate.

There is only one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this: that they are not confident that their position can be sustained.

They gave evidence in Asbury: of course, they were obliged to do so having been called as witnesses by the court. They gave evidence in the McKie case. Again, they had to do so. But their evidence was not accepted in the McKie case when they were ably cross examined. I am told that the evidence might be made available on this site for all to read and no doubt it can be judged by others how effectively SCRO performed.

Equally, they were not effectively cross examined in the Asbury case. Mr.Graham had provided a report which affirmed that the prints were a match. This was, of course, the report that he apologised for, twice, then retracted his apology. You know the story of course. Again, they were not tested.

I have previously suggested that the SCRO be invited to present their position; so do the "pro McKie" experts. Each could be effectively questioned. And then the matter could be considered in that light.

But SCRO are now saying: hey, we cannot talk. We cannot do it. They imply that they would like to do it. But I have my own suspicions about why they are not anxious to talk.