The new Rwanda Plan

No they don’t, not any longer, According to Gov.UK.

But they are bound by it.

Skydancer your post today at 14.18 sums up perfectly the problems we in the UK face with this huge influx of migrants from various countries and cultures.
I urge everyone to read it.

There is a huge difference between an official speaking to the media in their capacity as a spokesperson for the Border Force, and this post from Primrose53.

‘Dickens I have said on here before that the person who bought my Mum’s house works in a senior position for Border Force. I see him regularly so I hear first hand what goes on down there.’

Whether they sign the Official Secrets Act or not, they are bound by it, and as I said, I think it’s a serious offence for an official to gossip outside work.

So no teachers, nurses, doctors, solicitors etc ever go home and say “what a day! Xyz happened.” Obviously they are not using names so no secrets are being broken.

Check out Kevin Saunders who has now retired as Chief Immigration Officer.

Listen to what he has to say on You Tube.

Primrose53

So no teachers, nurses, doctors, solicitors etc ever go home and say “what a day! Xyz happened.” Obviously they are not using names so no secrets are being broken.

I think telling a partner/spouse you had a day of it at work with upsetting cases (but without detail) is rather different than a senior Border Force official gossiping to an acquaintance about what is happening with the immigration process.

Sitting on the norty step as I tipe

petra

Sitting on the norty step as I tipe

🤣🤣🤣 I had better join you Petra 🤣🤣🤣

They can’t be bound by something they haven’t signed Calli and they’re no longer required to sign the Official Secrets Act. Clearly something such as hundreds of migrants rocking up in Britain is of legitimate public interest. It really would be unacceptable for this to be hidden from the public. In actual fact, the numbers of migrants arriving each day are officially reported so hardly a secret.

A clear statement will be made about strict confidentiality and why it is essential as part of the contractual requirement though maddyone, as it is for all public servants. It will also be a taught module in the induction programme. I doubt any public servants are unclear about that.

Here it is.

‘You will be subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act and required to exercise care in the use of official information acquired in the course of official duties, and not to disclose information which is held in confidence.’

www.manpower.org.uk › ...
border force officer 2017 recruitment supporting information
Feedback

That refers to speaking about individual people and their circumstances. I’m unsure what exactly was reported as I didn’t see it, but it would appear that no law has been broken since it was published by at least two media.

Casdon

Here it is.

‘You will be subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act and required to exercise care in the use of official information acquired in the course of official duties, and not to disclose information which is held in confidence.’

www.manpower.org.uk › ...
border force officer 2017 recruitment supporting information
Feedback

But it’s not confidential that children are being used as human shields! It’s in the public domain already.

maddyone

That refers to speaking about individual people and their circumstances. I’m unsure what exactly was reported as I didn’t see it, but it would appear that no law has been broken since it was published by at least two media.

Oh let her have the last word maddyone ! Off to have my cold pork and chips - but that’s confidential. 😝

It doesn’t say that the information they should not disclose is only related to individuals and their circumstances, and I’ve never seen a confidentiality clause that is so very specific?
If an official speaks to the media they are given clearance to do so, or at least that’s how I know it works in the NHS and the police.
The point I was making though is that an official who gossips outside work is not behaving within their contract of employment, that is a serious offence. We don’t know if the official in question is talking about individuals or not, but we know that he or she tells Primrose53 ‘first hand what goes on down there’. I don’t understand whether you would think that is within the realms of professional behaviour, but I don’t.

maddyone

They can’t be bound by something they haven’t signed Calli and they’re no longer required to sign the Official Secrets Act. Clearly something such as hundreds of migrants rocking up in Britain is of legitimate public interest. It really would be unacceptable for this to be hidden from the public. In actual fact, the numbers of migrants arriving each day are officially reported so hardly a secret.

I'm afraid they can, maddyone.
We all knew that.

Of course much is reported - reporters are there at the scenes.

Primrose

Casdon

It doesn’t say that the information they should not disclose is only related to individuals and their circumstances, and I’ve never seen a confidentiality clause that is so very specific?
If an official speaks to the media they are given clearance to do so, or at least that’s how I know it works in the NHS and the police.
The point I was making though is that an official who gossips outside work is not behaving within their contract of employment, that is a serious offence. We don’t know if the official in question is talking about individuals or not, but we know that he or she tells Primrose53 ‘first hand what goes on down there’. I don’t understand whether you would think that is within the realms of professional behaviour, but I don’t.

If an official speaks to the media they are given clearance to do so, or at least that’s how I know it works in the NHS and the police.
This.

The point I was making though is that an official who gossips outside work is not behaving within their contract of employment, that is a serious offence.

Yes, absolutely, and with the Home Office too and presumably other departments of the Civil Service.

^It doesn’t say that the information they should not disclose is only related to individuals and their circumstances, and I’ve never seen a confidentiality clause that is so very specific?
If an official speaks to the media they are given clearance to do so, or at least that’s how I know it works in the NHS and the police.
The point I was making though is that an official who gossips outside work is not behaving within their contract of employment, that is a serious offence. We don’t know if the official in question is talking about individuals or not, but we know that he or she tells Primrose53 ‘first hand what goes on down there’. I don’t understand whether you would think that is within the realms of professional behaviour, but I don’t.^

Agreed Casdon

LizzieDrip

Primrose
These boat people are now using their kids as human shields.

Evidence for this statement?

Having read the Daily Mail report on this, what Primrose has stated is incorrect. There are unscrupulous people using other people's children, not "their children", this gives a completely different picture of what is actually happening. I don't have a problem in sending anyone, without a valid claim to asylum, home, I do have a problem with families who are travelling with children who are probably valid asylum seekers being "painted" as exploiting "their own children".

They shouldn’t be using any children.

If they allow the traffickers to use their own kids in this way then they’re just as bad.
I think the guy who Primrose knows who tells some of what generally goes on wants the public to be aware of the state of things and quite right too.

All this saintly tut tutting about the guy maybe talking out of turn are just a distraction from the subject, ooh look a squirrel!
They don’t like illegal migration being talked about cos they feel ‘so sorry’ about people just wanting ‘a better life’.They don’t care about the strain on the NHS, schools and dentists and ultimately the tax payer and want to turn a blind eye to any religious, cultural or other problems as well as the fact that many may have criminal records.

maddyone

They shouldn’t be using any children.

Of course they shouldn't be using children, absolutely not. Neither is there any evidence that anyone is "allowing traffickers" or anyone else to "use their kids". It is incorrect to suggest they are, vile people are taking advantage of a frightening and dangerous situation, putting children at risk. Just horrible and no one, certainly not me, is defending that.

Utter tosh to think any father would grab his own child to use as a human shield! C’mon people, get real. Some of the men wanting to get on the rubber boats are desperate to be on them. They have no money and are opportunistic about getting over here to Dover. They rush at the boats, pushing others out of the way ‘paying customers’ if you like - and use any methods at their disposal to achieve their aim. Grab a child to put between them and the French police? No problem!