Skip to content or view screen version

GCHQ whistleblower charged

Sil | 14.11.2003 03:51

Police charge Katherine Gun under Official Secrets Act

Katherine Gun deserves support.

A sacked GCHQ employee charged yesterday under the Official Secrets Act said last night that her alleged disclosures exposed serious wrongdoing by the US and could have helped to prevent the deaths of Iraqis and British forces in an "illegal war".

Katharine Gun, 29, of Cheltenham, was charged by Metropolitan police special branch officers under section 1 (1) of the act. The section states that any serving or former member of the security and intelligence agencies is guilty of an offence if they disclose "any information" about their work without official authority.

Full story in the guardian-
GCHQ whistleblower charged
 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/story/0,9061,1084993,00.html

Sil

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

Security Clearance

14.11.2003 08:23

Good luck to her. Bliar will press the courts to hand out the strongest sentence on this one unfortunately.

The Yanks must be really infiltrating and misusing UK intellegence resources big time. People like her who are subject to developed vetting which allows access to Secret and Top Secret UK Eyes Only material are normally people who can be trusted implicitly by the Govt.

The fact that someone of this clearance level has got so concerned that she felt she had to whistleblow is an indication of just how much the US takeover of the UK intellegence and defence industry has progressed.

She's a bloody hero.

Spod


She is a hero

14.11.2003 14:33

I am sure too that there are more people in the "secret world" who are preparing the moral and physical courage to take a stand on principle.

Peter Piper


Heroine or Traitor ?

16.07.2004 14:30

Ms Gunn was quite prepared to accept payment from the Government for her work. That she chose to abuse her privileged position, endanger British lives (apart from her own) , and betray the trust that had been placed in her would suggest that she has no moral defence whatsoever. Her own personal opinions are no grounds for criminal acts committed in the mistaken belief that she has somehow managed to reach a decision through her own personal arrogance. Illegal, indefensible and very dangerous.

Chris Davies