10th May 2007
In 2003, Dr. David Clarke obtained a list of files held by DI55 on the subject of UFOs. In 2004, it emerged that many of these files were contaminated by asbestos, and that the MoD were contemplating destroying them.
Myself, Gary Anthony, and Dave Clarke took it upon ourselves to try and ensure that these records were not destroyed, but salvaged. This involved several parallel strategies including gaining the involvement of MPs and Academia (who are interested in many of the files, not just those concerning UFOs), direct liason with the Departmental Records Officer at the MoD to monitor progress of the salvage operation, and promoting awareness of the situation within and outside ufology generally.
From the following documents it is apparent that our activities have not only secured the salvage of the documents, but also encouraged the MoD to release the files in question.
Para.3 of the covering letter above refers to a file which Dave noticed was missing from the sequence of files which we knew existed. This file covers a critical period of ufology (Circa 1967-1971), during which the UK experienced a very large number of sightings and the Condon report was published amongst other notable events. Enquiries are still ongoing to try and establish the exact fate of this file - it is surprising that DI55 can be so specific about the destruction date, yet is unable to produce a destruction certificate (a previous request produced the statement that the file was destroyed on 9th August 1984).
The above scan is the list of the files due to be released, with a brief description of their contents. We also know from previous requests that at least one of the files contains 250 pages.
This is the start of correspondence relevant to the release of the files. Firstly, it is worth noting the date of the message, 26th February 2007. This is after the French announced that they were releasing their files (December 2006) but before the web-site went on-line (March 22nd 2007). There is no reference in the message to the French release.
Note also the derogatory use of the term "UFO Spotters" - clearly ufo researchers are not in favour at DI55. It is apparent that the workload imposed by us on the department was causing discomfort, and seemingly, a little embarrassment.
A common feature of all of the documents is the lack of any usable details as to who sent and received the messages.
This is a fairly innocuous message, agreeing with the previous one. I find it interesting because it uses an argument almost identical to one which I used in an FoIA request in 2006 to DAS (which was refused on the grounds of cost) seeking the release of a large volume of material, when I wrote:
I am not insisting on immediate release of the requested documents, but I suggest a staged release over a period of 12 months. This would reduce the immediate impact on the department, and still produce some of the benefits of a proactive release.
...I am hoping that you will recognise the mutual advantages of the request and I fully understand the objections and recognise their validity, but think that the resultant reduction of effort would outweigh the immediate cost by an exponential factor.
The final document is remarkable and also cause for concern. Although Dave, Gary, and I have been sharing details of our own FoIA activities, no-one is actually directing it. We are simply sharing common research information and determining for ourselves what questions to ask, and keeping each other informed. It appears that DI55 are laying the blame for their burden on Dave Clarke. While he could be described as the most productive researcher, he has not exerted pressure on Gary or me to make a particular request.
The author's opinion of the FoIA is disappointing, and not in keeping with the policy of open Government, but he is of course entitled to an opinion even if he is a public servant.
What concerns me most about this message is the intention to destroy the unedited original material after the redacted version is on-line. This is, I am sure, in contravention of the Public Records Act as it effectively removes accountability and prevents access to the unredacted records in 30 years as would otherwise have been the case. This would make post-mortem examination of reports largely impossible, since it would be impossible to tell in most cases if the people involved were related, if they made multiple reports, and if they observed them from their home address, the location of their observation position would be lost forever. I have already raised this issue with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, copying DI55 in.
I hope this short article has clarified who was directly responsible for the release of the files. It was certainly not due to a voluntary pro-active release as a certain ex-member of the Civil Service would have everyone believe, but a result of persistent pressure from a very small number of active UFO researchers.
Joe McGonagle
Gary Anthony
Dave Clarke
If you wish to comment on this article, please email the Condign team.