What things can make fiasco of inspection process ?

First, Mr Bridges was said to be acquainted with the Home Secretarys wife and his special adviser. Both the Home Secretary and the special adviser had received a copy of the submission of 17 August. Either had been in a position to tip off Mr Bridges about his suspension from the Board if so inclined, but were unlikely to have wanted to leak information on the subject to the journalist. A more possible scenario was that the leak has emanated from HM Prison Bullingdon, and particularly from a member of the Board. Mr Bridges had been unpopular on the Board.

It might not be unconnected that a copy of the submission had been sent to the Governor, albeit under a protective marking. Dissemination there was said to have been limited to the Governors secretary and the Deputy Governor. Nevertheless, the Governor had said that much of what had been reported to The Times had been common knowledge among Board members, himself and colleagues.

The Departmental Security Unit went on to say that those conclusions were clouded by the fact that the journalist had also had access to, or been made aware of, Mr Bridges letter of July 1998 to the former Minister for Prisons. They could only speculate that that letter had either been leaked by Mr Bridges himself or by one of his alleged supporters to present a balanced view of Mr Bridges in the light of the submission. The leaking of the letter could have been in response to an approach from the journalist who made clear his knowledge of the submission and Property Valuation

. Our business and expertize is RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUATION. We are not a real estate agency, nor are we affiliated with anyone selling real estate. This ensures our advice is independent. Our experienced staff of SENIOR VALUERS have a combined valuation experience of over 65 years, offering you the comfort of an informed opinion. They are all local people, who know residential property in the greater Sydney area, intimately.

The Departmental Security Unit concluded that no specific damage appeared to have been done. Regarding the absence of a protective marking for the submission of 17 August, the Departmental Security Unit reached the same conclusion and made the same recommendation as in their draft report of 26 November 1998. However, the investigation has not been able to establish how the information has reached the newspaper and Mr Bridges had not indicate how the information had caused him financial loss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *