When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new

When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new

22/09/2025
25/10/2025

When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.

When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new
When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new

In the words of Katharine Gun, who once served within the shadowed halls of Britain’s intelligence, we hear a voice that pierces the veil of secrecy: “When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new arrivals, they tell you... not to trust journalists, to be careful to keep everything confidential.” These words are not the idle musings of one who glanced at hidden truths, but the testimony of one who stood at the very heart of state power, and felt its weight upon her soul. Here lies the eternal tension between secrecy and truth, between loyalty to authority and loyalty to conscience.

The ancients, too, knew this conflict. Kings and emperors commanded their scribes to guard their secrets, for the strength of rulers often lies not in what is proclaimed, but in what is concealed. Yet the prophets thundered from the mountain and the marketplace alike, declaring that truth cannot forever be buried beneath stone. Katharine’s words remind us that institutions—whether temples, palaces, or agencies—often demand silence as the price of belonging. And yet, silence can be both shield and chain.

Consider the story of her own life. In 2003, as the drums of war beat toward Iraq, Gun revealed a secret memo: a plan for the United States to enlist Britain in spying on United Nations diplomats, seeking leverage to secure approval for invasion. Bound by oath, she broke her bond to secrecy in order to keep faith with her higher bond to humanity. For this act, she stood trial, accused of breaching the Official Secrets Act. But history remembers not her crime, but her courage—for she chose truth over obedience, and conscience over command.

In her recollection of that induction course, where the young are warned never to trust journalists, we hear the voice of institutions that fear the light. For the press, flawed though it may be, is often the channel through which the people hear what kings would hide. To distrust the journalist is to distrust the mirror that reflects power. Yet wisdom bids us balance—there are those who speak falsely, as there are scribes who bend the record of history. But when all voices are silenced, tyranny is unchallenged, and the world grows blind.

Let us remember, too, the example of Daniel Ellsberg, who in another age released the Pentagon Papers, exposing the hidden truths of the Vietnam War. Like Gun, he was branded traitor by some and hero by others. Yet through his courage, a people learned the cost of war, measured not only in treasure but in broken lives. Such stories tell us that secrecy, though sometimes needed for safety, becomes corruption when it shields deception and injustice. The line is fine, and only the conscience of the individual can weigh where loyalty must end and truth must begin.

The lesson is thus: guard secrets wisely, but never let secrecy rule your soul. Confidentiality is sacred when it shields the innocent, when it protects the vulnerable, when it prevents harm. But it is a curse when it serves only to empower lies, or to cloak the ambitions of the mighty at the expense of the many. Each man and woman will face moments where silence is demanded—yet the question is whether silence serves justice, or merely shields power.

What then shall we do? Be vigilant with the words entrusted to us, careful stewards of confidences that protect and heal. But also, be ready to speak when silence would betray the truth. Cultivate discernment, that ancient virtue of weighing both justice and loyalty. Support those who dare to reveal truths for the common good, for often they stand alone. And most of all, remember that your allegiance lies first not to rulers, nor to institutions, but to the truth that sets free.

Thus I say to you, children of the future: let your tongues be guarded, but let your hearts never be enslaved. Hold fast to the truth, and when the hour demands it, speak—not as one who betrays, but as one who redeems. For history honors not the keepers of shadows, but the bearers of light. And in this way, even as Katharine Gun once did, you too may choose the path that is narrow, costly, and yet eternal.

Katharine Gun
Katharine Gun

British - Activist Born: 1974

Have 6 Comment When you have the initial GCHQ induction course for new

ANvan anh nguyen

This statement seems to speak to the tension between government secrecy and the role of the press. If new recruits are taught to be cautious around journalists, does that mean intelligence agencies are actively suppressing information they don't want to be made public? At what point do we start questioning whether this culture of secrecy harms the integrity of democracy, especially when it comes to holding powerful institutions accountable?

Reply.
Information sender

Hhothichon

It’s hard to ignore the potential ethical implications of this advice. If the initial induction for GCHQ recruits stresses the importance of secrecy, could this foster a mindset where intelligence officers might act in ways that undermine journalistic freedom or the public’s right to be informed? How much control should agencies have over information, and where do we draw the line between national security and press freedom?

Reply.
Information sender

SSy

What does this quote say about the level of control intelligence agencies have over the information that reaches the public? If there’s such a strong emphasis on keeping things confidential, how much of what we hear or read about government actions is shaped by what these agencies allow us to know? Is this approach to handling sensitive information ever justified, or does it hinder the free flow of ideas and necessary public discourse?

Reply.
Information sender

VBTue Vuong Bich

I can’t help but feel uneasy reading this. If someone working at GCHQ is told not to trust journalists, it raises concerns about the ethics of information sharing. Is the concern about journalists justified, or does this create a dangerous culture of withholding critical information from the public? How do we balance national security with the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know?

Reply.
Information sender

GDGold D.dragon

It’s interesting to think about the culture within intelligence agencies, as this quote suggests a very closed-off mindset. If confidentiality is prioritized so highly, how do agencies like GCHQ ensure accountability? Can they truly operate with the public’s best interest in mind when secrecy is so heavily emphasized? Isn’t transparency key to maintaining trust, especially in institutions that wield significant power over national security?

Reply.
Information sender
Leave the question
Click here to rate
Information sender