ABSTRACT
As early as October 1944, the MoI had been making proposals for amendment of Defence Notices when there was a ceasefire in Europe. The Ministry had already consulted the Security Executive and the Security Service in August, the latter wishing Notices No 78 and 80 to remain unchanged. 88 The Home Office however thought it would be hard to justify to the public the retention of detailed prohibitions on mentioning such matters as ‘fifth columnists’, wartime security committees, malicious damage, interference with essential services, making false statements, causing obstruction, and alteration of permits. On ‘malicious damage’ for example, the Home Office considered ‘It can hardly be necessary after cease fire in Europe that the Press should submit for censorship every story about anyone who sets fire to his neighbour’s tool shed or digs a pit in a bowling green or chips pieces off the statue of Abraham Lincoln’ [the choice of examples is an interesting reflection of that Department’s forecast of post-war crime]. 89 The Security Service, represented by Lieutenant Colonel Cussen, 90 wished however to retain rigorous blanket censorship on counter-espionage in order to prevent an enemy knowing when and how one of their agents had been discovered. 91
