Yes could well be.I wonder if this is why his mum had made the post about archiving all the interviews etc. on youtube, as 'things were being deleted'?
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Yes could well be.I wonder if this is why his mum had made the post about archiving all the interviews etc. on youtube, as 'things were being deleted'?
I wonder if this is why his mum had made the post about archiving all the interviews etc. on youtube, as 'things were being deleted'?
Brain dump before bed:
1/ I have friends who run and their routes appear on their Facebook feeds as a nice little map so I can see why this is a bad idea for some.
2/ Police "lack of action" may well be due to a D-notice.
3/ Funnily enough a D-notice was suggested yesterday on another website.
4/ The sad case of Lee Rigby was a few years ago but the RAF Marham attempted abduction was only a few months ago. If Corrie was daft enough to attempt to walk home, or to get into the car of a stranger/acquaintance, then it could be an abduction, covered by this D-notice malarky.
5/ If I read one more "it can't be Daesh because they would have taken claim for it by now" comment I might scream. "Smart baddies" plan to instill upset/fear/mistrust by doing bad things and NOT claiming responsibility. It's far scarier to have an unexplained situation than an explained one.
Upon which I am outta here, my pillow is calling mefftobed:
I think d notice might be older than two days (coverage been low key) promoted by not just Marham but general security concerns. But I assume they have been monitoring the wires for chatter and may have picked up on something,An "odd" thing about a D Notice's is.... it's aimed at "not releasing information that may damage National Security".
But this is a "civilian police matter" and a "missing persons enquiry".
Why "two days ago" did they slap a D Notice on this ? What has come to light ?
What is a d notice?
Kind of a "very special gagging order, issued by the Government and without a court, to the media" ish.
It's "voluntary" :thinking:
Brain dump before bed:
1/ I have friends who run and their routes appear on their Facebook feeds as a nice little map so I can see why this is a bad idea for some.
2/ Police "lack of action" may well be due to a D-notice.
3/ Funnily enough a D-notice was suggested yesterday on another website.
4/ The sad case of Lee Rigby was a few years ago but the RAF Marham attempted abduction was only a few months ago. If Corrie was daft enough to attempt to walk home, or to get into the car of a stranger/acquaintance, then it could be an abduction, covered by this D-notice malarky.
5/ If I read one more "it can't be Daesh because they would have taken claim for it by now" comment I might scream. "Smart baddies" plan to instill upset/fear/mistrust by doing bad things and NOT claiming responsibility. It's far scarier to have an unexplained situation than an explained one.
Upon which I am outta here, my pillow is calling mefftobed:
I've been vocal saying that this could be an enemy abduction based on terrorist instructions to their minions but of course we don't know anything and it could still be an accident.I was dismissive about this being terrorist related but ISIS have only just taken responsibility for a stabbing murder of a 15 year old and his girlfriend in September in the last 24 hours in Germany so it's a possibility. I'm not ruling anything out.
Isn't there a bit of a contradiction from Corrie's uncle when he points out the lack of resources? Surely if this is in some way terror related there would be full resources from Military and government?
Bizarrely.... only half of sex offenders actually move the body (in murder and sexual assault cases).
And when a body is moved, the motivation is so that "there is no connection between the victim and the attacker".
If we follow that line, and IF (big if) he was attacked/assaulted and moved it is "highly likely" that Corrie could have known or being acquainted to an attacker.
That's the stats for ya.
It certainly explains why the Police haven't spoken at all about the case. Even they can't speak about such a thing.
The question is why has it been issued at all? Does it mean whatever happened it only involves military personnel or terrorism?
What do we do now? Clearly the family aren't happy about the situation given TW's post...
I think it's more than that going by the uncle's words. He's implying the notice is having a material effect ("unfortunately")Hypothesising...Corrie is serving military, gone missing not far from a military base, and the phone was tracked to within a few miles of a USAF base. These circumstances alone might be cause for a D-notice regarding reporting restrictions for things like names and locations. It might be no more sinister than that.
But a question: how does the D-notice affect what the family can be told? If it affects what they can be told about the investigation, or if they just perceive it might be affecting/limiting information that they're given, they might feel very out-of-the-loop and frustrated, in addition to the frustration they're already feeling as the days wear on with no news.
I would say that chances are if the phone was found that there would be no reporting restriction, unless it was found on MOD land, in which case a restriction could, theoretically, kick in. They could also tell a little white lie to the media that the phone's been found but not give the exact position where it was found.
The extreme lack of specificity of the phone pings could relate to how close the final position is to MOD land which bears a USAF base.
Another possibility is that Tony is theorising that there's a D-notice. If he's ex-military then he presumably shouldn't be discussing that one exists on his nephew's case if it's such a secret thing.
I think it's interesting that the family have stressed the possibility of third party involvement. It's clear from the mail story that terrorists are looking for opportunities and I read a while back that even police officers were being told not to commute in uniform for great of abduction/harm.The thing is that if we even think there's a D-notice, then that might affect the ideas we come up with.
If there's a fear that there might be terrorists laying in wait to catch servicemen alone, then just something like Nicola saying that Corrie often walks home alone after a Friday night out might send a terrorist vehicle to lay in wait along that route from BSE to Honington, therefore a D-notice might restrict admitting something that's a truth relevant to the case.
But...if Corrie is ever found, then it could result in a civilian court case and stories in the papers...so whatever is allowed out has to correlate to the facts of the case, they can't go too far away from reality, they can only cover up a few more sensitive items. So I don't think anyone will tell us major outright lies. I think we can still safely assume that the basics are correct, that Corrie's gone missing after a night out on the town, and he's not yet been found in the searched areas. If the police/authorities know something definite, they've got to tell the family something, and then you'd likely see the family just drift out of view. But the family are doing the exact opposite, so they haven't been told that signs of terrorist abduction have been found, or anything of that nature, imo.