UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #1

[Ironside]

I'm wondering is the DA notice about another member of the armed forces being involved in whatever on earth happened? Perhaps one or several of his colleagues have been questioned by the police as suspects but we can't hear about it.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Sadly there has been several cases of that reported in our local press over the last few years. All found reasonably quickly after a trawl through the local river under the false belief it was quicker to swim home.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/20/british-soldier-crashes-tanks-germany
they don't restrict the press to save face, luckily no one was injured in this one

 

[Deleted member 178385]

Here's a bit about the frequency of D-Notices - some correspondence which starts as a FOI request but turns into questioning that the Secretary of the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee finds 'burdensome and vexatious'

 

[hermes&&]

I think people are getting a little carried away with the grand conspiracy theory here. A D Notice is a perfectly normal occurrence in anything involving a member of the Armed Forces. There is the Official Secrets Act to consider, and obviously the media have to be careful about anything they publish. Therefore a D notice gives the media a framework for what they are allowed to write within the confines of the Act.

The notice has nothing to do with the investigation of an event, just the reporting of it.

But the uncle referred to the D Notice influencing Decisions ... "Unfortunately" and when pressed referred to the police abiding by the notice. Whether it's routine or not it's impinging on the case.

Also I don't think anyone is peddling conspiracy theories. It's from a good source.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[JamesKing]

I think people are getting a little carried away with the grand conspiracy theory here. A D Notice is a perfectly normal occurrence in anything involving a member of the Armed Forces. There is the Official Secrets Act to consider, and obviously the media have to be careful about anything they publish. Therefore a D notice gives the media a framework for what they are allowed to write within the confines of the Act.

The notice has nothing to do with the investigation of an event, just the reporting of it.

I'm not sure you are quite correct on that.

The Official Secrets Act, is something totally different to a Defence Advisory Notice.

For a start, the former is an Act and such, you can be prosecuted under it, as long as you are "subject to its provisions" . The latter however is an entirely voluntary system, which holds no provision for arrest or prosecution.

But lets be more specific. Say a journalist gets a story written (and published) that relates to some sort of "secret information", but that journalist is not bound by the Official Secrets Act. Can he be prosecuted under it ?
Well, yes. Because the information itself is protected from disclosure under the Official Secrets Act.

Whereas, under a "D Notice", he wouldn't face arrest. Know one knows what may happen to him, but as far a prosecution goes, he hasn't got to fear anything.

A D Notice is kind of a "gentleman's agreement". Kind of a "rolling, ad hoc, voluntary official secrets act". And to be honest, they are more scary than an Act. Because it has "no legal framework", it can be applied "where ever and when ever" the powers that be, wish to apply it.

...think Jimmy Saville ! Move on please, nothing to see here !

I am not suggesting this is or isn't the case here. I am merely stating the difference between the OSA and a standing D Notice.

 

[ChuckieD]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/20/british-soldier-crashes-tanks-germany
they don't restrict the press to save face, luckily no one was injured in this one

They absolutely do brush things under the carpet. They will handle in-house wherever possible. The above is one example, they can hardly hide tanks on a jolly up on a foreign posting, can they? That said, I lived in Germany at the time and didn't hear about this one :laughing:

 

[JamesKing]

Just another point on "D Notice" system.

Here is a letter written by their chairman in 2014, in response to FOI Laws.

[FONT=&amp]"Neither the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (nor the Defence Advisory (DA) Notice System which it oversees) are subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) or the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act of 2002".

[/FONT]Now I bet you didn't know that.

Above the Law !



Edit.... [FONT=&amp]Andrew Vallance [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Air Vice-Marshal ([/FONT][FONT=&amp]Secretary, Defence Press and Broadcast Advisory Committee)
Nice work if you can get it ! [/FONT]

 

[Deleted member 178385]

Matters of security are one of a number of exemptions from FOI requests - have a look here. And of course there are other reasons that FOI requests can be refused - I'm sure there was one recently regarding Julian Assange where they said it would simply take too long to fish out all the details. See here for the official reasons!

 

[JamesKing]

Matters of security are one of a number of exemptions from FOI requests - have a look here. And of course there are other reasons that FOI requests can be refused - I'm sure there was one recently regarding Julian Assange where they said it would simply take too long to fish out all the details. See here for the official reasons!

If I can add to your post, by stating that humours, yet befitting line....

"Well They Would Say That, Wouldn't They".

.....the fact that a "D Notice" can be used in an "ad hoc" style is preposterous in this day and age.
But because the term "National Security" is somehow added, makes us all feel safe in our beds.

In the meantime, the family of this poor lad, craves the oxygen that is "media exposure" in a justified and noble attempt to keep his story in the public awareness, so that JUST MAYBE they get a break through.....

....has been foiled by "National Security". And without ONE decent explanation whatsoever.

They must be gutted.
And by rights, we all should be.

 

[Kitkat28]

I'm not sure you are quite correct on that.

The Official Secrets Act, is something totally different to a Defence Advisory Notice.

For a start, the former is an Act and such, you can be prosecuted under it, as long as you are "subject to its provisions" . The latter however is an entirely voluntary system, which holds no provision for arrest or prosecution.

But lets be more specific. Say a journalist gets a story written (and published) that relates to some sort of "secret information", but that journalist is not bound by the Official Secrets Act. Can he be prosecuted under it ?
Well, yes. Because the information itself is protected from disclosure under the Official Secrets Act.

Whereas, under a "D Notice", he wouldn't face arrest. Know one knows what may happen to him, but as far a prosecution goes, he hasn't got to fear anything.

A D Notice is kind of a "gentleman's agreement". Kind of a "rolling, ad hoc, voluntary official secrets act". And to be honest, they are more scary than an Act. Because it has "no legal framework", it can be applied "where ever and when ever" the powers that be, wish to apply it.

...think Jimmy Saville ! Move on please, nothing to see here !

I am not suggesting this is or isn't the case here. I am merely stating the difference between the OSA and a standing D Notice.

I'm quite aware of what the Official Secrets Act is thank you.

And seriously, don't use Jimmy Savile to illustrate your points. I really think you need to cut back on the quotation marks and the innuendo.

 

[JamesKing]

I'm quite aware of what the Official Secrets Act is thank you.

And seriously, don't use Jimmy Savile to illustrate your points. I really think you need to cut back on the quotation marks and the innuendo.

What a bizarre reply !

I quote.....

"A D Notice is a perfectly normal occurrence in anything involving a member of the Armed Forces".

Can you list possible cases "in anything involving the armed forces" where that has happened (or even suspect of happening) ? What I am asking is "can you possibly qualify your statement" ? I doubt you can.

Would you like me to list cases involving the Armed Forces, wherein there was NO notice applied ?




There is the Official Secrets Act to consider, and obviously the media have to be careful about anything they publish

Clearly, you do not understand.
But, please, could you qualify your above statement ?

There is the OSA. I agree.
And "the media have to be careful of what the publish" ? What ? In the framework of the OSA ?
I take it you are talking about Section 5 of the OSA, which is a proviso of Section 3.

The Press "do not need" to be careful of what they write and publish. As long it is not in contravention of the Act.
But I don't think you are versed in the Act....

...all you have done is make some "broad statement about Conspiracy Theorist", pretend to know the difference between "a D Notice" and "the OSA" and then some "blurb" about me using "quotation marks".

Ridiculous ! Unrehearsed ! And ignorant of the facts.




Edit....
Quote "I'm quite aware of what the Official Secrets Act is thank you".
Answer "I sincerely beg to differ".

 

[Kitkat28]

I'm not ignorant of facts. Don't presume to know anything about me. I would attempt to answer <modsnip> but honestly, I've read what you wrote five times and it makes no sense.

 

[JamesKing]

I'm not ignorant of facts. Don't presume to know anything about me. I would attempt to answer <modsnip> but honestly, I've read what you wrote five times and it makes no sense.

You say....

A "D Notice" is a perfectly normal occurrence

And

obviously the media have to be careful about anything they publish (in relation to the OSA)

Please explain ?

<modsnip>

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Guy's...please. I don't want this thread to be locked! Is it not the case that this is a about the missing person Corrie McKeague and any DA Notice is irrelevant to us discussing what has happened to him.

Only the media need worry about it.

Now where and what has happened to Corrie? I'm at a loss and have run out of ideas right now....

 

[Purplepixii]

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.

RSBM

Just an aside but not travelling in uniform has always been a rule at the police force I used to work for - it was for our own safety and also to stop members of the public approaching us for advice/assistance when we weren't on duty (I was police staff, not an officer, but it was the same rule for them too).

Just catching up and I see we're none the wiser - damn those D notices!

 

[Deleted member 178385]

Now where and what has happened to Corrie? I'm at a loss and have run out of ideas right now....

I wish I had something to share, but I'm at a loss too.

I've been keeping an eye on the FB Group but it's seemed quite quiet today. Might be to do with the fact that the family are deleting some duplicate questions/comments, presumably to keep the total running number of comments to something more manageable. Nothing has jumped out at me in the questions/speculation I've seen today and of course there's no new evidence anywhere that we're aware of.

Edit: I haven't seen any updates regarding the possible door-to-doors to be arranged by Nicola if they police weren't going to do it. She is keeping that post bumped though, so I assume it's still on the cards at some point.

 

[Deleted member 178385]

I suppose the danger here is that people see the talk of the D-Notice and think "well, what's the point in sharing anything and clicking on links now?"

Uncle Tony did clarify to someone earlier today that it's only certain details that are restricted for reporting, and not the case as a whole, so I hope everyone can just move the focus back to what we DO know and what CAN be talked about. Because we'll likely never know if there is something specific being blocked by the D-Notice because they KNOW something, or whether it's just a case of 'the guy is RAF and still missing, so we're issuing a d-notice just in case'.

 

[Purplepixii]

I hope everyone can just move the focus back to what we DO know and what CAN be talked about.

If only it were that easy - what we did "know" keeps changing & being refuted

 

[Purplepixii]

<modsnip> here's the official FB Find Corrie page - looks for a post by MM and the ensuing answers from around 30 minutes ago. <modsnip>

 

[JamesKing]

Purplepixie...

Same, same.....

Advised never to "travel" in uniform.

...although it didn't take much effort to spot a (group) of Gurkha's in Aldershot. Sand coloured suede desert "boots", chinos and a light (properly ironed) shirt,. ...in a group of 10.

Just thought of a weird thing.
Corrie spoke to people > He's Scottish.
A Scot in a South East market town, known to house military ? He is, above all "spotable".