Wikipedia

Talk:D-Notice

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Emmy34 in topic Baker Street Robbery

[1] contains info that needs adding in somewhere. Secretlondon 21:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Phrasing

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

"Subjects which were the subjects of D-notices..."

Maybe we could try some less awkward phrasing.... 66.27.121.188 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Was this what was used to conceal the Prince's deployment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.88.111 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No. The media voluntarily decided not to report it as there was a better story to be told (after the event) if he did go. The MoD had considered issuing a DA notice but the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee rejected it as the story was not actually a threat to national security. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

D stands for?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm gonna guess "defense"? But the article should state where the name comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.255.4 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Clarified in the introduction. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Article needs 'See also' links to Practice in other countries

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The Article needs links (either in 'See also' or elsewhere) to similar practices in other countries, unless the reader is expected to believe that Britain and Australia are the only 2 countries with such a need, and the only 2 countries with such a practice. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or alternatively are there any Reliable Sources that say that Britain and Australia are among the few countries (if that is the case) that allow public discussion of their system. Or perhaps an RS that says something like that the American Constitution ('Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of the press') perhaps means that it is not a matter of laws passed by Congress, but perhaps of delegation of the authority of the President acting in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief (I'm just guessing that's how it's done, but there should presumably be an RS somewhere that explains the actual US system, unless of course there's a US DA-notice-equivalent forbidding public discussion of any US DA-notice-equivalent system?). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Standing DA-Notices

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is the one proposed DA-Notice? The link in the footnote (2) does not seem to mention any DA-Notices, proposed or standing, besides the five mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.237.108.121 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DA-Notice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DA-Notice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The 1990 "Crown Jewels" D-Notice and "The Irish Times"

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have spent about an hour unsuccessfully trying to find online references to this story, which I recall from memory, and which seems to deserve a mention in this article, if WP:Reliable Sources can be found to back it up, which in theory should be easy, as it was all over the media and TV at the time - but pre-internet newspapers stories are perhaps hard to find online, and it may or may not also be relevant that it also seems possible that British Intelligence (and perhaps others) might prefer if people were not reminded of the matter, and this might (or might not) then somehow make references to it harder to find.


Basically sometime after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, a story appeared all over the British media saying that an unnamed senior British officer had lost an important file (thereafter referred to as "the Crown Jewels") which, if I remember right, had been stolen from his car where he had left the document unattended. Initially the British media had said nothing because of a D-Notice, but then the story had been published in The Irish Times, which, being Irish, was supposedly not subject to British D-Notices, and this Irish publication meant there was supposedly no longer any point in the British media staying silent.


This story seems (at least to me) worth mentioning in our article as one of the significant instances of the use of D-Notices, if only because of the illustration of the Irish media supposedly being able to circumvent a D-Notice.


And it still seems (at least to me) worth mentioning, even though I personally didn't (and still don't) think the official account was entirely correct, basically because I saw none of the British outrage that normally got reported by the BBC and others when Ireland really had annoyed Britain, and because it seemed to me at best only technically true that Irish media are not subject to British D-Notices. It is a vital Irish security interest that Ireland not be perceived as unnecessarily undermining British security - so I would expect there is some unpublicized system whereby British D-Notices are passed on to the Irish Government, who then, acting out of concern for the above-mentioned vital Irish security interest, then pass on their own never-publicly-mentioned equivalent of a D-Notice to the Irish media. My best guess was that this didn't happen on this occasion because British Intelligence wanted Iraq to know that a "vital British intelligence document" had gone missing, thereby supposedly enhancing the credibility of the 'thieves' who would in due course try to sell some fake document to the Iraqis. I suspect the Iraqis were probably smart enough to work this out for themselves but probably bought the document anyway to find out what lies British Intelligence was trying to make them believe. And perhaps British Intelligence also foresaw this but were playing some kind of complicated game of double-bluff or reverse psychology, etc. And this possible involvement of British Intelligence (and possible 'collusion' by the supposedly 'neutral' Irish Government, which 'collusion', incidentally, was, depending on the precise timing, etc, perhaps legally obligatory under international law due to the nature of the relevant 29 November 1990 'Chapter 7 (enforcement)" UN Security Council resolution 278 threatening war if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait, and perhaps under some of the earlier resolutions (from 660 onwards) as well) may mean that various British, Irish, and UN interests (etc) may prefer the matter not be publicized, thus perhaps making relevant reliable sources harder to find. Of course none of the unofficial speculations in this paragraph can appear in our article (except in the highly unlikely event that there are Reliable Sources supporting them), but they may (or may not) be somewhat relevant background information that may (or may not) help our editors phrase their account of the official story (for instance, perhaps adding something like "According to this BBC report" in front of any assertion that The Irish Times is not subject to British D-Notices, or that the document really was vitally important, etc, or perhaps by simply putting such assertions in quotes backed by the supporting source(s), etc - thus perhaps preventing us from unduly misleading our readers, and/or unduly damaging our credibility in their eyes, etc).


So if anybody can find suitable references we might then be able to use them to mention this story in the article, thus hopefully helping to improve it.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Gatwick UAP and media blackout

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, just a heads up. I am aware of certain information that was not made public, concerning this subject. I have it on good authority that there is classified unreleased footage from a Met Police drone and the ground that clearly shows an object far too large to be a conventional drone, and closely matches the Taranis at least in profile though it is unlikely as Taranis wasn't flying in the area that we know of. Now it seems odd that this wasn't mentioned up until now, but clearly something else was going on because most of the flight characteristics and endurance do not match up with any civilian drone in any plausible state of malfunction. Even the original "cover story" makes no sense ie a crashed quadcopter found later on in the same area was proved to have been there for several months and the couple accused of flying drones in the area were also likewise exonerated as they owned model helicopters not quadcopters. It would seem that the explanation may be something very much like the "Tic-Tac" UAP incident thereby opening up various arguments of a cover up. I've actually seen something very much like this here, with regards to unexplained phenomenon and have video footage to back up these claims taken during a thunderstorm clearly showing something that was attached to the cloud base via a plasma tether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.166.126 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Baker Street Robbery

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone.

I have added two sources for the reports of the use of a D-notice in relation to photographs allegedly stolen during the Baker Street robbery (one being to The Guardian and the other being to The Daily Mail). Accordingly, I have also removed the "[by whom?]" note in this section.

I hope that this is acceptable. If you believe that more sources for this claim are warranted (as it has been reported elsewhere), I can add them. I simply chose the two most prominent examples I could find.

Thanks Emmy34 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Emmy34Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:D-Notice&oldid=1211431391"