I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting.
1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad?
2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.
Edit to add 3. It says that a D Notice was used to suppress a link between Sergei Skirpal's handler and Orbis Intelligence, while the only sources provided negate that
> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.
This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful information within the dossier, but generally speaking it was mostly hearsay and unverified allegations and not completed when it was leaked. The leaking was clearly politically motivated and it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations which ultimately resulted in only minimal parts of the content being verified. There are many people who are politically aligned with the leaker of the dossier that believe the dossier is true because the general thrust of the allegations was true, but the actual specifics were mostly false, and the truth of what did occur mostly was found in the later investigation, which did not corroborate the dossier.
This was on page 1 of google for "steele dossier", and the title is "Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation", so it seems to be pretty widely accepted that it was a bunch of nonsense.
I don't have access to Pacer to search for the other filings and the record so far, but the case number can be found at the top of the linked charge if anyone is interested in looking at this trial.
>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total.
Numerous Steele dossier "sources" have been arrested for lying to the FBI in regards to the dossier, including Igor Danchenko, a primary Steel "source" who is apparently a fall down alcoholic who, among other things, fabricated conversations that never took place.
> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.
There are at least two ways to interpret this:
1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue.
2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume.
In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.
Its the military's job to diffuse situations, identify threats on the horizon and use whatever means necessary to deal with them. Once you are dealing with something in a court, the threat has largely gone thanks to corrupt judges.
I really dont know why people come to the UK or most other organised country for that matter because entrapment & blackmail is still order of the day with all the security services, some of which you will read about in the press.
Another name for the BBC is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI7
those television camera's and journalists get in everywhere, the press is the best form of spying in the world imo!
So when is a D-notice not a D-notice? When its just reverse psychology to weed out some groups of people perhaps?
The Steele dossier was paid political opposition research, and therefore does not need to be discredited. It is false unless proven true. You could be excused for not knowing this important detail if you get your news from US "journalists."
Yeah, I'm getting bad vibes about this piece too. I can't dismiss it but there are some pretty serious claims deserving solid sources.
Couldn't help but click on another article from the page "Uncovering CIA-Funded Experiments On Children In Europe During The Cold War - Was the CIA involved in sponsoring West German pedophilic foster homes overseen by the Social Democratic Party?" all with the same problems of missing sources or sources that don't reference the claims.
I remember when the Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed. They basically said, “We can’t establish if it’s true, and it probably isnt. But it’s been talked about enough you might as well read the darn thing.”
I don’t know if it’s been discredited, as it was never “credited” in the first place.
>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.
If you aren't aware of it, that's on you. Frankly it amazes me that people still think it's real.
Regarding 1, The Guardian, a UK based publication, was one of the main ones behind the Snowden interviews and reporting, so it seems to be a bogus claim.
D-notices certainly aren't the only way the British censors the press. They famously sent agents to the headquarters of The Guardian and forced them to physically destroy the Snowden hard drives in the basement in front of them.
Yes. The reason for this is that the Official Secrets Act makes it illegal for anyone to keep or share anything that is "official information" under it except for "official purposes" i.e. for your government job on a government computer. There is no opt out for journalism and it applies regardless of whether you "sign" it or not. IANAL, but my understanding is the sole thing you can do legally if handed or finding classified documents is to take them to a police station and hand them over.
I would guess that the UK Gov knew full well that destroying these documents in the UK would not stop reporting, but doing nothing might set a precedent that they're not keen on.
I would reply to a sibling comment, but I believe this ought to be top level. I believe the author is conflating "D-Notices may be used to ask the press to self-censor" versus "'the man' is censoring Assange". So far as I am aware, nothing in the Assange trial would actually warrant a D-Notice, and if sensitive information were to be presented to the court it would be done in closed session anyway, since they at least theoretically have that option (they'd have to convince the judge of the need for this, if I understand correctly).
The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context.
To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.
The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]).
I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him.
Just to put this window Mr.Overton left us where it belongs, it is a criminal offence in Britain to say anything deemed homophobic even within the confines of your own domicile even to your own family members.
One of the articles linked criticises the UK for spreading misinformation about an upcoming Russian invasion of Ukraine, just a few days before it actually happened.
D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out. I've known they existed for many years, I'm not quite sure why but there's no particular reason I'd know about them. I'm not a journalist and never was.
The Official Secrets Act is probably bad law, it's one of the many places where the USA has superior laws that are much better at keeping bad government in check. The various attempts to expand censorship in the UK are also very bad, in my view. The D-Notice system is difficult to really get worked up about because, as this exposé makes clear, it's:
a. Voluntary.
b. Sometimes ignored, even by major outlets like the Guardian.
c. Largely made up of journalists themselves.
d. So shadowy that they publish photos of themselves and upload meeting notes to government websites.
e. Apparently very tightly concerned with stuff like publishing the names of spies, soldiers, troop movements, etc. The classical sorts of information that has a very direct and obvious reason for being kept out of the press.
The article tries to build a case that it's being used in over-broad ways like with Assange, but honestly I don't buy it. The media doesn't need some shadowy committee to stop it covering the Assange story properly. At some point it became received wisdom in media circles to hate him and journalists need no incentive to bury stories if they find them inconvenient. The Guardian in particular has a long running and well documented vendetta against Assange. You'd see the same approach if D-Notices existed or not.
Perhaps no one has anything to say about it. If you're eager for an opinion: I was already familiar with D-Notices—they've been around in some form since 1912—and I think they're a necessary tool to stop the UK press publishing information they shouldn't publish. I don't believe they are egregiously abused although there is scope for abuse and they have been abused in the past. Super-injunctions are more worrying to me because there is even less democratic accountability.
Personally, I think there is a level of fatigue that has set in. Post 9/11 Americans had a lot of their innocence taken away from them as various leaks ( including Assange's, Snowden's and others' ). Note that I say Americans, because it is genuinely difficult for me to gauge it elsewhere ( and quite frankly, I might be wrong about US too ).
I could offer anecdotes, but my interactions with my social circles more and more indicate 'well, duh' to stories like this and not post-1981 book reading horror of realization that humans can be quite horrible to one another. And, well, since it is clear now that some information is suppressed and some is heavily promoted -- the distrust of general populace appears to be quite high.
And this is yet another reason why I constantly argue against the temptations of censorship. That said, this is the path we are on.
So to answer your question. No, I don't think it is sinister at all. It is just the current state of affairs. Some subjects are more risky than others.
It doesn't help that it struck me as drawn-out and disjointed.
Worse - I never got the sense that the public would much care if the facts that the DMSA is keeping secret could be freely published in Britain. Nor (post-Snowden, and having read about some of America's secret gag orders) that the UK is up to anything all that bad (by the modern-day western world's very low standards).
notavalleyman|3 years ago
1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad?
2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.
Edit to add 3. It says that a D Notice was used to suppress a link between Sergei Skirpal's handler and Orbis Intelligence, while the only sources provided negate that
tristor|3 years ago
This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful information within the dossier, but generally speaking it was mostly hearsay and unverified allegations and not completed when it was leaked. The leaking was clearly politically motivated and it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations which ultimately resulted in only minimal parts of the content being verified. There are many people who are politically aligned with the leaker of the dossier that believe the dossier is true because the general thrust of the allegations was true, but the actual specifics were mostly false, and the truth of what did occur mostly was found in the later investigation, which did not corroborate the dossier.
colpabar|3 years ago
> Was the dossier a reliable source of information?
> No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy.
https://archive.ph/2fHH5
This was on page 1 of google for "steele dossier", and the title is "Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation", so it seems to be pretty widely accepted that it was a bunch of nonsense.
Trumpi|3 years ago
There is an ongoing trial at the moment where I expect we will see evidence against the Steele dossier.
Here is the Grand Jury charge: https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/downl...
I don't have access to Pacer to search for the other filings and the record so far, but the case number can be found at the top of the linked charge if anyone is interested in looking at this trial.
StanislavPetrov|3 years ago
Numerous Steele dossier "sources" have been arrested for lying to the FBI in regards to the dossier, including Igor Danchenko, a primary Steel "source" who is apparently a fall down alcoholic who, among other things, fabricated conversations that never took place.
https://www.axios.com/2021/11/04/steele-dossier-durham-inves...
aww_dang|3 years ago
There are at least two ways to interpret this:
1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue.
2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume.
In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
Terry_Roll|3 years ago
Look at David Shaylers career and how he has subsequently been done over by them, much like Chelsea Manning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler#MI5_career
Its the military's job to diffuse situations, identify threats on the horizon and use whatever means necessary to deal with them. Once you are dealing with something in a court, the threat has largely gone thanks to corrupt judges.
Spooks are above the law, but just to make sure, its written into law. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/mi5-policy-g... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605
I really dont know why people come to the UK or most other organised country for that matter because entrapment & blackmail is still order of the day with all the security services, some of which you will read about in the press.
Another name for the BBC is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI7 those television camera's and journalists get in everywhere, the press is the best form of spying in the world imo!
So when is a D-notice not a D-notice? When its just reverse psychology to weed out some groups of people perhaps?
fallingknife|3 years ago
Sporktacular|3 years ago
Couldn't help but click on another article from the page "Uncovering CIA-Funded Experiments On Children In Europe During The Cold War - Was the CIA involved in sponsoring West German pedophilic foster homes overseen by the Social Democratic Party?" all with the same problems of missing sources or sources that don't reference the claims.
Even though I was open to it, am gonna call BS.
pyuser583|3 years ago
I don’t know if it’s been discredited, as it was never “credited” in the first place.
_dain_|3 years ago
If you aren't aware of it, that's on you. Frankly it amazes me that people still think it's real.
barrbid8|3 years ago
[deleted]
sofixa|3 years ago
StanislavPetrov|3 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...
zahllos|3 years ago
I would guess that the UK Gov knew full well that destroying these documents in the UK would not stop reporting, but doing nothing might set a precedent that they're not keen on.
zahllos|3 years ago
cryptonector|3 years ago
at_a_remove|3 years ago
tomalpha|3 years ago
To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.
stephen_g|3 years ago
I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him.
1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julia...
2. https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
colordrops|3 years ago
It's called The Dissenter and they explicitly mention that they support whistleblowers in their about page.
8bitsrule|3 years ago
AveburySutton|3 years ago
Law described: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private...
Law passed: https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/
barrbid8|3 years ago
shashurup|3 years ago
rospaya|3 years ago
https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-...
Sporktacular|3 years ago
Pity as it might hurt Assange's cause.
KineticLensman|3 years ago
mike_hearn|3 years ago
The Official Secrets Act is probably bad law, it's one of the many places where the USA has superior laws that are much better at keeping bad government in check. The various attempts to expand censorship in the UK are also very bad, in my view. The D-Notice system is difficult to really get worked up about because, as this exposé makes clear, it's:
a. Voluntary.
b. Sometimes ignored, even by major outlets like the Guardian.
c. Largely made up of journalists themselves.
d. So shadowy that they publish photos of themselves and upload meeting notes to government websites.
e. Apparently very tightly concerned with stuff like publishing the names of spies, soldiers, troop movements, etc. The classical sorts of information that has a very direct and obvious reason for being kept out of the press.
The article tries to build a case that it's being used in over-broad ways like with Assange, but honestly I don't buy it. The media doesn't need some shadowy committee to stop it covering the Assange story properly. At some point it became received wisdom in media circles to hate him and journalists need no incentive to bury stories if they find them inconvenient. The Guardian in particular has a long running and well documented vendetta against Assange. You'd see the same approach if D-Notices existed or not.
Veen|3 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...
A4ET8a8uTh0|3 years ago
I could offer anecdotes, but my interactions with my social circles more and more indicate 'well, duh' to stories like this and not post-1981 book reading horror of realization that humans can be quite horrible to one another. And, well, since it is clear now that some information is suppressed and some is heavily promoted -- the distrust of general populace appears to be quite high.
And this is yet another reason why I constantly argue against the temptations of censorship. That said, this is the path we are on.
So to answer your question. No, I don't think it is sinister at all. It is just the current state of affairs. Some subjects are more risky than others.
bell-cot|3 years ago
It doesn't help that it struck me as drawn-out and disjointed.
Worse - I never got the sense that the public would much care if the facts that the DMSA is keeping secret could be freely published in Britain. Nor (post-Snowden, and having read about some of America's secret gag orders) that the UK is up to anything all that bad (by the modern-day western world's very low standards).
tomcatfish|3 years ago