On 11/28/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote: We don't know. Erm no we don't. We don't have a history of deferring to anyone. We don't know that there are other posible reasons for the offcial secrets act kicking in. Public domain? I doubt it. Crown copyright perhaps. -- geni

On 29 Nov 2005, at 00:24, stevertigo wrote: Yeah but no but. Previous poster wanted more publicity. Was just suggesting improving article to FA was best way... Oh yes loads. Come and visit, you are very welcome. Sorry, I find your tone of voice slightly hard to interpret by email, I think the ironing may be mixed up. I am afraid that [[Official Secret Act]] is really really bad and doesnt reflect much of the importance. I did think the UK law articles were in a kind of ok state, but it seems not. IANAL though, so not sure I can help very much. Although [[Riot Act]] is equally bad I have mroe historical background. Most official discussions are not released. The US has not released it either. Can a transcript be obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act? The UK FoI version is not real. Yes, get a copy and we can do that. As a republican I wont be offering to polish the crown jewels though. Justinc

On 28 Nov 2005, at 20:52, geni wrote: Best thing is to make it a featured article, it will get on the front page fast. But I am in the UK so not like used to freedom or stuff so what do I know. Stevertigo, the UK press normally ignore official secrets act "gagging". There is a public interest defence. Sometimes someone goes to prison its true. Justinc

Fastfission, Very well put. Apart from being massively POV, it would also be original research. We should base our articles on verifiable material published in other reliable sources. We should not be publishing original documents ourselves. At best, it would be a matter for Wikisource. Regards *Keith Old* Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster On 11/29/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 stevertigo stated for the record: Going for the "irony thick and sticky enough to suck the boots right off your feet" award, are we? - -- Sean Barrett | Oops, I forgot to download part of the Internet. sean(a)epoptic.org |

On 29/11/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote: I have been not following the news at all for the last week or so, but... The major issue with publishing militarially sensitive material in the UK is D-notices; for the Americans, these are basically standing requests from HMG that before detailed information is published on various issues - nuclear weapons, aspects of the security services, military operational plans - that "advice be sought". A polite warning of sensitive areas which would probably result in various legal controversy in order that it not all end in tears, so that someone can't say "Well, I didn't realise you didn't *want* me to publish the names of members of SIS..." Officially, they have no legal standing, and are simply advisory; in practice it's a "voluntary code" which is followed most of the time, and it's understood that going against them is clearly seen as crossing the Rubicon. You might not wind up in court, but you'd certainly know you were dipping your toes in the shark pool. These have no legal force outside the UK barring in the sense of "a request through gritted teeth", and I have a vague recollection that OSA and DORA are really only applicable once someone's signed them - and I would hope any of our contributors who have are being sensible and restricting their writing to articles about kittens, just to be safe. So "breaking the law" is debatable. But actively making a political point of the fact we're considering doing it? Oooh, that would be so not good and god no and ugh. WP:NOT a campaigning body; this would be a vastly more contentious issue on-list were it solely in the US, I suspect. Fastfission is, as always, being sensible. I concur that, if this is significant, we should write about it. But we should not write about it simply to make a political point, not publish it simply to make that point. There will, after all, be no shortage of copies of it hosted around the world to refer to. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 30/11/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo No further comments, your honour. ;) -- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]