The shootings in France [Merged]

[TimWatt]

You are right that I have speculated, as others have here, but I have made clear that we do not have sufficient facts to know, as we only have sufficient information TO speculate - which as others have said is not usual.
The link (now edited) previously stated that a Section D notice had been sent to all UK media, suppressing information on the case - whioch to me suggests that what is being covered is something embarrassing. Which, if true, ought not be sufficient grounds for censorship.
I would add that I have not made WILD speculations nor confused Iran and Iraq (see the link), plus I see the BBC correspondent is also suggesting it looks like a targeted assassination: BBC News - France shootings: Three victims shot in head.

If this is not something you want to read - I apologise, but there's no football. But this is a bit more important and another thread shows people are interested, and there's a lot fishy here.

 

[junior]

You are right that I have speculated, as others have here, but I have made clear that we do not have sufficient facts to know, as we only have sufficient information TO speculate - which as others have said is not usual.
The link (now edited) previously stated that a Section D notice had been sent to all UK media, suppressing information on the case - whioch to me suggests that what is being covered is something embarrassing. Which, if true, should not be sufficient grounds for censorship.
I would add that I have not made WILD speculations nor confused Iran and Iraq (see the link), plus I see the BBC correspondent is also suggesting it looks like a targeted assassination: BBC News - France shootings: Three victims shot in head.

Not nessessaraly (sp?) embaressing, it could be a matter of security.

 

[Mister Mix]

I'll say one thing for any professional outfit.

They would have looked 3/4's of the way down the main board before starting a new thread.

My mistake brother

 

[TimWatt]

Of course... we don't know what we don't know. But the fact the target is dead and gone, makes the issue of 'security' rather redundant, does it not?

It's now about the fallout, PR, and covering up the incompetence. So not about truth, whatever that may be....

 

[beorhthelm]

I would add that I have not made WILD speculations nor confused Iran and Iraq (see the link)

yes you have. The chap in question was Iraqi by birth. in the link you posted they speculate that the chap is involved in Iraqi weapons programme. you then put out the speculation:

2. Perhaps he wasn't actually not involved in anything to do with nuclear weapons in Iran at all - but Israel's intelligence was wrong - perhaps they don't care. It's a message short of invasion of Iran.

you're speculating that there is Mossad involvement, speculating that news is being suppressed, speculating there is a cover up. clearly Mr T.Watt you are another conspiracist trying to stir up alternative realities with no more information than anyone else has.

 

[Mister Mix]

I really believe this is a contract killing

 

[TimWatt]

I'm sorry - you've confused the link I've posted with one posted by another person. The link I posted says he was Iraqi but lived here for at least 10 years and that he (may) have worked for UK intelligence, and had recently visited Iran.

Here's an example of where news is being suppressed - which well it might be if he would be due personal privacy, but clearly it's now beyond that - the victim's LinkedIn Page describes himself as working in the aerospace industry. Have you seen that reported anywhere?

As stated already the Mossad involvement, Iran, etc. is ENTIRELY speculative but it didn't originate from me... It's the most obvious answer though. I like others here am curious about what is NOT being talked about and why?

Neither am I stirring things. I thought it worth mentioning that 5 items I read online (and no evidence to support, were removed within minutes this afternoon). Also, obvious questions aren't being asked - for which there is likely a reason and, I suspect, not a worthy one.

People want to know, and the press have a duty to uncover the truth in matters of importance. I don't see why supporting that suppression is at all healthy.

 

[Silent Bob]

Here's an example of where news is being suppressed - which well it might be if he would be due personal privacy, but clearly it's now beyond that - the victim's LinkedIn Page describes himself as working in the aerospace industry. Have you seen that reported anywhere?

Yes, all news outlets reporting he was involved in satellites.

Obviously satellites have many uses other than military/'security'. It's possible he was involved in that part of it, or not but he still had knowledge that would be useful to nations wanting to build nuclear weapons or something. Then it's possible that he was selling or giving that information and someone who didn't want him decided to assassinate him for it. But it's a lot of huge assumptions to make on little information.

 

[cloud]

5 items I read online (and no evidence to support, were removed within minutes this afternoon)

How long before this thread vanishes as well

 

[Steve Foster]

This thread should be nothing more than sympathy for the deceased & the bereaved. The conspiracy theories have no place here. I sincerely hope that the moderators are reading these posts very clearly & are close to pulling the thread.

 

[HovaGirl]

Could be

Goodness me! Inspector George Gently! Or Judge John Deed!

 

[Titanic]

This thread should be nothing more than sympathy for the deceased & the bereaved. The conspiracy theories have no place here. I sincerely hope that the moderators are reading these posts very clearly & are close to pulling the thread.

Can you tell me why you think people should not discuss an unusual and interesting news story?

I agree 'conspiracy theories' can make people look pretty ill-informed and in some cases are clearly wild speculation that to many may appear pretty stupid... but again, these are exactly the sort of conversations that go on in pubs and homes all around the country.

I agree there should be a level of respect, consideration and decency towards the victims and families, but not everyone is as sensitive and considerate... I don't think that is illegal though, is it?

If such a discussion was going on in a pub, I wouldn't get involved in it (unless I knew enough facts to make sensible contribution)... I guess that is what most people on a chatboard would do to?

I would be interested to understand the legalities of this sort of idle gossip / discussion on a chatboard or elsewhere on the internet, and will do a little more research, both to satisfy my own curiosity and help protect NSC from falling foul of the law if this is likely.

 

[somerset]

This thread should be nothing more than sympathy for the deceased & the bereaved. The conspiracy theories have no place here. I sincerely hope that the moderators are reading these posts very clearly & are close to pulling the thread.

I am afraid you have made yourself look very pompous and self righteous there sir, I say comment and speculate away... its a free country and there is no direct link to this board or any of its members as far as we know.

They were Iraqi, there is speculation that they were anti Baath party, a sinister observer would suggest it is probably internal Iraqi squabbling, he probably gave evidence against someone...... or has been 'outed' as one of the many translators who worked for the allied military and were then given relocation packages....... or it is simply a family matter.

 

[Titanic]

...I would be interested to understand the legalities of this sort of idle gossip / discussion on a chatboard or elsewhere on the internet, and will do a little more research, both to satisfy my own curiosity and help protect NSC from falling foul of the law if this is likely.

Bulletin board postings more likely slander than libel, says High Court

"..I referred to common themes in the postings, such as that of 'bullying' other users and making 'threatening demands' for money. That is classic fair comment territory and, in the light of the modern authorities, it is inconceivable that a jury would find any of those who expressed such a view 'malicious' – let alone all of them," he said. "Opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held. It is fanciful to suppose that any of these people did not believe what they were saying. Even if they reached their conclusions in haste, or on incomplete information, or irrationally, the defence would still avail them." In a case last year a number of posters on a football discussion website received similar protection. Club Sheffield Wednesday and some of its directors took a bulletin board to court to force it to reveal the identity of posters, but Richard Parkes QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said that the identities should not be revealed.
"I do not think it would be right to make an order for the disclosure of the identities of users who have posted messages which are barely defamatory or little more than abusive or likely to be understood as jokes," he wrote. "That, it seems to me, would be disproportionate and unjustifiably intrusive."
Parkes ruled in the case that the expected right to privacy of the posters, who had posted using pseudonyms, outweighed the right of the directors and club to protect their reputation when the remarks in question were trivial."


I am not saying for one minute that people shouldn't be careful and considerate about what they post... but also don't think it would be healthy if people were constantly 'treading on eggshells' when posting on message boards. Will read some more...

 

[Titanic]

This appears to be a bit more cautious / restrictive...

Legal matters Careers Service 2.0

 

[Titanic]

"They probably represent the "most paranoid approach", as I'm a cautious scaredycat type - in
practice people might be able to get away with some of these things, but strictly they could get into
big trouble for it if they're caught or sued, so don't say I haven't warned you!"

http://www.theftprotect.co.uk/library/articles/HOW%20TO%20LEGALLY%20PROTECT%20YOURSELF%20WHEN%20BLOGGING%20OR%20PUBLISHING%20ON%20THE%20INTERNET.pdf

 

[Titanic]

"Justice Secretary Ken Clarke explained: "As the law stands, individuals can be the subject of scurrilous rumour and allegation on the web with little meaningful remedy against the person responsible. "Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users.
"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material."



BBC News - QA: Who are internet trolls - and how is the law changing?

 

[mike79]

family dispute with the brother being reported

 

[Nathan]

How about this then.... What are the chances the brother is found dead. Case closed.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

They were Iraqi, there is speculation that they were anti Baath party, a sinister observer would suggest it is probably internal Iraqi squabbling, he probably gave evidence against someone...... or has been 'outed' as one of the many translators who worked for the allied military and were then given relocation packages....... or it is simply a family matter.

The chap was Iraqi, but his wife was Iranian (and her parents Swedish nationals). He'd been in the UK over 20 years.