Photography on duty

[chinook240]

Saw this on another chat website:

The issue of taking pictures on your own equipment whilst serving in uniform (UK that is) has been contentious in recent years. In truth, there are various regulations which provide that any photo/image taken whilst serving, or by virtue of service, is Crown Copyright.

In reality however no action has been taken despite some blatant abuse. However things are now to be tightened up by the MoD. The reason is that images are being released which undermine the MoD (e.g. images of dead UK soldiers being published, naturally distressing to family and friends alike). A new DI will be issued shortly to the effect that service personnel can only take photos using service equipment.

Following on from the revealing phone/camera and home vids coming out on utube etc this doesn't sound too far fetched.

[vecvechookattack]

Another tale of the left hand not knowing what the right hand,...etc etc..... What will happen is this...

The MOD fun police will ban all private cameras / Videos and insist that you use service photographers....

...... Soon the MOD PR people will have no good PR pics of the boys in action, catching Drug runners, saving stricken babies from Fires etc etc...and so the MOD PR people will insist that people start taking pics for PR purposes....and on it goes....and on and on and on...

[ProfessionalStudent]

:ugh: Nanny State=Nanny MoD :ugh:

I hate them, I hate them, I hate them.:*

[toddbabe]

And Just Exactly How Are They Going To Enforce This Then?

[splitbrain]

And Just Exactly How Are They Going To Enforce This Then?

CCTV perhaps? :p

Public funded of course.

[mayorofgander]

And Just Exactly How Are They Going To Enforce This Then?
With lots of capital letters perhaps!!!:p

MOG

[ranger703]

Service personnel who take their cameras to work for whatever reason need to read 2006DIN08-022.Its contents cannot be published outside the services but it does have far reaching implications.

My photo permit and past DPA authorisation is now worthless and articles such as the one about Tain in this months Aircraft Illustrated are no longer feasible for my likes!!

I hope to be corrected on this matter but from the numerous calls I made this afternoon unless you work in the Photo Section or for a MOD photo agency your screwed.

[timex]

Although it sounds a pain the MOD will just ensure you won't be able to take your phone or your camera with you (They took phones off people 7 days before Telic).

While I don't agree with loss of either bit of kit, just how many "stupid" posed (or otherwise) photo's would have been kept out of the papers? Bearing in mind that some of the published photo's actually made it worse for the guys still out on Ops.

[splitbrain]

While I don't agree with loss of either bit of kit, just how many "stupid" posed (or otherwise) photo's would have been kept out of the papers?

Good point, it might help prevent a few unecessary indiscretions. Whilst on Op Telic at Akrotiri our visiting American tanker cousins suffered an (ahem) unfortunate SNAFU involving the U/C selector and the operation of the electro-hydraulic pump :\
My oppo was cycling up to work that evening when he spied an individual driving slowly past the sorry scene in a private car with a video camera cradled in his arm pointing out the window. He stopped the driver, found out who he was, tore him a new botty hole and told him he'd be in deeper guano if the footage found its way onto the internet in any way. Don't know if he took it any further, but I've never seen it so I asume the individual must have got the message loud and clear.

[Seak1ng]

Coincidentally I just read a booklet at work about a new pricing structure for media and photographs supplied to the public sector...

Just a coincidence I am sure!:ok:

[The Swinging Monkey]

This is certainly is a very grey area and I'm not convinced the MOD have the right to do this (but as they are law unto themselves, then maybe they 'believe' they can)

The copyright LAW clearly states that anyone who creates the 'artistic works' or the 'intelectual property' owns the copyright to that property, whether it be a drawing, photo, sketch, whatever.

Now the MOD believes that if the photo is taken in 'their' time, then the copyright belongs to them....hummm, I'm not certain.

Indeed, if you look at many of the 'official' photos shown in the RAF news for example, you will see that it says (c) Cpl Bloggs etc. Many other service publications name the photographer as the copyright holder also.

Clearly, some of the more stupid videos that have surfaced recently has led to the MOD clamping down, and I would agree that this kind of thing needs to stop now. As for the MOD claiming copyright on all photos taken by individulas, irrespective of whether it's in theatre or otherwise, I would certainly question the legality of that.

Kind regarsd to all
TSM

[ranger703]

Copyright is not the issue with the new DIN!!

[Pontius Navigator]

2006DIN08-022

Parts of this DIN as cr*p. The spull chucker got the spelling right just the plod who wrote it got personal and personnel mixed up which could drive holes in any charge.

Then there is a reference to Classified. What does that mean? I believe Classified disappeared 15 or more years ago "Everyone understands what it means," he said, blissfully ignoring that perhaps 75% of the armed forces have less than 15 years service.

[toddbabe]

Although it sounds a pain the MOD will just ensure you won't be able to take your phone or your camera with you (They took phones off people 7 days before Telic).

While I don't agree with loss of either bit of kit, just how many "stupid" posed (or otherwise) photo's would have been kept out of the papers? Bearing in mind that some of the published photo's actually made it worse for the guys still out on Ops.
Sorry timex but they don't check eveyones bags on the way out to theatre, it would be just about impossible to prevent cameras and phones being taken out to the gulf.
Never going to be able to stop it.

[Jackonicko]

"Coincidentally I just read a booklet at work about a new pricing structure for media and photographs supplied to the public sector..."

Hmmm.

Don't get me started.

Make it more difficult for the pro-Forces outlets to cover the RAF and you'll just ensure a lot more negative stories.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Aye, they seem to have enough trouble spotting illegal weapons going back to the UK, how the hell are they going to screen an entire flight for cameras etc?

[wg13_dummy]

A new DI will be issued shortly to the effect that service personnel can only take photos using service equipment.



Does that mean I can pop down to the phot section tomorrow and demand to sign out a shiny new Nikon D2X?

[Mr Teatime]

H'mmm,seems like only yesterday they were asking for our piccies and videos in an attempt to recreate a 'road to Amarillo (Al Amarah)' type PR coup.

[stickmonkeytamer]

Who has not taken photos whilst on Det/ Ops??? It is history in the making- no-one in the official photographic trade can capture everything that the people in the firing line see day in and day out- no disrespect to them but a split second photo of a firefight or aircraft dropping actual ordenance cannot be captured by the military photographers all the time- "staged" is not good enough! Very disappointing, as surely any good photo is good PR for the miltary. The Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq were always keen for their hardware and personnel (without showing their faces!) to be taken as they always wanted to show what a good job they were doing. Very disappointed in this view from the top.

SMT

[wg13_dummy]

Very disappointed in this view from the top.


....But not suprised.

[Talking Radalt]

Aye, they seem to have enough trouble spotting illegal weapons going back to the UK, how the hell are they going to screen an entire flight for cameras etc?

Arrive at South Cerney even earlier? :uhoh:

[jumpseater]

Being a civvy I've obviously not seen this doc, however there are parallells on this side of the fence. Many companies get round it saying if you are on duty at the time, i.e. being paid by them at the time, or on their equipment/property then the intellectual copyright is theirs, as you're in effect working for them at the time the image was taken, so you are 'at work', even if photography isn't your employed vocation. TSM I think you'll find the RAF news images are crown copyright or equivalent, the name check is more of a photographers credit, but I'd be happy to be corrected.


I've been fortunate in that when I've taken images the companies I've worked for (civvy), are usually pleased to have a copy, I've been known to put in a cheeky little invoice too once or twice. Good PR people recognise the value of the 'money shot'.

Rgds JS available for weddings barmitzvahs and this sort of stuff......
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q38/doggabank/art/_B6O5621.jpg
:ok:

[Blacksheep]

I've been out for a long time, and things may have changed since the bad old days of the Cold War, but it was the case that we were not allowed to take a camera onto MOD property without written permission. Where granted, written permission was subject to the copyright for any photographs taken on military property or during military operations, being assigned to the MOD.

This made publication difficult - newspaper editors knew the rule perfectly well and would submit any photos offered to them to the MOD for permission to publish. Photographs taken without permission were liable to forfeit and photographic equipment brought onto MOD property without written permission was liable to confiscation.

It may be the case that submission of photographs for censorship has been done away with, but I'd be extremely surprised if the rules were changed to permit free and unlimited personal photography of military installations and manoeuvers.

[RETDPI]

Some years ago one of the new Russian carriers came up the channel.The "Daily Telegraph" sent out a photographer on board a Cessna 172 and got a superb shot ,which was duly published on the front page of the "DT" which at the time had a circulation of around 330k copies a day.
I duly phoned "DT" up from my RAF home in Lincolnshire asking if I could have a copy print for reproduction within my own unit , which had a strong Recce Component and hopefully good unclassified prints would be welcome.
Actually "DT" sent me a beautiful big copy neg. I submitted said neg to Ground Photo with a request for 10 copies for distribution to RIC, GLO's etc.
On going to pick up said prints I was surprised to find myself signing a F102.
The imagery having being obtained of Soviet shipping inside certain height and distance minima, in accordance to the rules they were all dutifully stamped "SECRET" top and bottom , back and front etc. etc.
Silly Boy!

[The Helpful Stacker]

Perhaps the MoD are getting a little uncomfortable with the amount of helmet cam footage returning from Afghanistan showing, shock horror, troops carrying out 'aggressive action' and the realities of the job.

Of course as already mentioned some of the best photographs/footage taken of military operations since the technology became available has been taken by average Joe's on the ground rather than a raft of escorted and pandered to press types. The MoD would be shooting itself in the foot in PR terms if the flow of 'honest' imagery rather than the pre-prepared sort was stopped.

Whilst I agree that such a change in policy could be easy to implement for pax boarding a/c (as suggested, a long stay at South Cerney perhaps) the large amount of 'comfy boxes' sent out to theatres would provide an admin nightmare if they were all to be searched for such heinous devices as a camera. Also, having experienced the "hand over your mobile" phase of Telic 1 I can honestly say that on the unit I was with at least it was a complete waste of time. No one wanted to hand their £200-300 handset in especially as it also doubled as a camera so it was roundly ignored with the reply of "I didn't bring one" being enough to sate the powers that be.

[Widger]

A sad day, but inevitable (these regulations have always existed) with images taken by a few idiots. I have seen plenty of high quality pictures taken by Jack/Percy/Cyril, which have found there way to the likes of Navy News and some who have even produced flight safety posters and videos in their own time, at no cost to the MOD. I hope that common sense will prevail. Rules are their for those that abuse the system and this DIN will leave no excuse for those that show complete stupidity, filming their mates kicking the **** out of rioters. I just hope that this does not stifle the considerable amateur talent out there and the vast majority who are sensible in their efforts and always get their seniors to approve publication.

[Regie Mental]

The advance of digital camera technology in recent years has meant more people now take cameras with them into theatre. It also means that any images taken can be distributed quickly without waaiting to get home to get the prints from Boots.
This, on the whole, has produced some fantastic images which simply would not have been taken 10 years ago. The downside is that images have been taken which are either innapproriate, breach op sec or do damage to the military objective. I am told that there was an image of dead British troops stacked on a wagon of some sort which then made it to the press. The problem is that once that image gets back to family or friends in the UK it could end up anywhere. There were no images to my knowledge (and thankfully) of the most recent RAF crash site in Afghanistan and no doubt those who complain about the new DI would be equally vocal in their objections had images appeared.
There is a problem here which can potentially affect us all. Whether it's publishing images of casualties or damaging the 'hearts and minds' campaign, something needs to be done but a blanket ban such as this just gives the RAFP carte blanche to nick everyone (if I get arrested they won't be able to take my mug shot though until they satisfy me that they are using service equipment).
The issue of copyright is I believe covered by JSPs and I'll post more details when I get them.
Finally, several images were taken of 'that' KC-135, the ban being more to protect the embarassment of the USAF than anything else. However, if you power up without checking the position of the undercarriage lever....

[Tiger_mate]

I once appeared in far too much detail on a TV program documenting the IRA intelligence activities. An SIB interview followed, and I was aware of the source of the footage. It came from an SSVC cameraman, and I am told that this then gets included in a media pool available (at cost) to any journalist from the many medias that we have these days.

I doubt very much if any military censorship was involved in deciding who had access to this material, and as the 'star' I was very p155ed off about it. High quality photographs taken by mobile phone and immediately transmitted to an editors desk mean that this is a fact of life that everybody will have to accept. It will be impossible to police.

[Seak1ng]

In my opinion this is just another sign that the people at the top are losing even more of their grip on reality.

The truth is that we live in a new age of easily accessible photography and other digital media. And the best people to provide that media are the workers at the "coalface". I used to carry a camera with me all the time and have provided many photographs which have been used by the RAF, the police and other agencies for very positive use. Even use within the military fopr briefings etc. I have not charged or expected payment for any of these photographs, believing them to be very beneficial to the service. I stopped carrying my camera when these new directives came out, and have also stopped providing the service with old photographs and video clips - despite being asked many times recently. Why should I when I get treated like this?

I agree that there have been issues with innappropriate pictures being supplied to the press or posted on the internet. But most of the images and media have turned out to be very positive (Amarillo being the one that springs to mind) if only for the morale of the people spending many months of their life doing a thankless and difficult task. Doing the job we do we probably all have access to things we don't want in the public domain - be they photos, videos or even just words about the state of the military in the last few years.

Surely the MOD should be encouraging people to provide them with positive clips, and maybe even paying a small fee to the producer of the clip or picture. Maybe then we can provide the media with more interesting pictures and stories to attempt to put our operations and even everyday life in a much more positive light. This would also maybe have the benefit of reducing the attempts of the press to elicit more underground clips, most of which seem to be unfavourable.

Oh, and maybe it will improve morale a bit!

[Double Hush]

Having just picked up on this thread, why do I, as a serving mate, have to find out about rules & regs that affect us via PPRuNe?

[Widger]

Because rather than make use of your Government supplied computer and account to view the websites of the three Services which have DINs clearly detailed, you decide to spend your time surfing, the internet, looking at holiday sites, Pprune, ARSSE, Rumrationand doing on-line shopping.

Yes I know.....I'm a hipa...hippoc..hypicr......one to talk!:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Not having the DIN to hand, who can authorise the use of a camera etc?

I know one get out of jail card it that photographs required for the job must be done on service equipment and using service photogs.

As said before, if you don't happen to have the photog present . . .

The Iwo Jima photo or the Desert Rats advance after Alamein are cases in point.

[Almost_done]

After reading the said DIN, which it must be said, is clear in it's content that no unauthorised 'image capture devices are to be used'.
Time to dust off the old pencil and paper approach then I guess;
'Now just hold that pose 'Terry', ah that’s it got it, carry on!'
:ugh: Morale Police :ugh:

[Jimlad1]

So is this saying that no one is allowed to take a camera with them, or that they can't use a camera on duty?
Where will that leave the war tourists in exciting helicopter rides? Every time I flew into the International Zone in the back of a Puma, my own and every other camera was working overtime filming it -are the fun police really that concerned about it?
From a practical perspective surely having photos of tours is a good chance to show the public what life is REALLY like in theatre? People who have seen my own photos have found them a useful insight into life beyond the stereotypes...

[Saxon]

Section 69 of the Army Act should just about cover it.

Unfortunately.....If a damageing or inappropriate picture or footage has been posted on the internet behind a username, how do you then nail the nosher responsible....

[jumpseater]

If a damageing or inappropriate picture or footage has been posted on the internet behind a username, how do you then nail the nosher responsible....


With a lot of hard work, Pprune did it with the infamous 'Guvnor'. The result being that the man behind the user name was convicted and is behind bars for being a paedophile.:ok: So with enough effort and assistance from the board owners, plod, IP providers etc etc it can be done.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Saxon - is pretty easy to trace people who actually log in to a site these days, unless they do it from an anonymous internet cafe with no CCTV near by!

Is scary enough that all those adverts are targeted at your country of residence, but if you ever try doing a bandwith test on your internet connection, some of the sites these days can pinpoint which town you're in. And thats just a noddy site, ISPs know what IP is assigned to what phone line, and your IP is usually registered when you log into most any kind of server. 2+2 = 65 and bob's your uncle...

As for no photography on duty.... no more course/sqn videos then? Ooooh I can feel the morale... can you!?

[Pontius Navigator]

With a lot of hard work, Pprune did it with the infamous 'Guvnor'.

Would you care to tell those of us who don't know what happened and when? bare details, not lurid, please.

[jumpseater]

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/XC1020.html

Will tell you a great deal about this man, none of it very pleasant. He used to frequent here in the civvy forums in particular and had enough knowledge to be plausible on occaisions.

To say he was a 'walt' would be an understatement, but he had suffiecient ability to do a considerable amount of damage, not least of all to the young girl and her family. In the event he appears in aviation again sometime in the future, be very very careful when dealing with him, in any manner.
Basically Pprune was able to provide a good deal of assistance in the investigation and susequent conviction of this individual. Good riddance is the politest thing that springs to mind....:oh:

Any way, back to photography on duty....

[Maple 01]

I vaguely remember the 'no camera on ops' rule, followed several years later by a slightly embarrassed RAF historical branch asking for copies of photos for the records from the lads - who of course hadn't taken any because cameras were 'verboten';)

[airborne_artist]

It's still pretty easy to keep things anon. - use a pre-pay 3G phone/camera (some with 5 Mb resolution) and upload to picture-share sites only ever using the phone to access them. Ensure that the phone is only ever topped up using top-ups paid for in cash, and don't make/receive any calls on it to/from other phones. Entirely feasible, but don't tell anyone I told you :8

[Roadster280]

Well it all depends on how much effort big brother is willing to devote to the exercise. PAYG phones are relatively anonymous, but the network can track exactly where the phone has been, and so it wouldn't be all that hard to track it down. Blocking it would be even simpler.

I suspect that if any images of relevance to the goings-on in Ipswich were found, big brother would devote the necessary effort in a heartbeat. But for a few pics of some military toys? I doubt it.

It seems pretty obvious to me that there needs to be a control policy for image recording in an environment where protectively marked material is commonplace. The James Bond types of 30 years ago would have given their right arms for a device smaller than a cigarette packet that could surreptitiously take photos of a new shiny thing and send it anywhere in the world in a few seconds. However, said device could also be used to take commemorative photos of the Sgt's Mess Christmas bash, and what's wrong with that? A balance needed, methinks.

[airborne_artist]

PAYG phones are relatively anonymous, but the network can track exactly where the phone has been, and so it wouldn't be all that hard to track it down. Blocking it would be even simpler.

By which time you've flogged it on Ebay, binned the number, and bought another one.

[Roadster280]

Well true, but ebay is the point where it becomes a lot more traceable, since presumably, the person selling it wants to physically collect their money.

Just binning it would be more straightforward.

[PICKS135]

The Answer is here gentlemen. Dont get a PAYG phone, get this little beauty

http://www.engadget.com/2004/09/03/spend-some-time-with-philips-wearable-digital-camera/

[difar69]

Ok, just watched a docu on The History Channel (crazy Fri night I know!) where Nazi Servicemen had filmed WW2 events on THEIR OWN CAMERA EQUIPMENT! For petes sake, even the Nazi's stopped at this sort of censoring and allowed an element of personal documentation. Whatever next? Political Officers assigned to every Sqn/Reg/Ship to make sure that not only are any images you take in line with government policy, but your thoughts, opinions and values are too? This whole idea won't last 5 mins (I hope).:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I would hate to think the images that will be available to my grandchildren in the future, of the conflicts we are fighting now, will only be of the New Labour censored type. It makes me sick.

[Pontius Navigator]

Interestingly, my grandfather was an avid photographer who took many photographs in Tibet and India but not one during active service in Mesopotamia. Once they had beat 'johnny Turk' he started taking them again.

OTOH, on one operation, we saw all the pax (WAGs) disembarking from a trooper snapping away like fury. True no WAGs in the sandpit, but no one thought to check them in earlier ops.

The courts farcial would be good fun though with most of the army, air force etc all arraigned.

"And what is your defence Mr Smith, TA?" May I call Colonel Blimp Sir?

[Self Loading Freight]

Before you go buying and running a PAYG 3G phone in cash and not making calls on it, don't forget that the network tracking can reveal a one-to-one correspondence between its location and that of any other mobile phone in your pocket. If you really want to keep out of trouble, you need to be a sight cleverer than that.

These new regs - which, not being in the services, I haven't seen - won't have been prompted by the sudden appearance of lots of cheap digital cameras; you've been able to buy a disposable film camera for a fiver for years. It's YouTube and Flickr.

Solution: take the pics for your grandchildren, mates, whatever as before, but don't go uploading them in public places - or at least, leave that as a decision for your grandchildren when you're safely out of reach of even the snottiest rulebook. Print 'em out, stick them in an album, delete or encrypt the original files, or copy them onto a USB drive and put it in a shoebox.

I can't see that a camera ban will be workable in any case, unless there's some plan for mil issue mobile phones -- and how well will that work -- or somebody popping around to put a blob of purple paint with a crown seal on the lens of your Nokia.


R

[BEagle]

At the end of GW1, we were told that we could talk freely to the media and use whatever piccies we might have taken in whatever way we wished. No-one weasled on about copyright or other such niff-naff. Airfix even pinched one of my piccies - that's my 'Armoured Charmer' on the 'Desert Storm' Tornado GR1 kit.

Officialdom even asked if we had any spare piccies they could have, since there weren't any surplus PONTIs in theatre to take 'Official Crown Copyright' phots. Several of us obliged; no-one ever said thank you though.

Several magazine articles were written and photos used by the more reputable magazines, such as AFM and the RAF Yearbook. No-one worried about that.

Perhaps the difference was that GW1 was seen as a just and honest war, widely supported by the folks back home. Remember all those Christmas cakes and thousands of Mr Kipling mince pies which arrived 16 years ago this very week?

Even Air Clues used to pay £25 for a decent piccie - no questions asked. They used a Bear D fin shot, of mine, for example. I also sold a 'Last Flash Trail' piccie to Arthur Gibson and he refused to give me any change - that was a bit like selling a photo to David Bailey!

So if the leaden hand of the Thought Police has now descended on photography, future generations will wonder what happened in the 'New Blairite Dark Age'....

[RileyDove]

The first casualty of war is the truth - Tony and his mates clearly don't wish for their various escapades to be recorded in any other way than with something they can control! Amazing that the Mod has even considered this - I dispair for my friends left in .

[FJJP]

If memory serves, prior to each GW1 mission and all subsequent 'no-fly zone policing' missions, all personal effects and badges were removed into safe storage. All you had on you was a geneva Convention ID chit.

It would be better if the powers that be educated people on the potential good/bad of photos appearing in the media without scrutiny. But whatever you do, there will always be some moron that will screw the pooch and create major embarrassment.

[GreenKnight121]

"there will always be some moron that will screw the pooch and create major embarrassment"

And when they do, this new reg will allow an easier prosecution for "Conduct Predjudicial to the Good Order and Discipline of the Armed Forces"!

I don't know about the UK, but the US "Uniform Code of Military Justice" has that as the title of Article 134... also known as the "catch-all charge".

While charges can be brought under 134 for this kind of stuff, it would be subject to legal challenge on Constitutional "Free Speech" grounds. Although there would be little chance of avoiding conviction using that defense, something like your reg would eliminate all possibility of using that defense by providing a specific case of "Disobedience of a Lawful Order".



The problem, as you say, the the difficulty of enforcement (which will be, inevitably, selective... usually going after the worst offenders), and also the long-term implications for society as a whole, because where one governmental branch goes, the others will want to follow.

It is also subject to abuse, where it is used to target individuals who are doing what everyone else in their unit is doing, but have annoyed someone who then turns them in... "The British Video Inquisition" anyone?

[Pontius Navigator]

to target individuals who are doing what everyone else in their unit is doing, but have annoyed someone who then turns them in...

Ah, the golden bollocks syndrome.

And have a look at the official MOD Sanctuary magazine. Are they really expecting a military photographer to crawl around photographing flora and fauna?

[BEagle]

I note from today's Sunday Times:

......in October the Ministry of Defence banned the use of cameras on operations. This was not for security reasons, but because they “may cause significant embarrassment to the MoD”.

Couldn't have MoD being embarrassed now, could we.....:rolleyes:

[Shackman]

And without 'private' photography the BoI for XV206 (Herc in Helmand) would have very little to go on apart from the aftermath and the crews' account which can always be twisted by one of the 'experts' in hindsight vision.

I wonder how many other BoI's or Unit Inquiries have been helped by unofficial photo's?


* * Pertama * *

[RileyDove]

Didn't see Tony asking the troops to hand their personnal cameras over on his recent trip to Baghdad!

[topgas]

Yes, our phones were handed in on Telic 1, or most of them. A few days later a list of text messages and content sent from our location arrived via the CoC - so they didn't trust us entirely. We were also told, tho' it didn't happen, that RAFP would wipe any electronic media on leaving theatre - obviously a futile exercise to even try.
I have seen a number of unit dvds recording the highlights and low points of their tours, most very moving and well put together, which act as a permanent record as well as a reminder of the sacrifices made by many brave boys and girls. It would be a travesty if the result of this DIN was to curtail them. On the plus side, are unit COs really going to discourage this type of activity? A few local rules should suffice.

A merry Christmas to all in the Operational areas