Restrictions on military contributions to the Interweb

[Kitbag]

For those who have access, see DIN 2007DIN03-006. Para 15 refers.

For those who don't have access you don't need to know ;)

[Sentry Agitator]

I'm not doing this then



SA

[adminblunty]

So if the wife says "How did it go at work today", I have to seek permission of DGMC to answer the question. She is a member of the public and if I answered the question I would be talking about defence.

What rubbish!

What can you do with a captured sailor, What can you do with a captured sailor... Oopps that's banned as well, It upsets the fishheads.

[catbert]

I think this broadbrush, all encompassing approach will be counterproductive. It made me sign up to pprune anyway!

[Spotting Bad Guys]

So they are effectively banning all current serving personnel from contributing to PPRuNE, ARRSE, RumRation et al without having first gained permission to do so? (unless of course you limit your contributions to non-military issues...yeah, right)

In this day and age of ubiquitous internet connectivity, how on earth do intend to stop it? Smacks of a policy with little actual grounding in reality, methinks....

SBG

[Diedtrying]

It upsets the fishheads. LOL

[PTT]

see DIN 2007DIN03-006. Para 15 refers
Got a link for that? :}

[Top Right]

Can't see the DIN but if this is as post 5 says, a ban on Web forums - what cost free speech?. That said, some contributors do push the lines of OPSEC too far. Or is someone high up worrying about power through coordination, eg the Ashtead success?

[Chugalug2]

As regards "power through co-ordination", Top Right, the words bolt and stable-door come to mind, do they not? There is literally an Army (and Air Force and Navy) out here of BOFS, like me, who have been turned at a stroke from assorted "ex-service men and women" into "veterans" (and have a badge to prove it!). We have found a joint voice to rail against civilian nimbyism aimed at service families and Government lack of even-handedness in the treatment of the "Bravest of the Brave". No doubt there will be many more good causes yet. It is just the latest irony in the affairs of this "Open Government" that they created us, one more link in their chain of unforeseen consequences! This one will crank up the PVR rate one more notch more I predict. Muppets!

[An Teallach]

It'll be some jobsworth in the RAFP justifying his existence. We'll soon see No 1 Username Decyphering Wg with ARRSE, PPRuNe and E-Goat Sqns.

I can imagine the charges: Conduct to the prejudice of good order and RAF discipline contrary to s.69 AFA 1955 in that he:

On 1 August 2007 did type: "Find a bl**dy shop??!! You were meant to bring the lemon for the gin & tonic!!" in a caption competition on an internet bulletin board accessible to the public and Her Majesty's enemies.

Insubordination contrary to s.XX AFA 1955 in that he:

On 2 August 2007 did type "BINGO!" after quoting excerpts from the MOD Overarching Equality & Diversity Strategy on an internet bulletin board accessible to the public and Her Majesty's enemies.

[west lakes]

the discussion on ARRSE is interesting.

The restrictions IMO are only to cover one group of a8ses - the media/press offices.
Most large orgainsations have these sort of restrictions "for commercial puposes"

[PTT]

If all that makes sense.
Nope :confused:








:E

[Gainesy]

Communicating with the public

Members of the Armed Forces and MOD Civil Servants must seek prior permission from DGMC if they wish to communicate about defence via books, articles or academic papers; self-publish via a blog, podcast or other shared text, audio or video; take part in external questionnaires, polls, surveys or research projects, speak at conferences, private engagements or other events where the public or media may be present; or contribute to any online community or share information such as a bulletin board, wiki, online social network, or multi-player game.

All contact with the news media on any topic relating to official Defence matters must be referred to the appropriate D News staff. This includes letters to newspapers, contributing to online debates, taking part in radio or TV programmes, or contact with the media at outside events such as conferences. The responsibility to comply with the Official Secrets Act lies with the individual.

:E

[vecvechookattack]

or contribute to any online community or share information such as a bulletin board, wiki, online social network, or multi-player game.


Well, that covers just about everybody then.....

This new rule hasn't been instigated for a laugh but purely so that they can hang you should you decide to put someting on the internet that shouldn't be there.

Do they mean youtube as well ? Search Youtube for :

Royal Navy = 1940 videos
British Army = 14,300 videos
Royal Air Force = 1510 videos
Red Arrows = 1350

Best we all take our videos off youtube then eh?


Whilst I'm at it.....who or what is DGMC ??? Where are they? Who is in charge of them?

[charliegolf]

The responsibility to comply with the Official Secrets Act lies with the individual.

You'd (in the main) make mincemeat of anyone trying to pin an official secrets rap on you based upon the contents of pprune posts, methinks.
Pprune ain't exactly the Clive Ponting Affair, is it.
I dare one of you (serving bods) to open a Number 10 Petition, "That DIN xyz be withdrawn in the interests of free speech and good banter".
CG
"The practice of referring to Falkland Islanders as 'Bennies' is to cease forthwith". That worked too. Didn't it?

[ShyTorque]

Yes, they were immediately known as "Stills" :ok:

[bushbolox]

Correct me if im wrong but didnt you all sign contracts when you joined. If you want freedom of speech ...leave. You're in the military not a PR consultant or civvy whistle blower. As long as you take the shilling do as your asked , or in your cases told. Give up the shilling then yell from the rooftops.
SIMPLE.
It wasnt like this at Dunkirk.:mad:

[teeteringhead]

Regional Forces and Cadets Associations and their Council .... would be even more impressive if they knew what "RFCA" really meant .....

it's Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations actually chaps......

... and I love the bit about "cadets etc etc when on duty" ... so they can only post in their own time...... rright....:D

[PPRuNeUser0211]

I suggest we all apply in writing to DGMC for each post we make and see how bored they get of replying?

[dallas]

Correct me if im wrong but didnt you all sign contracts when you joined. If you want freedom of speech ...leave.
Slave to the pension I'm afraid, but thereafter I agree and am doing.
You're in the military not a PR consultant or civvy whistle blower. As long as you take the shilling do as your asked , or in your cases told. Give up the shilling then yell from the rooftops.
I don't know what you do bushbolox, but if you were in the military nowadays you would realise that our previously agreed silence under the terms of the OSA is utilised by our employers increasingly for political reasons - in particular embarrassing deficiencies caused by underfunding. I do intend to yell all sorts from the rooftops when I am released, but would argue in the mean time that those who are knowingly silent are complicit in harming our country by allowing - or even worse, denying - the existence of fundamental defence problems. We are in serious trouble and gagging those who say so is the worse thing 'they' can do and, as usual, a superficial papering of critical cracks.

[Born To Be Mild]

I reckon it is simple really. Do exactly what this reg asks - every single serviceman email a request, every day, on every conceiveable topic. At least it would stop the truth police from having the time to spin.

[Jackonicko]

Is DIN 2007DIN03-006. Para 15

what Mike Jenvey posted?

How new is it?

If not, can someone PM me the pertinent para?

Caution: I am a journo, openly fishing.

[BEagle]

Thoughtcrime is doubleplus ungood! Off to the Ministry of Love for rehabilitation for those proles who dare defy Big Brother.

Honestly, just what inadequately testiculated little $hits are running the Ministry of Madness these days? Unable to face up to the guilt of the way they have let the UK's Armed Forces degenerate to their currently underfunded, overstretched state, they are utterly paranoid that their weak leadership will be exposed and have enforced a "Shut up and get on with your prep, boy" regulation.....

But it won't stop anything, merely expose yet another unsavoury side of the currently parlous state of the UK's Armed Forces.

So, perhaps there'll now be a "Bloke down the pub told me" thread for posts relayed by Private Message to those now safely out of the clutches of the Ministry of Madness ?

Or you could pose a question, not a statement. Such as "Is it true that.......?"

[Chugalug2]

Honestly, just what inadequately testiculated little $hits are running the Ministry of Madness these days?

Way to go BEags! I think that this DIN (ironic title for something supposed to close down discourse) must surely be a very good sign, the MOD would appear to be in Self Destruct mode at last, with the Star Trek lady computer counting down the seconds. Let us hope that the Captain does not pull his usual stroke of identifying himself and belaying the order in the final second, having outwitted the Klingons. Perhaps we could manage to distract him?

[blogger]

Are so the big wigs are getting worried that the true facts of life in the forces is getting out and it is effecting recruitment........no other fact for this DIN.

Well we have CIO's think I will get out and set up an anti CIO where kids come to get the true facts about life in the forces. Just to put them off I am sure Mum and Dad will pay £50 a time to put their little 17 year old off joining up and becoming an LAC with first tour Iraq.

Sorry we don't send 17 year olds to Iraq do we???????? ......... No because the press got hold of it!

So why cant troops going to Afgan and other area's take camera's any more even stopped from taking a mobile phone? Sorry but its not right. So gald my chuff chart is down to less than 2 months to go. Boy Free speech at last.....:D

[bushbolox]

Mike,
Twas but a michievous bit of perishing agitation:p
I did however return the shilling many moons ago because I was a racehorse being led by donkies.

I truly believe that I should not be paying sh1tloads of tax purely to see it funding the deaths of british youth on a crusade for a gang of nimby wankers.

Oops nearly went off on one.Back to the thread.

The government has lost any moral highground and any prosecution of pissed off outspoken mils in the context of the war on terror would not be in the public interest, nor condoned...But who has the balls to take them on? ...That is the question.

PS it was 3x NI (one covert, Baruki xmg sangar was one of my favourite places to piss on in my jeans and beard whilst feigning innebreation, pissed the toms right orf) and the FI job for me not the balkans.
Still i do like getting direct ROTAR from belgrade...lovely people.:ok:

[tablet_eraser]

Suggestion: since we have to apply to DGMC for permission to discuss defence matters on or off duty, we should all write to him forthwith requesting permission to:

1. Post to PPRuNe
2. Post to eGoat
3. Post to ARRSE
4. Write blueys
5. Write eBlueys
6. Include defence experience in CVs
7. Speak to our friends about the Forces
a. In the pub
b. On the telephone
c. Over the Internet
d. Via letters
e. At home
8. Speak to our families about defence
a. In the pub
b. On the telephone
c. Over the Internet
d. Via letters
e. At home
9. Discuss the Forces with people who are interested in joining
10. Post a reply to articles concerning the Forces on media websites

I think the DIN calls for a separate application for each incidence. So 20 letters apiece should do it.

Oh, and:

Personnel must first go through their line manager or chain of command to ensure the material furthers Defence interests, check the material is unclassified, that there are no operational concerns and that the cost and effort is justified.

Okay, genius, we're supposed to tie up DGMC, who is supposed to be furthering Defence interests by working closely with the media, with letters/emails/phone calls concerning blogs, etc? We're supposed to book an appointment with our COs or speak to our line managers if we want to talk to people about our jobs in pubs? Tell us, is THAT cost and effort justified?

[A2QFI]

If they don't have mobile phones of their own how will they communicate or has the military rubbish radio equipment got better since Bosnia and GW1 and 2?

[Grimweasel]

May have something to do with a rather pi$$ed of CGS (Dannatt) having his internal memo about troop numbers and overstretch leaked to the press.

As Joe Squaddie is happy only when moaning about kit and lack of sleep etc, I don't think the average junior rank is being targeted here. More those that should know better judging by the memo incident. It would not surprise me if some disaffected civil servant leaked it in the first place. Vermin.:=

[DGMC]

I'm terribly sorry, Chaps. I wrote that DIN bolleaux after I was elected to the Cnut Sveinsson chair of Gyratory Medicine.

Rumours that it was written after I was identified on various blogs and forums as a prize tw@t following my admission that I didn't have a clue where the 1,000 Rotational Registrars that I employ are, let alone what they are up to, are entirely true.

Rather than have you all swamp my inbox with requests for permission to continue posting on PPRuNe, please take this as permission to continue doing what you have been doing.

It appears I may be in need of employment shortly. Do any of you know if that Thrush from the Cillit Bang advert is due to retire? After all, I've spent the last 3 years trying to polish a turd, I'm sure I could sell that attribute to their product.

[L J R]

DGMC,

Check your PMs. I have a request to post on Pprune. It is about how much crap this DIN really is. I hope that the PM explains my logic and rationale to your expextations. I remain your humble servant blaah blaah...

[F34NZ]

As Grimweasel suggests, it may well have something to do with Dannatt being peeved about his memo being leaked, but the obvious answer to that, sung in a very loud voice and with the power of a hundred thousand voices, would be : 'Stop f:mad:ing leaking stuff yourselves then you hypocritical c:mad:s.'

One law for the politicised toads grabbing their ankles when Des and Gordo want something spun past parliament, one law for the blokes risking all in the sand. 'Beware the anger of the Legions' indeed.

[D-IFF_ident]

I don't have access to the DIN or Intranet, so I typed 'DGMC' on Google and hit 'I'm feeling lucky'.

http://www.dgmc.org/

I'm not sure how the 'Denver Gay Men's Chorus' is involved, but their website is very good.

[green granite]

Seems to me you might all want to start using proxy servers for access to the web. :}

[An Teallach]

PPRuNe Hits Back! My 'friend' DGMC is having his posts moderated by Proone! There's one in the eye for censorship. :}

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Para 21's a cracker;

and individuals should avoid conflicting with MoD or government policy.


As the DIN (who came up with that idiot name? DCI wasn't "new" and "happening" enough?) is MoD policy, I can't really comment, can I.

[AR1]

It's on ITV Teletext this morning! Apparantly in comes in the wake of the RN story selling scandal..

Bollocks it does. If that were it, why not just direct that you cant sell your stories to the media.

..:mad:

Just found this. Teletext on a PC? now I am confused..
http://www.teletext.co.uk/news/national/7/Forces+handed+gagging+order.aspx

[biddedout]

Hope someone has archived all previous pages and sifted through for Senior Officer postings. There will be plenty and they might come in handy at the first trial. If postings continue then of course the STAZI might just have to investigate all of them before they can pin charges on just one scapegoat. It might just make them hesitate slightly if there was a chance that other postings might be used in evidence. :)

[Goer Round]

As a signatory to the Official Secrets Act (and having re-signed when filling in my leaving chit) am I covered by this latest Orwellian buffoonery?

.....and can they extradite me for it???:E

[BluntM8]

How does this work with the recent posts by various Sqn Bosses, etc?

Since they're easy to identify, will they be first against the wall?

[adminblunty]

Front page of the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2145930,00.html

[biddedout]

So what about all those postings of support to the families of the victims of the Nimrod accident. Will the serving posters be charged? Should they in future just keep quiet or should they fisrst have their messages of support vettet by the plods?

I wonder if OC 6 Squadron will be available to act as Airman's friend at my CM?

[Regie Mental]

Well, I'm going to write to RAF News in disgust.

Oh dear, I'm not allowed to.

[An Teallach]

Dear Private Eye

Simon McDowell, Roddy McDowell. Are they by any chance related?

http://www.mevproductions.co.uk/TV/PlanetApes1.jpg

[RumourMonger]

Do not know if any one will ever post again whilst I`m about being a "hack" but its almost impossible to get a straight answer from the MoD Press Office some times, If you ask a quaestion relating to something as sensetive as why are we short of Support Helicopters, When are they going to replace the Seakings and Pumas? or something so secrte as the fact that we have eight Chinook HC mk 3s sitting on the deck because they have not been ordered properley. Whitehall once asked about the number of Chinooks responded that we do not answer those sort of quaestions, BUt go on the internet and you can find various bits of information from MoD and industry sources. Boeing will tell you that they delivered 40 no secret there then, but then Defence Analytical Services Agency (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/) actually published the fact that the forward deployed fleet of Chinooks is 25 helicopters But then was not that the first question I was looking. There is a shortage of Support Helicopters source National Audit Office article being written would be critical of Government policy on not being able to provide troops (Sorry for guys in light and dark blue) with the right kit to do the job that the Government are aking them to do.
Many journalist are often given inadequate information in my opinion to safe gaurd the Government`s position.

Operational Security is something many journalist realise is a necessity, with family and friends in the forces and having servered albe it with TA and working with force there is a certain amount of self interest.

A password to the Defence Image Library is more closley gaurded than the crown jewels unlike the US Canadian and Australian imagery which is available directly to the Media.

I do not know if this is thread creep but it goes to show that all PR and Media Liason whant to control all the information that is released.

More acurate information released in a timley manner will prevent speculation, which could lead to the publication of guess work which could compromise operational security unlike the Chinook thingy where it is a matter of public record that some one(s) have screwed up on the HC mk 3s accquisition.

[teeteringhead]

Well, I'm going to write to RAF News in disgust.
..come to think of it, won't the letters pages on RAF News, Navy News, Soldier and Paper Clips (honestly, it's what the MoD civil serpent comic is called) be a bit on the thin side......

... but then ISTR one time when I had the joy of serving in MoD Whitehall there was a witchhunt (sorry, internal investigation) about a leaked memo ...... and the subject of the memo.........??

The Feedom of Information Act!!!! You just couldn't make it up!

But seriously, it's so characteristic of this government ... knee jerk legislation which is rushed, badly staffed and prufe red (see my earlier post) and totally unnecessary - in place regs can always be used to stop serious problems.

The OSA dates I think from 1911, and I noted recently that despite the tomes of recent War on Terror legislation, the Glasgow Airport jeep drivers' doctor mates were arrested under something like the 1867 Explosives Act .......

[MadsDad]

Ban now on the front page of the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2145930,00.html

OK, it's a leftie sandal wearing tree-hugging rag butbut it does seem to include the facts. It also mentions the human rights act but I think that's mandatory. (Mind you Arrse does get a mention in the story but not Pprune).

[A2QFI]

"Why does it not occur to MoD that if it did things properly, and treated its people well, they wouldn't feel the need to bring things into the public arena quite so often, and MOD wouldn't need to spend so much time covering-up?"Spot on that poster!

[Pierre Argh]

There has IMHO been a rash of illthought posts on various sites... from videos on Youtube to forums such as this. It is not a new problem, undoubtedly with the advent of such sites more visible/accessible?

Previously it has been, if you like, self-policing... where contributors have exercised "discretion" and good old common sense. I very much doubt anyone who continues to use such principles will be caught/prosected (there simply aren't the resources)... however all the while numpties are posting indiscriminately the noose is sure to tighten. All this talk of "freespeech" and Human Rights is bull****... when you sign an article such as the official secret act you are gagged from communicating sensative material... and it has always been the case that organisation not the individual can decide what is sensative. The channels for legitimate "whistle-blowing" are open to all.

Final Comment: about 65yrs ago the streets of the UK where covered with posters warning "Careless Talk Costs Lives"... whether giving away operational secrets, or simply advertising that people might be disillusioned, surely comes under the same heading... Grow up, it's a big boys game you're all playing.

[Postman Plod]

Do they honestly believe anyone is going to say anything other than "Oh Piss Off!" on reading that, and carry on regardless?
Or are we now awaiting a North Korean style clamp-down on dissenters in the ranks, with prison sentences and public executions for the worst offenders? Less tongue in cheek though; will the MoD go out of their way now to make a few exaqmples of "offenders", make them public, and show exactly how out of touch with reality and the forces, and naive they really are?
Hmm and this is the democratic freedom we are supposidly protecting?

I would suggest its the governments careless talk that costs the most lives...

[A2QFI]

Comment by people who have been dumped into a possibly illegal war or wars, against the wishes of the general public and sent there ill equipped for the tasks imposed upon them should feel free to comment on the shortcomings under which they operate. The Government aren't ever going to admit that anything is wrong and have neither the time, the money and perhaps even the will to put things right. If the put-upon military don't speak out nobody else will speak for them! They may have signed the OSA but the government has reneged on enough of its legal and moral obligations to justify breach of this undertaking. How much equipment could have been bought for the cost of a certain senior army officer's court martial?

[Almost_done]

I'd just like to throw a couple of quotes into this from a chap I have been studying for a MSc project.


Failing organizations are usually over-managed and under-led.

Trust is the lubrication that makes it possible for organizations to work.

You need people who can walk their companies into the future rather than back them into the future.
Warren G. Bennis

They seem apt for me at this moment in time....for some reason.

[sikeano]

I am glad I retired , But then again I dont have any stories that is worth printing :ooh:

[Jackonicko]

To bleat on about OSA is, in my view naive.

This is nothing to do with legitimate military secrecy/security (except that it's being used as an excuse/justification) and it is everything to do with image and spin.

20 years ago, the MoD/RAF were always concerned to make sure that journos did not publish sensitive parametrics or tactics, or details of SOME ongoing or future op deployments. If you took advantage of a facility, the quid pro quo was that you would also submit your work for clearance, which might sometimes result in changes being requested to save embarrassment, but which was usually focused on ensuring accuracy, helping to tell the story, and preventing security breaches. Occasionally a desk officer might request deletions of stuff that was already in the public domain, but problems were few, and could usually be worked out.

If an article contained something that might embarrass (details of a procurement cock up) there might be gentle hints and suggestions - but more often along the lines that "We'd be grateful if you could make it clear that this is YOUR opinion, and that it's not something that the RAF/Squadron/bloke you interviewed necessarily validates." There was a clear division between 'Church and State'.

Over the years, with progressively more gutless and less powerful DPRs and DCCs there has been a growing tendency to want to avoid anything that might upset or embarrass the minister, and a growing unwillingness to help with stories that might be generally positive but include some details of a procurement cock-up or policy mistake (that's entirely understandable and fair, if short-sighted, and unfair on the taxpayer).

But at some stage a line has been crossed, and the attitude now seems to be that it is entirely appropriate for the services' PR organisations to pursue an active Government (if not party political) PR agenda (even where this conflicts with the best interests of the services) and to use spin and half truths to achieve this.

The priority now seems to be to prevent anyone from speaking up for the services, and to question some of the stupid, short-sighted and cost-driven nonsense to which you lot are increasingly being subjected. This is intended to gag anyone who might facillitate the exposure of procurement cock-ups, misuse of resources, or the shabby treatment of servicemen and women.

This is particularly serious for the RAF, in my view, which seems to be losing the PR battle with the other services, and which seems to have a culture which discourages senior officers from doing an 'Admiral West' or a 'General Dannant'. The most senior RAF officers seem to follow a pretty craven approach, supporting the Government line on 'stretched but not over-stretched' and giving the appearance of signally failing to fight their service's corner (perhaps they fight the battle effectively, but only behind closed doors?).

No-one seems to remember the last senior blue suiter who had the moral strength and testicular fortitude to speak out against the nonsense - unless you go back to Mike Graydon, ten years ago and too many of the RAF's top commanders are remembered for the energy with which they set themselves up in post service careers in industry, unfortunate incidents with curtains, or sh@gging people who they shouldn't have - usually demonstrating alarmingly poor judgement and a cavalier disregard for their marital vows (these being serious commitments that some might compare to their commitments to their job, to their oaths of loyalty, and to their duty to their subordinates).

The sad thing is that this will work - and it will help to stifle justified complaint, because too many servicemen have an ingrained belief that every journalist is an enemy, and that none of them have your interests at heart.

[Roland Pulfrew]

The cynics amongst us would say that this was always going to happen when you put a 1* equivalent (allegedly), politically appointed, civil servant commissar into the traditionally military post/role. The 3 Services are then subordinate to PUS/2nd PUS-driven, Government propaganda and spin rather than looking after the military's best interests.

[A2QFI]

All this AND a part time non-military BROONE person in charge. Here is an inspiring level of concern and committment for us to admire! NOT

[An Teallach]

This'll be interesting. Now all our currently serving posters will have to become anti-walts and walt it as civvies / ex-Service / spotters to post here.

Can we have a gentlemen's agreement that outing walts is fair game, but outing anti-walts would have to be a no-no!

The fun should start when we get an honest to goodness F'Tang-F'Tang Biscuit Barrell Walt posting again. The site may collapse since, to paraphrase my favourite engineer: "Ye canny mix walts and anti-walts Cap'n, the engines canna take it!"

[samuraimatt]

I wander if the people on e-goat will be got then. Most of them are SNCO's at a secret air force base in a county not far from Oxon and Somerset. Obviously we are not allowed to name it..........................:oh:

[Compressorstall]

This is just another example of not being trusted - sure you can fly a £ multi-million aircraft to schwack targets by day or night to a second's timing tolerance, but we can't be trusted to use the internet without potentially upsetting our lords and masters. Perhaps if people read things here they would realise that this site is pretty self-regulating. Fair enough if you're making friends with Terry Taliban on Facebook, but our people are naturally careful (in the main!).
Perhaps this is another thing to add to the Compressorstall family's list of reasons not to stay in the Armed Forces - you'll be telling me that our Married Quarters are under threat next.

By the way, Samuraimatt - it's 'wonder' when it it something you are considering...I think that this staff job is getting to me now I'm getting spelling intolerance.

[hoodie]

From Beau Bo d'Or (http://www.bbdo.co.uk/blog/):

http://heady.co.uk/rm/government_source_censor.jpg

[Chainkicker]

For what its worth, it made El Reg as well....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/10/mod_gag_order/

[samuraimatt]

No problem compressor:), but you do realise that you don't need the apostrophe after seconds.

night to a second's timingAlso it's families not family's:ok:.

Back to staff college for you I think.

[Jackonicko]

The compressorstall family's list = the list of the compressorstall family. Posessive apostrophe required.

Of one family, so family's, rather than families'.

Within a second's timing - debateable for me, as a latecomer to getting apostrophes right......

Samuraimatt's punctuation is as poor as his spelling.....

[samuraimatt]

I was on about the spelling rather than the use of the word but since you mentioned it he really shouldn't have used the apostrophe at all. It should read............
" Perhaps this is another thing to add to the Compressorstall family list of reasons not to stay in the Armed Forces".

[F34NZ]

Edict Number One :

- Members of HM Government and their grovelling servants are allowed to lie to anyone about any subject at any time. Sinecures will be found for those caught telling lies too outrageous to be defended.

- Members of HM Forces are not allowed to tell the truth. Or hint at it. Or post any kind of comment anywhere until a Grauniad-reading slave has been through it with a red pencil and a bucket of Tippex. Please enclose SAE with your e-mail and allow six months for the reply. Which will be 'No', but at least we're allowing you to make a formal request.

- Inter-community/inter-trade banter is also banned, lest someone using rum ration, e-goat, pprune or arrse as his sole source of news gets the idea that the F3 isn't an F22, Typhoon is a bit late, we don't have enough AT/AH/SH/people, and blokes are dying in ongoing skirmishes somewhere abroad.

Would the last person to post on the military aviation forum please turn off the lights ?

[Sven Sixtoo]

I'd just like to point out that signing the Official Secrets Act is an irrelevance. OSA applies to everyone, and ignorance of the law has never been a defence.

I'd out myself in response to this assault on the freedoms I've been shot at for, but I might as well make the bastards work the detail out - you never know, they might be stupider than I give them credit for.

Sven

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Just when you think you have seen it all we now have a Journo crticising someones written words.............oh the irony :rolleyes:

[samuraimatt]

Not to worry. Please don't tell him he has spelled debatable wrong, I am not sure he could live with the shame.

debateable for me

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Correct spelling means paying attention to detail.............. not a jorno's strong suit :rolleyes:

[tucumseh]

I assume any information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act can be posted here. I’d also suggest that an individual is at liberty to post any information he has received under the Data Protection Act (given he can only obtain this if he is entitled to it).

Here’s an interesting one. If, under FOI, one has a letter which states “I uphold the ruling at Reference x”, is one at liberty to (a) divulge the contents of Reference x and/or (b) divulge the details of what was being ruled on?

Also, if my MP lobbies Minster on a subject and forwards the Ministerial reply to me, can that be deemed to be in the public domain and divulged?

Common sense dictates “yes” to the above, especially if the papers have no classification marking on them and are sent to one’s home.

Would MoD pursue someone who divulged extremely embarrassing, but legitimately obtained, information? They may find themselves held up to ridicule. As my Director once said when shown evidence of hundreds of millions being deliberately wasted, “That’s political dynamite”.

[Jackonicko]

Seldomfit,
That's correcting someone's spelling.

Samurai,
Ah but I have a better excuse than you have for your cavalier disregard for grammar. I had literally just been loading

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/212EFboCAnL._AA130_.jpg

onto my wife's iTunes for her iPod......

In doing so I had to type Debateable, spelled wrongly, 11 times, as the name of the bleeding album!

It's the proper name for somewhere that these folkie tw@ts care about....

[samuraimatt]

In doing so I had to type Debateable, spelled wrongly, 11 times, as the name of the bleeding album!

Jacko, in this sentence did you mean that had typed Debateable 11 times? If so you don't need the comma after 11 times. You have also misused the word bleeding. Oh well.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Sam,

As I said detail and journo's..........words that should never appear in the same sentence, but quite looking forward to Jacko's next even lamer punctuation/spelling/grammer excuse :rolleyes:

[bombedup6]

This is MoD-PR's communication tonight.

Friday, 10 August 2007
For the Record: Newsnight website claims "MOD Blog Ban"
The Ministry of Defence has responded directly to a statement on BBC Newsnight's website:

Your statement "The MoD has issued new guidelines to personnel in the army, RAF, and navy. They state soldiers can no longer blog, post on bulletin boards, or release video, stills or images." is false.

The guidelines are not new and do not prohibit serving personnel from blogging etc. They explain only that serving personnel should seek authorisation before publicly publishing material on defence or related matters. These basic guidelines have not changed in some years.

For example the CO of HMS SOMERSET has an authorised blog:
http://www.hms-somerset-co.*************/

...and SAC Paul Goodfellow of the RAF publishes an authorised video diary on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/royalairforce

Newsnight viewers can read the updated MOD guidelines for themselves here.




Has anyone actually seen SAC Paul Goodfellow's blog?
Does anyone actually think it conveys useful RAF Regiment news or information - apart from "its hot" and "look, our guns do work on the range."
His last blog is dated July 13 or something, saying he hasn't got much to report, yet even that was only posted yesterday - almost a month late! After editing by MoD

I feel sorry for the poor bloke. Perhaps he stopped because he was so embarrassed.

For that matter the entire MoD PR department should resign from sheer embarrassment.

[weevhearditb4]

Ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxwasxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx inxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bagdadxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxbeforexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyouxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxw ere
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxinxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyourxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxdad'sxx xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxb ag

[BEagle]

"The guidelines are not new and do not prohibit serving personnel from blogging etc. They explain only that serving personnel should seek authorisation before publicly publishing material on defence or related matters. These basic guidelines have not changed in some years."

In the real world outside the mad MoD-box, 'should' is used as a recommendation only. This is also true in military procurement and in JAR-OPS and JAR-FCL circles.

Thus it cannot reasonably be held that this statement construes an order for service personnel to seek authorisation.

Also this recommendation states that personnel should 'seek' authorisation, not that they should 'obtain' authorisation. If the individual's application to publish is mislaid after he sends it, that is irrelevant - he has 'sought' authorisation.

Furthermore, the statement mentions 'guidelines', not 'instructions'. Hence it is not binding in any way.

For this utterance from the MoD to have any weight, it would have to have stated:

"The instructions are not new and do not prohibit serving personnel from blogging etc. They explain only that serving personnel are to obtain authorisation before publicly publishing material on defence or related matters. These basic instructions have not changed in some years."

Thus this hastily released and very weak statement is utter waffle which has no weight whatsoever. Publish and be damned!

I echo Jacko's opinion of the MoD PR spin doctors. If they can't even write an internal briefing note correctly, what credibility can be placed upon anything else they say?

[LFFC]

It would seem that the MOD is quite correct and that this new DIN has added nothing that wasn't already covered by the Official Secrets Act.

However, its effect has been to heighten a sense of crisis and to highlight that the MOD has something to hide - and this has not been lost on the media.

For example:

MoD 'hides' numbers of wounded, says mother (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/11/nirq211.xml)

Spin is the last refuge for the MoD (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/11/do1102.xml)

Blogs and chat rooms out of bounds in MoD gag order on troops (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2231437.ece)

Newsnight - MoD blog ban (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/08/mod_blog_ban.html)

[A2QFI]

Excellent piece by Vicki Woods - well worth a look.

http://tinyurl.com/2o8ld2

[F34NZ]

Quite agree with bombedup6 that the entire MoD PR machine should quit, and if we can arrange for them to take the entire stock of that embarrassing 'Brand RAF' bollorcks with them - pyjamas and all - I'd class it as a win-win.

[An Teallach]

Well, in what passes for honour in the Gyroscopic Medicine profession, it appears to be traditional that the spin doctor should step down when he becomes the story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=5QIR5YYQV5YE1QFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2007/08/11/do1102.xml) rather than the manager of it.

Cheerie-bye, chimp!

Anyway, carrying the McDowell / Chimp stream forward, here's a caption:

http://www.mevproductions.co.uk/TV/PlanetApes1.jpg

OK, that's 2 of you, but we still have to find the other 997 press officers.

[F34NZ]

The obvious caption, I suppose : 'Don't mention the war !'

[BEagle]

Some feedback:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,2146323,00.html

http://www.brandrepublic.com/login/News/672717/

DGMC is Simon MacDowall. Can it be the same person as the Simon MacDowall who likes to play with toy soldiers:
http://www.soa.org.uk/resource/rules/legio.htm

[tyne]

"civilian volunteers when on duty"

So as a civvy Journalist who has in the past given media training to senior members of the armed forces at sea and on the land during exercises, I am not allowed to talk to myself about what I think? Let alone anyone else?

Probly for the best then....Bearing in mind the day job.

Dan.

[BEagle]

Sorry for bumping 2 other threads as well.....

PVR rates at an all-time high, now the Ministry of Truth is attempting not only to gag servicemen, but to prevent them from reading PPRuNe at work.

Just what sort of Stalinist organisation is the MoD these days?

Time to fire that ar$e of a Chief Gyroscopic Physician who came up with this gagging order!

Ba$tard labour government..........:mad:

[Al R]

now the Ministry of Truth is attempting not only to gag servicemen, but to prevent them from reading PPRuNe at work.


In the Phys Test thread, all I read was a load of excuses from folk 'too busy 'projecting air power' to go to the gym for half an hour. Now, which is it? :}

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I believe you don't need to book a slot on Pprune; yet.