Restrictions on military contributions to the Interweb
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chilling out on the water if it's warm enough
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shhhhhhh
For what its worth, it made El Reg as well....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/10/mod_gag_order/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/10/mod_gag_order/
Last edited by Chainkicker; 10th Aug 2007 at 19:21.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem compressor
, but you do realise that you don't need the apostrophe after seconds.
Also it's families not family's
.
Back to staff college for you I think.
, but you do realise that you don't need the apostrophe after seconds.
night to a second's timing
.Back to staff college for you I think.
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
" Perhaps this is another thing to add to the Compressorstall family list of reasons not to stay in the Armed Forces".
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: where the streets have no IEDs. Yet.
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
- 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 ?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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”.
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”.
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
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....
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
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....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In doing so I had to type Debateable, spelled wrongly, 11 times, as the name of the bleeding album!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodfellow's sad blog
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tenet
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD censoring takes a new turn
Ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxwasxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx inxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bagdadxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxbeforexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyouxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxw ere
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxinxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyourxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxdad'sxx xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxb ag
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxbeforexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyouxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxw ere
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxinxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyourxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxdad'sxx xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxb ag
"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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Spin is the last refuge for the MoD
Blogs and chat rooms out of bounds in MoD gag order on troops
Newsnight - MoD blog ban
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
Spin is the last refuge for the MoD
Blogs and chat rooms out of bounds in MoD gag order on troops
Newsnight - MoD blog ban
Last edited by LFFC; 11th Aug 2007 at 07:15.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comment in Today's Daily Telegraph
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: where the streets have no IEDs. Yet.
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by F34NZ; 11th Aug 2007 at 11:49. Reason: Forgot to check 'embarrassing' in Spolling for Begooners
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 rather than the manager of it.
Cheerie-bye, chimp!
Anyway, carrying the McDowell / Chimp stream forward, here's a caption:
OK, that's 2 of you, but we still have to find the other 997 press officers.
Cheerie-bye, chimp!
Anyway, carrying the McDowell / Chimp stream forward, here's a caption:
OK, that's 2 of you, but we still have to find the other 997 press officers.