Restrictions on military contributions to the Interweb
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: england
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
I wonder if OC 6 Squadron will be available to act as Airman's friend at my CM?
Last edited by biddedout; 10th Aug 2007 at 08:52.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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.
Gentleman Aviator
Well, I'm going to write to RAF News in disgust.
... 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 .......
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ban now on the front page of the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...145930,00.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).
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).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from Arrse just about covers it
"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!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Far from the madding crowd
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!"
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!"
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..........................
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
