Shhhhhhh
 

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

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

Also it's families not family's:ok:.

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.....

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".

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 ?

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

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

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

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

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”.

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/...nL._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....

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.

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:

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.

MOD censoring takes a new turn
 

Ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxwasxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx inxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bagdadxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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?

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

Comment in Today's Daily Telegraph
 

Excellent piece by Vicki Woods - well worth a look.

http://tinyurl.com/2o8ld2

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.

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:

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.