So there I was.. feeling all glum..

OC Home: 'What's up Fatbadge?'


FB: 'Have you been saying something? What's all this?'


OC Home: 'Dunno What does it say?'


FB: '3. We want people to communicate what they do. But it must be properly authorised – by their boss and, if it is potentially newsworthy, by MOD centrally. ' So that means what exactly OC Home? '


OC Home: 'Well clearly you have to ask me if you want to talk to your mates on ARRSE'


FB: 'So..?'


OC Home: 'So what..?'


FB: 'WELL CAN I GO ON IT THEN? DUUUR!'


OC Home: 'Dont get all gobby with me you fat fk'


FB: 'Sorry.. Well? .. ... Can I please?'


OC Home: 'Well you do sod all interesting at work, do sod all housework and quite frankly it keeps you quiet, so yes, go play on ARRSE with your mates but woe betide you if I find your looking at porn'


FB: 'Okies. '


So there you have it. I have clearance. You lot are very naughty and should all apologise to the MOD for not following procedure.

My thoughts exactly - but I could not comment as I don't know if you is civvy or not ( I is now)

I understand where you are coming from J30 but really this is p ish. What it actually means is that we can control the toms, and their junior officers(UTAI half Colonel) but the MOD staff can do what they like - as that seems to be where the main leaks come from.

If a squaddie spilt the beans then they would be hung, drawn and quartered. If a civil servant did similar - they would be moved sideways, probably with a rise in grade to keep their union quiet.

My opinion, and I apologise to the majority of civil servants who actually do a job of work.

Wow,

somebody has had a hissy fit to issue this.

I can feel those good gentlemen and ladies at BT being asked to add us, pprune, e-goat and the like to the banned website list, just incase we stray off the straight and narrow and have a quick read whilst at work.

Too late - the genie is out of the bottle and even DGMC won't get this one back in - cnuts

CJ

@Fatbadge

Top...

"If a civil servant did similar - they would be moved sideways, probably with a rise in grade to keep their union quiet."

Really? Care to research about the civil servants recently jailed for spilling the beans -you'll find that CS aren't immune from prosecution!

On a more sad note, if this DIN were applied literally then technically we could no longer hold "RIP" tributes to our fallen comrades as to do so would be to discuss a defence matter without permission from DGMC. Who would like to be the first to ring up and ask permission to post memories of a fallen colleague on the internet?

The issue has made the front page of the Guardian. No link yet but there should be one by 01:00

Can't hold back any longer;

To be perfectly honest with you, you can stuff this DIN up your arsse.

I have never read such a draconian regulation in my life.

The powers that be have got to be on drugs if they think that this can stick. Tell you what, tell my solicitors, I'm sure they'd love to take the contents of this post to court.

The military fights and has fought for the freedom and liberty of this country and I'll be fcuked if a piece of paper produced by a civil servant can prevent this. In effect I could not be prosecuted for posting here as the reason for my prosecution would have to be revealed therefore breaking the DIN.

If you break the covenent between the country and its armed forces that apparently exists, it should be highlighted by every ex and serving member of HMF, in every public forum and the government held to account by the media it seeks to control, and therefore the great British public.

This is a gag order pure and simple, poke it.

So not only to you defy mission command, which pushes freedom of action down to the lowest level, you also fundamentally disagree with the right to freedom of speech - which was one of the things I joined the TA to defend.

msr
P.S. But can you find it on armynet? Thought not.

well just whenyou think they cant break the covenent any more or become even more tinpot in the thinking at the top end of the puzzle palaces wizzzo they find a new whezze makes me truly thankful that my service wasnt in vain ........

Hall report.. where not one person was found to be at fault for the c*ck up over the Iran/Sheffield saga? Nice one!!

Stop buying expensive chairs and renovating offices when the blokes are living in sh*tholes and short of kit!
No matter how much spin you put on things the MOD is an abysmal organisation on many tiers!

The afore mentioned Guardian article

MOD Issues Gag Order on Armed Forces

I note that the byline for the Grauniad report appears to be that of an Arrse member...

Presumably the PR people pushing this failed to appreciate time spent on recce is seldom wasted and forgot that if the DIN was discussed on here there was a fair chance it would be splashed over the papers as 'MOD gags soldiers'.

I also note:


Well, Mr McDowell, you could've fooled me....

Main reason I wandered onto this site was because I'd stopped believing what was being said officially. Seems like a blatant attempt to hide the facts to me.

Is that not his job or have I got PR all wrong?

Parliament, under section 1(1)(a) Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated, inter alia, Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into our domestic law and made it unlawful under section 6(1) of the 1998 Act for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with convention rights.

Article 10(1) protects the freedom of expression, which includes the right to freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority. This right is not an absolute right. It is qualified by article 10(2) which allows the state to restrict such a right by law under certain conditions, one of which is 'national security'

The terms 'defence' used in the 'guideline' and 'national security' in law may appear to be almost unlimited in scope. The difficulty with it is that the line which separates defence from national security is an invisible one. It purports to set an objective standard but the question as to whether and to what extent this invisible line is crossed may be assessed entirely subjectively! This is what is actually meant by the phrase: 'each case is decided on it's merits'

The Ministry presents the argument that the regulations have been in place for a number of years and that they have merely been updated to bring within the orbit of the regulations Internet chat rooms blogs and other modern mediums of communication.

The difficulty with this argument is that the rules to which the Ministry refers were drafted at a time long before the minimum level of protection afforded by the Human Rights legislation became part of our law. What we actually have is something that appears to be certain surrounded by a vast penumbra of doubt.

What will be blindingly obvious is that if Brigadier 'Snotgrass' inadvertently discloses the thickness of the armour of a service AFV, that will not be actionable as a breach of national security. What will be a breach of national security is where Private Scroggins, as a thinking individual actually has anything sensible to say about his living and working conditions that has even a scintilla of a likelihood of embarrassing a Minister or an official, then it is as predictable as night follows day that he will suffer censure for his considered opinion!

Thus, the argument that such a ban flouts the freedom of expression under article 10(1) is founded on rather weak ground since national security 'trumps' article 10 and absolves the MOD from liability under section 6 of the HRA 1998 because 'national security' is whatever an official says it is![i]

Thing is, I thought that the point of good PR was that the victim is supposed not to be able to tell that they've been fooled, rather noticing the fact that they're being told porkies in the most unconvincing fashion since Blair told us he was a pretty straight kind of guy...

I must admit, I do like this idea. Very Mark Thomas. I recall him doing something similar regarding getting permission to protest in central London. Rather than hold one big demo, he just got 2,000 or so of his mates to apply, in writing, for permission to hold 2,000 invididual demos.

I particularly liked the one campaigning for a reduction in police paperwork.

oooo

Last edited by Aristander on Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:56 am; edited 2 times in total

The MoD broke the covenent first with

1. A failure to supply correct and necessary equipment in TELIC 1 (despite the timelines being ok, but not wanting to announce anything until late in the day so it played well spin wise).

2. Point blank lying to CoH Halls widow about the existance of gun camera footage inthe US.

3. Breaking DPA's without the requesite uplift in funding.

4. Constantly placing troops in the media firing line without a single bit of support (Court cases, IRAN fiasco)

So as far as this DIN goes, its more than likely going to increase comms with the media than stop it.

Also, since the media ops system produces actual lies on occasions in connection with defence matters, and tries to get serving personnel to palm them off, I am not certain what having to clear everything through them would mean to the uniformed militaries credabilty with society as a whole, or are the politicians hoping to bring us down to their level?

Last edited by Papa_Lazarou on Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:57 pm; edited 1 time in total