Army Rumour Service

The MOD has addressed some of the points raised here:

1. These are not new rules. These or similar have been around for years (Defence Council Instructions in 2004, 1999 and probably earlier). They have been updated this year to reflect the findings of the Hall report (on payment and authorisation of media contacts) and changes in communication technology (the rise of self-publishing on the web etc).

New rules for personnel on communicating with the media and speaking in public

The MOD has responded in a discussion on the bulletin board ARRSE and elsewhere concerning a recent update to the rules for Service and MOD civilian personnel on communicating with the media and speaking in public:

1. These are not new rules. These or similar have been around for years (Defence Council Instructions in 2004, 1999 and probably earlier). They have been updated this year to reflect the findings of the Hall report (on payment and authorisation of media contacts) and changes in communication technology (the rise of self-publishing on the web etc).

2. Most public and private organisations of any size – in the UK and elsewhere - have rules on the authorisation processes to be followed before people speak publicly or to the media. Such rules are not unique to MOD.

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.

Now now Ish fella, you really shouldnt be discussing defence material in a public forum, I refer you to DIN03-006, it says that you shouldnt be talking about it HERE!


Where as the MoD are a caring loving family, who look out for the welfare of the service personnel and not the advancement of their own political careers, yeah right!

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.

Outstanding. And even if she does ask "what's in the bag?" I'm not allowed to tell her that it contains my overnight kit for a stay at the girlfriend's/rugby kit for a 3 month tour to Thailand/my last victim.

Gleaming.

"All toms on the ground are ordered that if approached by the press and they are not to speak to them only to direct them to Media Ops. That order has been around for decades, how is this new DIN so different?"

Because this one effectively bans all members of the forces and MOD from commenting on the internet about anything to do with defence.

The MOD has addressed some of the points raised here:

1. These are not new rules. These or similar have been around for years (Defence Council Instructions in 2004, 1999 and probably earlier). They have been updated this year to reflect the findings of the Hall report (on payment and authorisation of media contacts) and changes in communication technology (the rise of self-publishing on the web etc).

2. Most public and private organisations of any size – in the UK and elsewhere - have rules on the authorisation processes to be followed before people speak publicly or to the media. Such rules are not unique to MOD.

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.

You can find a copy of this response on the Defence News Blog at www.blogs.mod.uk

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.

The MOD has addressed some of the points raised here:

1. These are not new rules. These or similar have been around for years (Defence Council Instructions in 2004, 1999 and probably earlier). They have been updated this year to reflect the findings of the Hall report (on payment and authorisation of media contacts) and changes in communication technology (the rise of self-publishing on the web etc).

2. Most public and private organisations of any size – in the UK and elsewhere - have rules on the authorisation processes to be followed before people speak publicly or to the media. Such rules are not unique to MOD.

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.

You can find a copy of this response on the Defence News Blog at www.blogs.mod.uk

Sweeping new guidelines barring military personnel from speaking about their service publicly have been quietly introduced by the Ministry of Defence, the Guardian has learned.

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.

........An unofficial soldiers' website, arrse.co.uk, was full of angry debate about the issue yesterday. One poster said: "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 they wouldn't need to spend so much time covering-up?"

Another suggested that the rules were intended to silence the average "tommy" while senior personnel were free to speak to the media without fear of reprimand. "Every single leak of significant information to the media, certainly in the last six months, has come from the top down. Not the other direction," he said. "Should Cpl Bloggs, or Major Good Bloke in some Platoon House in downtown Helmand-on-Styx complain in a private letter that he hasn't enough ammo to despatch the Queens' enemies, or the RAF really should try harder to deliver it, it's 'March in the guilty B*stard' and 'conduct prejudicial to good order' and discipline and finger-wagging all round."

The MoD's director general of media communications, Simon McDowell, denied that the guidelines were a form of censorship or gagging.

"We are trying to give straightforward, clear guidance that is up to date."

Clearly they have realised that the veracity of everything Ministers say, and MOD's own media people put out, is doubted, and have decided that rather than cleaning up their own act, they'll try to shift the responsibility.

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