Thread: Updated rules on communicating with the public and media.

The problem with 2007DIN...
[/quote]

Edited to add: Bloody 'ell, that was quick!!!

Originally Posted by defenceheadquarters

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).

It appears that DGMC and MoD should get its act together..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6765903.stm ) :

It found there had been a "collective failure of judgment or an abstention of judgment" within the Ministry of Defence.

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said the government's handling of the issue had made "a national embarrassment incomparably worse" and pointed out that it appeared "no-one is to blame at all".

He blamed the government for abolishing uniformed press officers at the MoD in order to "politicise" the press office - something he said was a mistake that the Conservatives would reverse if voted into government

It's good to know that at least one of the 'unaccountable' 1,000 is on to us before the sun has set...

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.

Link

Originally Posted by MoistVelvet

Originally Posted by ishinryu

FFS People here need to calm down a bit and be a bit more rational... I would suggest that anyone who has a problem with this reads JSP 440, Part 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 8 and Part 5, Section 2, Chapter 1, Paragraph 11, then read the Official Secret Act 1911-89.

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!

At the end of the day the DIN is just the official way of saying "Stop being so bloody selfish and blabbing to the press." Remember the press are not your friends...

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!

PMSL i just fell off my chair possibly the biggest fairytale/newspaper spin and all the similar that has ever been told.They don,t care never have never will.Oh if you think that i am being somewhat biggoted or overzealous in my reply it would help to read other threads that i have posted. By the way i realise you were being sarcastic :P

The Bliar type meaningless phrases such as:

Open Government; Freedom of Information,

spring to mind.

Is the DG a 'civvy'?

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 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.

Originally Posted by piespies

Originally Posted by Auld-Yin

This could be really interesting for married soldiers.

Just imagine a guy packing his kit and walking out the door. Wife asks "Where the feck are you going then?" Reply, "Sorry love, you are a civvy I can't talk to your about defence matters."

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.

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

Originally Posted by jim30

"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.

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.

Originally Posted by defenceheadquarters

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

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.

Originally Posted by stinker

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.

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 ........