Originally Posted by craftsmanx

Originally Posted by mark1234

Originally Posted by frenchperson

Originally Posted by mark1234

I think the law will apply to anyone who signs the official secrets act whilst on duty or off.

I don't think it will be a witch hunt, rather if someone does make comments that the MoD doesn't like it will be something to charge them with.

I am going to admit to being an arrser and try and clear up what I can post or can not post with my CoC, that seems to me to be the sensible thing to do, if your in any doubt don't post stuff related to defense in any way until you know the score.

Thank fcuk I'm a civvy with a mind of my own, and don't have to roll over in submission, tug my forelock and appease the dickheads who've thought this one up.

I might occasionally want a cigarette in a harbor area, can't do that either, doesn't mean I don't have a mind of my own, just means I prefer serving rather than not and I take the good with the bad that comes with it.

I swore an oath to the queen, her heirs and successors and the officers and generals set over me, I can leave any time I want being a stab but choose to put up with it and all the crap that comes with it, if the balance swings too far to the crap side of things I'll do one, but whilst I'm still in green I'll do what I'm told and I accept that I have perks as well as disadvantages to someone not serving , it's the army, not a debating circle for students.

It's hardly surprising that the MoD are trying to plug the leak of info that's pouring out on the web. We have a huge organisation at Cheltenham who's job is to trawl the air waves and collect and collate bits of information so that we know what enemies and potential enemies are doing. Have any of the whingers on here considered that foreign powers will be doing the same and sites like ARRSE are like striking the mother lode. Simply by looking into this one site, not bothering with Blogs and youtube, I can find out which regiments are going where and when . Who's going to be armoured inf and light, when the depots will be overflowing with raw recruits etc etc and I'm an amateur. Just consider this limitation could save your neck sometime in the future and do waht soldiers do Obey orders.

Believe me I will, I have had simaler concerns, I am not going to point out the exact thread but one was very dodgy, and could have ended up with disasterous consequenses, and it was not removed or moderated by the mods.

The mods are obviously bright blokes but not flawless.

On matters regarding defence I intend to keep my gob shut, I will check with my CoC exactly what I can write if indeed I am allowed to write anything at all.

I have asked a serious question on here about the rules, but no one has answered thus far, am I allowed to still post on arrse, and what exactly am I not allowed to discuss?

Originally Posted by craftsmanx

Originally Posted by mark1234

Originally Posted by frenchperson

Originally Posted by mark1234

I think the law will apply to anyone who signs the official secrets act whilst on duty or off.

I don't think it will be a witch hunt, rather if someone does make comments that the MoD doesn't like it will be something to charge them with.

I am going to admit to being an arrser and try and clear up what I can post or can not post with my CoC, that seems to me to be the sensible thing to do, if your in any doubt don't post stuff related to defense in any way until you know the score.

Thank fcuk I'm a civvy with a mind of my own, and don't have to roll over in submission, tug my forelock and appease the dickheads who've thought this one up.

I might occasionally want a cigarette in a harbor area, can't do that either, doesn't mean I don't have a mind of my own, just means I prefer serving rather than not and I take the good with the bad that comes with it.

I swore an oath to the queen, her heirs and successors and the officers and generals set over me, I can leave any time I want being a stab but choose to put up with it and all the crap that comes with it, if the balance swings too far to the crap side of things I'll do one, but whilst I'm still in green I'll do what I'm told and I accept that I have perks as well as disadvantages to someone not serving , it's the army, not a debating circle for students.

It's hardly surprising that the MoD are trying to plug the leak of info that's pouring out on the web. We have a huge organisation at Cheltenham who's job is to trawl the air waves and collect and collate bits of information so that we know what enemies and potential enemies are doing. Have any of the whingers on here considered that foreign powers will be doing the same and sites like ARRSE are like striking the mother lode. Simply by looking into this one site, not bothering with Blogs and youtube, I can find out which regiments are going where and when . Who's going to be armoured inf and light, when the depots will be overflowing with raw recruits etc etc and I'm an amateur. Just consider this limitation could save your neck sometime in the future and do waht soldiers do Obey orders.

I'm sure no one doubts the need for OpSec, and i've yet to see it broken on here. This measure as it says, means you can't talk about anything, anytime, anywhere, by any means.

If it were anything else why isn't MacDowall and his band of 107 on here explaining in minute detail the ins and outs of their Frankenstein creation?

The DGMC has been turned into a political arm of Downing Street. T"he public will only hear good news, and it will be authorised by us".

These rules are not here to protect the security of the nation. The Official Secrets Act already does that. This is a further extension to media control which has been tightening up over the last year.

Anyone had to organise a cocktail party, mess guest dinner night with speakers or Army In Society event in the last year??

No? well, first you have to draw up a list of who's going to attend, then you submit up to Brigade Level. Heaven forbid that your local MP wishes to attend, that request goes to the top. The dribbling idiot Browne, wants to know exactly who is visiting who, just in case he gets some nasty questions coming his way in the now sullied halls of Westminster.

Originally Posted by Mr_Bridger

I'm sure no one doubts the need for OpSec, and i've yet to see it broken on here. This measure as it says, means you can't talk about anything, anytime, anywhere, by any means.

.

So you reckon serving arrsers will have to choose between being ex-arrsers or ex-soldiers?

Originally Posted by mark1234

I have asked a serious question on here about the rules, but no one has answered thus far, am I allowed to still post on arrse, and what exactly am I not allowed to discuss?

A good question, slightly buried amidst all the copied quotes .... anyone got an answer for mark1234?

Being retired I am not bound by the new DIN, although my Official Secrets Act signature remains valid. But it seems that the term "defence matters" draws an incredibly large perimeter.

Originally Posted by mark1234

Originally Posted by Mr_Bridger

I'm sure no one doubts the need for OpSec, and i've yet to see it broken on here. This measure as it says, means you can't talk about anything, anytime, anywhere, by any means.

.

So you reckon serving arrsers will have to choose between being ex-arrsers or ex-soldiers?

I hope not, but I've seen better worded documents by 2lt's, let alone from the hallowed halls of Schloss-Main Building.

If they weren't feeling so sensitive we wouldn't have heard a peep. Typicall, float it under the radar, mention nothing...

Originally Posted by Mr_Bridger

I'm sure no one doubts the need for OpSec, and i've yet to see it broken on here. This measure as it says, means you can't talk about anything, anytime, anywhere, by any means.

If it were anything else why isn't MacDowall and his band of 107 on here explaining in minute detail the ins and outs of their Frankenstein creation?

The DGMC has been turned into a political arm of Downing Street. T"he public will only hear good news, and it will be authorised by us".

These rules are not here to protect the security of the nation. The Official Secrets Act already does that. This is a further extension to media control which has been tightening up over the last year.

Anyone had to organise a cocktail party, mess guest dinner night with speakers or Army In Society event in the last year??

No? well, first you have to draw up a list of who's going to attend, then you submit up to Brigade Level. Heaven forbid that your local MP wishes to attend, that request goes to the top. The dribbling idiot Browne, wants to know exactly who is visiting who, just in case he gets some nasty questions coming his way in the now sullied halls of Westminster.

I think we will find, when the dust settles, that the reason this DIN has been put out now is because most of the Ministers are on their summer holidays and they had no idea this was coming up.

Having had the chance to stop frothing at the mouth and think about this sensibly it seems to me that there are 2 issues here:

1. National security. This is clearly important and close to all our hearts. The MoD and the Armed Forces are clearly entitled to require their employees not to breach national security either formally in the media or informally in private conversations, internet postings, letters or whatever. I don't think any of us would argue with that and, indeed, parliament legislated a 'national security'caveat in the Human Rights Act.

2. Damaging the 'Defence' brand. This is not about national security, its about allowing senior civil servants and ministers (and senior officers) to be allowed to sit smugly and complacently on their big fat arrses, knowing that their lies, evasions and failures aren't going to be held up to public scrutiny. To some extent they are right to expect to be able to regulate the formal expression of opinion, in the commercial media, of these matters and it is perfectly proper for them to issue rules on how members of the Armed Forces shold behave under these circumstances - most employers would do the same thing. It would be however a gross breach of our human rights for Mr McDowall and his little clique at DGMC to purport to be able to regulate informal or private expressions of opinion.

Of course, the MoD might want to issue guidelines about how individuals should behave in private and on informal media, like this website - personally I wouldn't have a problem with it - but they should understand that any such guidelines would need to be very broad brush - i.e., that any expression of opinion in private or on the internet does not fail the 'service test'.

One has got to ask the question whether a Communications dept that communicates it's own message so ineptly is fit for purpose.

£134k for the head honcho is more than a Major Generals salary, and if one of the performed this badly he would soon be in civdiv.

Originally Posted by Mr_Bridger

Originally Posted by craftsmanx

Originally Posted by mark1234

Originally Posted by frenchperson

Originally Posted by mark1234

I think the law will apply to anyone who signs the official secrets act whilst on duty or off.

I don't think it will be a witch hunt, rather if someone does make comments that the MoD doesn't like it will be something to charge them with.

I am going to admit to being an arrser and try and clear up what I can post or can not post with my CoC, that seems to me to be the sensible thing to do, if your in any doubt don't post stuff related to defense in any way until you know the score.

Thank fcuk I'm a civvy with a mind of my own, and don't have to roll over in submission, tug my forelock and appease the dickheads who've thought this one up.

I might occasionally want a cigarette in a harbor area, can't do that either, doesn't mean I don't have a mind of my own, just means I prefer serving rather than not and I take the good with the bad that comes with it.

I swore an oath to the queen, her heirs and successors and the officers and generals set over me, I can leave any time I want being a stab but choose to put up with it and all the crap that comes with it, if the balance swings too far to the crap side of things I'll do one, but whilst I'm still in green I'll do what I'm told and I accept that I have perks as well as disadvantages to someone not serving , it's the army, not a debating circle for students.

It's hardly surprising that the MoD are trying to plug the leak of info that's pouring out on the web. We have a huge organisation at Cheltenham who's job is to trawl the air waves and collect and collate bits of information so that we know what enemies and potential enemies are doing. Have any of the whingers on here considered that foreign powers will be doing the same and sites like ARRSE are like striking the mother lode. Simply by looking into this one site, not bothering with Blogs and youtube, I can find out which regiments are going where and when . Who's going to be armoured inf and light, when the depots will be overflowing with raw recruits etc etc and I'm an amateur. Just consider this limitation could save your neck sometime in the future and do waht soldiers do Obey orders.

I'm sure no one doubts the need for OpSec, and i've yet to see it broken on here. This measure as it says, means you can't talk about anything, anytime, anywhere, by any means.

If it were anything else why isn't MacDowall and his band of 107 on here explaining in minute detail the ins and outs of their Frankenstein creation?





The DGMC has been turned into a political arm of Downing Street. T"he public will only hear good news, and it will be authorised by us".

These rules are not here to protect the security of the nation. The Official Secrets Act already does that. This is a further extension to media control which has been tightening up over the last year.

Anyone had to organise a cocktail party, mess guest dinner night with speakers or Army In Society event in the last year??

No? well, first you have to draw up a list of who's going to attend, then you submit up to Brigade Level. Heaven forbid that your local MP wishes to attend, that request goes to the top. The dribbling idiot Browne, wants to know exactly who is visiting who, just in case he gets some nasty questions coming his way in the now sullied halls of Westminster.

You obviously have no knowledge of OPSEC if that's waht you're thinking. The mods do a good job in screening but there's no way thye6y can screen out every bit of info that a potential enemy can pick up.

Speaks volumes.

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)


MR HOWELL JAMES CBE AND MR SIMON MACDOWALL

23 NOVEMBER 2006


http://www.publications.parliament.u...92/6112303.htm

Simon MacDowall:

"In MoD, we run 24/7, in other words we have someone in the office 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They do not go home. We do a rotation and that takes time, effort and manpower."

So much effort in fact that not even you could be bothered to get your backside on NewsNight to explain or attempt to allay the fears of many.

Busy weekend lined up? A night on the sherbet?

Edited to add : Having read further through the link above, i'm not quite reassured by Mr MacDowalls refutes of "Maladministration", wasting tax payers money, or indeed knowing where his department spends money. Still that was the Department for Work and Pensions, and he's not guilty of anything. Nothing at all.

The bald rupert type (am I allowed to say he's bald?) on newsnight reckons that these laws are nothing new, just an updating of the old laws and it shouldn't change anything, rather just provide something extra to charge people with who do break opsec.

Which is fair enough, I presume he was breifed on what to say by the MoD, and if it's true I have no problem with that, we do a unique job where keeping secrets saves lives.

However, I don't want to believe him on that and then find myself having an interview sans coffee where my comments on arrse are read back to me.

The regulations could just about cover any type of communication with anyone, if a mate asks if I can go fishing, and I send him a text saying "I can't I'm away with the sodding TA" technically, reading these regs, that would be something that could get me charged, am I right?

So I think even for those of us that want to follow the rules, we will require some form of guidance as to the practical implications of these regs.