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

Originally Posted by MoistVelvet

So the crackdown on personnel acting on the freedom of speech and thought has finally happened;

DIN 2007DIN03-006

With the new DIN in place what will this mean to the online forums like this and the "MOD Oracle"? As I understand it you can still visit and contribute to these forums but not on defence matters, "must seek prior permission from DGMC if they wish to communicate about defence".

So could anyone tell me what is defined as a "defence" matter? If you must now obtain permission to discuss "defence" matters is this forum now oboslete? Does this mean discussing the tradgedy of Passendale of WW1, or squad tactics within an online game of Battlefield 2 are now banned? Just how far does this rule go, if you adopt this instruction by the letter then it seems very restrictive.

From the DIN some key points are:

"Communicating with the public

Members of the Armed Forces and MOD Civil Servants must seek prior permission from DGMC if they wish to communicate about defence via books, articles or academic papers; self-publish via a blog, podcast or other shared text, audio or video; take part in external questionnaires, polls, surveys or research projects, speak at conferences, private engagements or other events where the public or media may be present; or contribute to any online community or share information such as a bulletin board, wiki, online social network, or multi-player game.

...All contact with the news media on any topic relating to official Defence matters must be referred to the appropriate D News staff. This includes letters to newspapers, contributing to online debates, taking part in radio or TV programmes, or contact with the media at outside events such as conferences. The responsibility to comply with the Official Secrets Act lies with the individual."

So what happens now, because technically I am now breaking the rules by talking about it here

Those who may have long memories of the Scott Inquiry will have remembered the evidence given to the inquiry in relation to civil service drafting!

I see little has changed structurally since the observations of Scott LJ!

Here, we have the standard civil service blend of word-crafting which hovers at exactly the right point between positivism and ambiguity. It allows the regulation concerned be be interpreted extremely broadly when it is desired to quote it in terrorem, at a low level while at the same time it may be interpreted extremely narrowly as one moves up into the rarefied stratosphere of rank and expediency.

While it may have the appearance of being extremely broad, it is rather more narrow than some might suppose!

An obvoius effort in thought control.

On the other hand, if the powers think that this applies to TA soldiers while not on duty, it does fly in the face of the description of the TA as casual labour.

Gimme that pension....

Well it appears to me that DGMC under the guidance of the empire building Simon Macdowell (whose advice to the navy on how to handle the HMS cornwall affair I would dearly love to hear) is building a mighty rod for its own back.

Wake up and smell the fcuking coffee.

What needs to be said - is being said on this thread, and will continue to be said.

Read and digest at your leisure.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

An obvoius effort in thought control.

On the other hand, if the powers think that this applies to TA soldiers while not on duty, it does fly in the face of the description of the TA as casual labour.

Gimme that pension....

Ah, Bravo but if those spineless fcukers branded the TA as anything else they'd get pension rights.

at what point does it not become casual labour? 5 years, 10 years? 25 years and a couple of bars on your VRSM? once you've been killed or disabled for life in some far flung sh!thole?

Since padres do a fair bit of public speaking every Sunday, will DGMC expect to see a prior copy of the sermon?

They might repent at leisure if they had hundreds of sermons sent to them each week to proof read!

Originally Posted by Purple_Flash

Since padres do a fair bit of public speaking every Sunday, will DGMC expect to see a prior copy of the sermon?

They might repent at leisure if they had hundreds of sermons sent to them each week to proof read!

The Padre will have to go up the chain of command which I presume is God. Who will no doubt grant it. Will Mr Macdowell & co seek to overturn such permission???



(oh but they can break the rules & Queens regs when it suits them...Cornwall again)

Originally Posted by Purple_Flash

Since padres do a fair bit of public speaking every Sunday, will DGMC expect to see a prior copy of the sermon?

Will the singing of 'Onward Christian Soldiers', 'Fight The Good Fight', and 'Soldiers of Christ Arise' require prior permission because they are defence related?

I will be interested to see if SASRA (1st Bn Revd Dannatt's Own Bible-Bashers) now have to seek permission before telling young soldiers and airmen some of their stories...

were dooomed, i tell you were all dooomed. In a burger Establishment last night discusses Jungle exploits in Belize in the mid 70's with a perfect stranger who asked someone else what the jungle was like but could not answer him.

He is now so enthused with meeting large insects and the like he is going. The question is this

a. did i act as travel agent
b. act as an army recruiting person
c. contravene the official secrets act.

And in the words of a certain prime Minister who's thankfully gone - and a certain comedy show am i bovver-ed... no i am not - and i cannot think that many soldiers at the sharp end are either. I can certainly see a few more PVR's though. but sadly England now has a militia and not an Army.

Oooops i have said i... wife where's me sandbags and shovel I'm off to me chivy trench. The DGMC can swivel or is that snivel?

Has anyone else wondered what position this puts the COs in (without giving anything away about them)??

Thought just struck me - a few months ago Focus (as part of the DGMC empire) did an article profiling all 3 sites - total hypocrites.

Originally Posted by ishinryu

Why do you think we are all being asked to get behind the BAFF? To give the boots on the ground that voice.

......but surely speaking to BAFF on defence matters would be in contravention of the DIN? A sentence containing the words 'hoisted' and 'petard' springs to mind.



TOG

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

The problem is that you are seeking to class ARRSE as a means of communicating with the Media, and quite possibly trying to stop us discussing anything military outside of MoD premises.

Likewise, apparent censorship on blogs, YouTube, and an abrogation of the right of free speach anywhere the public may attend.

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

DHQ, Following on from a visit to your site - I've just wasted 3 minutes and 26 seconds of my life watching the First Sea Lord not answer a single question put to him with any meaningful content and a fair bit of sidestepping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVYin8ekjTs

And you wonder why the feet on the ground are seeing a remarkable likeness to certain spineless entities in Downing Street and our illustrious cabinet?

(I'd like to think we'd get better out of Gen Dannat. But then I guess they are all scrabbling around to become CDS)


Edited to add:

What did it cost to make that video? Expenses? Travel? How many bandages and first aid kit could have been issued to patrol medics in AFG instead of wasting it on tripe like this.

I also spotted the defence issue of "how to deal with Japanese Knotweed and other invasive species" Did some chinless wonder fly all the way to the clyde complete with photographer for this?

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...hanFiction.htm


WHAT F'ING PLANET ARE YOU PEOPLE ON???

Sssshhhhhhhhhh.............you know who.Can't say no more or i might have to do you in.LMAO.