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

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

I couldn't possibly comment.

Not enough people supporting Armynet then?

Someone obviously got very moist while thinking and penning that DIN.

Now here's a poser for you.

a) The Regulars amongst us are covered by military law 24x7
b) Ditto for TA Officers
c) TA soldiers are only covered while in green kit (i.e.) booked on.
d) Civvy's are under no obligation at all.

Now it's plain that this DIN is meant to be a catch all. So, for those of us under a or b we can't discuss anything other than the rugby scores and the weather... those under c likewise unless its a monday to friday and they are doing there normal thing and d can carry on doing what the hell they like...

It strikes me that Media Ops and the CoC is getting further distanced from the boys on the ground.

DefenceNet's headline is:

MOD updates the rules on communicating with the public and the media

Surely 'NOT communicating', since this is the clear intent. 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.

Of course, if every ARRSER to whom these muddle-headed new rules apply were to ask permission for each post, DGMC would soon be overwhelmed...

It isn't on armynet...

Every one should write in with an application so that they can talk to their mother, as she is a member of the public talking to her is banned. After 4000 applications in a week they will get the message.

It is also another new government rule that is unaffordable (it is also uninforceable).

The good old union method of working to the rules will show it to be a stupid rule. Next time an MP turns up and asks you a question, tell them you do not have written authority to answer there questions, work to rule of the law, it gets them every time.

edited to add word rather than corect

Originally Posted by msr

It isn't on armynet...

Probably still waiting for permission to post it...

so lets talk about Offensive matters then (not Naafi type stuff)

Lets let some sanity prevail here - firstly my reading of the media contact part is that it applies to us only when we seek to contact the media and represent ourselves as a serving individual by name. This is no different to the previous situation where we not supposed to handle media outside of DNews remit.

The bulletin board one is tricky and utterly unenforcable. I'd imagine some army SO1 getting very excited writing this rubbish, without due thought as to its implementation. I think a quick FOI enquiry to MOD asking whether serving personnel are allowed to use ARRSE will quickly sort this one out.

What is DGMC's username & avatar? We could ask now.

Chimpy seemed to know a few things about media/defence - perhaps that was him.

Just had a thought....

How big is DGMC? Just how many posts could they cope with before they would be swamped?



I think someone at DGMC has opened a can of worms.


Edited - too slow on the repost!

Originally Posted by Mr_Bridger

So, for those of us under a or b we can't discuss anything other than the rugby scores and the weather...

You can’t talk about the rugby as the cut in the inf Bn has had an effect on the quality and troops have been involved with the flooding.

How can they enforce it, considering everyone on ARRSE uses usernames, not real names? They'd be unable to work out who was what!

Originally Posted by jim30

Lets let some sanity prevail here - firstly my reading of the media contact part is that it applies to us only when we seek to contact the media and represent ourselves as a serving individual by name. This is no different to the previous situation where we not supposed to handle media outside of DNews remit.

The bulletin board one is tricky and utterly unenforcable. I'd imagine some army SO1 getting very excited writing this rubbish, without due thought as to its implementation. I think a quick FOI enquiry to MOD asking whether serving personnel are allowed to use ARRSE will quickly sort this one out.

Ah Jim - you must be looking forward to your new chair
How is life in Main Building - you might know the brain surgeon who's come up with this one?