Please read - Int Corps Board Rules

E

error_unknown

Guest
#1
I want to consolidate and simplify the rules for the Int Corps board and I would welcome any input from participants. Thinking about it, this must be one of very few places anywhere where members of the British 'intelligence community' air their opinions in public and I'm keen that we should be able to continue to do so without compromising operational or personnel security in any way.

Suggestions either here or via pm would be most welcome.

cp
 
#3
Veg does home-brewed security audit!

Having read your post, CP, I went through a rough cross-section of all the posts on this forum role-playing a bad guy wanting to learn more about army intelligence (I wore a shemagh for this, and occasionally chuckled in a sinister fashion).

I then did a quick websearch to see what open-source information was available re. same. There is more about the crunchy bits of Int Corps work on the MoD and army websites than there is here.

Won't bore you with the details, but to be honest there's nothing here that strikes me as being too scary or revealing. A bit of office politics, inter-trade rivalry and dry humour but nothing that seems to remotely compromise OPSEC any more than the McWalt SAS bookshelf at Waterstone's. The only thing I discovered was a little bit about the social habits of trainees at Quicksands. Thin gruel, perhaps, but not great OPSEC.

Just my two pence, but I think this forum runs pretty tightly as it is.

Regards,

V!
 

Zoid

Old-Salt
#4
Vegetius said:
Veg does home-brewed security audit!

Having read your post, CP, I went through a rough cross-section of all the posts on this forum role-playing a bad guy wanting to learn more about army intelligence (I wore a shemagh for this, and occasionally chuckled in a sinister fashion).

I then did a quick websearch to see what open-source information was available re. same. There is more about the crunchy bits of Int Corps work on the MoD and army websites than there is here.

Won't bore you with the details, but to be honest there's nothing here that strikes me as being too scary or revealing. A bit of office politics, inter-trade rivalry and dry humour but nothing that seems to remotely compromise OPSEC any more than the McWalt SAS bookshelf at Waterstone's. The only thing I discovered was a little bit about the social habits of trainees at Quicksands. Thin gruel, perhaps, but not great OPSEC.

Just my two pence, but I think this forum runs pretty tightly as it is.

Regards,

V!
I agree. It's not bad, just a bit of banter and bitching with one or two veiled comments here and there that serve as lockons to those who were there or heard it on the grapevine.
 
#5
Vegetius said:
Veg does home-brewed security audit!

Having read your post, CP, I went through a rough cross-section of all the posts on this forum role-playing a bad guy wanting to learn more about army intelligence (I wore a shemagh for this, and occasionally chuckled in a sinister fashion).

I then did a quick websearch to see what open-source information was available re. same. There is more about the crunchy bits of Int Corps work on the MoD and army websites than there is here.

Won't bore you with the details, but to be honest there's nothing here that strikes me as being too scary or revealing. A bit of office politics, inter-trade rivalry and dry humour but nothing that seems to remotely compromise OPSEC any more than the McWalt SAS bookshelf at Waterstone's. The only thing I discovered was a little bit about the social habits of trainees at Quicksands. Thin gruel, perhaps, but not great OPSEC.

Just my two pence, but I think this forum runs pretty tightly as it is.

Regards,

V!
Almost a year on, I wonder how the Int Corps Board has evolved.

Veg,

If you could put on your shemagh, once again, would you say the board contains nothing compromising OpSec/PerSec?
 
#6
Sorry. can someone explain who placed the first post or am I just being dim as usual?

I can just see someone as "Guest". Am i missing something?
 
#7
AF1771 said:
Sorry. can someone explain who placed the first post or am I just being dim as usual?

I can just see someone as "Guest". Am i missing something?
It was probably the original "bowman", who started off as Mod (C) 2002. Perhaps the user account has expired?
 
#8
Vegetius said:
..... The only thing I discovered was a little bit about the social habits of trainees at Quicksands. Thin gruel, perhaps, but not great OPSEC.

Just my two pence, but I think this forum runs pretty tightly as it is.

Regards,

V!
Got to agree with Veg. I know i contributed to quoted discussion,but didn't think it was that close to the bone. Mind you its hard to be objective when you have the bit between your teeth. (so to speak). So, will stand corrected.

Most are well aware of Sy and OP/PERSEC. There are the occasional Bone questions from the uneducated/journos who insist on questions directed against secific units/MO. However. I think the MODS do a grand job.

I find it a great place to blow a little steam and have exchange some great banter.

AF
 
#9
AF1771 said:
Sorry. can someone explain who placed the first post or am I just being dim as usual?

I can just see someone as "Guest". Am i missing something?
I stand to be corrected, but I think it was Spunky using his old pseudonym (Chickenpunk).
 
#10
I want to consolidate and simplify the rules for the Int Corps board and I would welcome any input from participants. Thinking about it, this must be one of very few places anywhere where members of the British 'intelligence community' air their opinions in public and I'm keen that we should be able to continue to do so without compromising operational or personnel security in any way.

Suggestions either here or via pm would be most welcome.

cp
I cant really understand what you are actually starting this thread off about so am unable to comment
 
#12
AF1771 said:
I find it a great place to blow a little boy and exchange some great cocker spaniel porn.

AF
honestly, i'm shocked 1771 :roll:

personally, as a security bitch (currently), i think this forum needs more padlocks, bigger fences, and a copy of arrse standing orders next to everyone's terminal.

good to be back! :lol:
 
#13
Good to see you back, CR.

Did you take leave of absence to memorise JSP440 and marvel at the inner workings of the Mark IV Manifoil?
 
#15
I wave my private parts at you, sons of Abloy technicians! I blow off in the general direction of JSP440! Lightweight Secure Room - We already got one!

(Think the Stella is kicking in!)..............Mother!
 
#16
CRmeansCeilingReached said:
ha! i laugh in the face of Mark IV Manifoils, and drop porn infested laptops.......
Good to see you're back to normal

:p
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#17
Fraser said:
AF1771 said:
Sorry. can someone explain who placed the first post or am I just being dim as usual?

I can just see someone as "Guest". Am i missing something?
I stand to be corrected, but I think it was Spunky using his old pseudonym (Chickenpunk).
Spot on.

Overall, we have very few problems. What does occasionally bother me are references to things which are commonplace within the Corps but which are actually still classified but those are relatively rare. Generally I think we have a reasonably pleasant, stress free board which has picked up a decent momentum in the last year or so. Hoorah! Let's have a picnic with sausage rolls, pork pie and lashings of ginger beer...
 
#18
AF1771 said:
CRmeansCeilingReached said:
ha! i laugh in the face of Mark IV Manifoils, and drop porn infested laptops.......
Good to see you're back to normal

:p
normal? thanks bud :)

actually i tend to slam my nuts in the lid of laptops, rather than merely dropping them.

cpunk - you've now got me trying to remember the exact "lashings of ginger beer" quote off the comic strip's inspired "5 go mad in dorset". :lol:
 
#19
cpunk said:
What does occasionally bother me are references to things which are commonplace within the Corps but which are actually still classified but those are relatively rare.
That was what prompted me to resurrect the thread. I'm probably just as guilty as the next arrser, but there was a recent thread where some of the content left me a little wary. Not that it was comprising as such, it was pretty bloody obvious really, but to have the information posted on this forum just didn't seem quite right.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top