Pretty Bone Question re Defence Writing

Discussion in 'AGC, RAPTC and SASC' started by Mongoose, Apr 11, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Greetings, I see the new version of JSP 101 states you no longer underline the title in official letters (to MOD addressees).. well I'm currently helping a friend revise for an exam (non AGC) that includes a short section on Defence Writing, all their example pages of letters have the topic underlined, what's the chances of them actually updating the exam/answers to include the non-underlining? I don't fancy teaching my friend the wrong way (even if it is now right!) for about two months :E
  2. Anyone got the NSN for Tippex?
  3. The main heading is still underlined but nothing else, anything that requires highlighting eg sub headings can be in bold but not underlined.

  4. Are we singing off the same song sheet? Page 2-15 (letter to MOD addressees - notes about page 1) says

    9. Subject Heading.

    In bold capitals. Not underlined.

    Or am I just getting confused? (Since that is the only example of an official letter)
  5. I think you are confusing 'subject/sub-topic heading' with 'main document title'.
  6. Mongoose - I sit corrected! - when you said the new version I assumed you meant the old, new version! didn't realise there was a version 3 (Mar 08)! you are correct :

    JSP 101 V3

    Amazing what you can find on this interweb thingy!!
  7. May not be a bad idea for your mate to get in touch now with whoever is running the course to confirm which version they will be using - nothing worse than pitching up and informing the instructors they've got it all wrong- new version etc - card marked from day 1!

  8. I've queried Defence Writing myself a few times, both for letter writing and pedantry reasons - sometimes though I wonder why I bother. As long as the letter or memo is concise and to the point (allowing for the odd grammatical mishap, obviously) I see no reason for having Defence Writing at all.

    And let's face it, most officers don't bother their arrses with it anyway. Why should anyone else?
  9. Part of this subject has been discussed HERE

    Paywog, your link to V3 (dated March 2008) is obviously the latest, but does that relate to the eDW on Armynet?

    I'm not familiar with it enough to comment, but would like to know what one to use!
  10. No the one on armynet is V2 - a whole year old - hence the underlining issue.

    BTW - can't decide about the hyphen!!

  11. Yeah that's what she's going to do, I don't think the Dental Corps will be on the ball with regards to DW somehow.

    I love it how these new releases are so well documented as well! And its quite lucky I printed it off on the colour printer by mistake thus allowing me to see all that annoying red text all over!
  12. My biggest gripe about DW is that people become hung up on the minutiae of what at the end of the day is a house style.

    Provided the writer applies the principles behind DW ie Accuracy, Brevity, Clarity, the whole issue of what to underline/capitalise is a minor one.

    We're now on V3 - I've not checked for the differences, but why do we need to be on V3? Is V3 now more joint than V2?

    Can you imagine any large commercial organisation issuing a document - "This is how you will write a letter" ?
  13. 'Defence Writing'! Dear God - that's almost as bad as 'Military Intelligence'

    'Those who have mastered etiquette, who are entirely, impeccably right, would seem to arrive at a point of exquisite dullness.'
    [align=right]Dorothy Parker.[/align]

    Line 1:
    Delete - 'etiquette'
    Insert - 'Defence Writing'
  14. Guns

    Guns LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. The Royal Navy

    Of course it is just a guide so Senior Officer continue to insist on Demi-Official or just make their own styles up.

    Having gone through the new version it does have some useful stuff and is helpful if you are new to service writing.