• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Sale of All Arms Tactical Aide Memoires

#3
he has on the ad mod or bfpo addresses only
But that's not the point... as far as I recall it, they're marked "RESTRICTED" and therefore covered by the OSA (as brandywine pointed out) - so the bloke's technically breaking the law.

The fact that the army doesn't help blasé attitudes by marking everything from Op Orders to Bog Roll orders as "RESTRICTED" is, however, besides the point...
 
#4
as far as I recall it, they're marked "RESTRICTED" and therefore covered by the OSA (as brandywine pointed out) - so the bloke's technically breaking the law.

The fact that the army doesn't help blasé attitudes by marking everything from Op Orders to Bog Roll orders as "RESTRICTED" is, however, besides the point...
But it doesn't need to be protectively marked to be covered - yes, your order for Bog Roll is, and I quote from s2(1) OSA89

any information, document or other article relating to defence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such.
Okay, it would need to be a "damaging disclosure" (which I struggle to imagine wrt bog roll orders, although I can imagine lots of contexts where failing to fill the order could be 'damaging' - to your dignity, at least) - but that's a different hurdle. Note that, if it was an Intelligence Services bog roll order (does the Int Corps count?), it would be specifically illegal because their disclosures under s1(1) don't need to be "damaging". I presume you could claim damage from the public definition of RESTRICTED in the defence context:

Make it more difficult to maintain the operational effectiveness or security of UK or allied forces (e.g. compromise of UK forces training materials or supply procedures)
(My bold)
 
#5
But it doesn't need to be protectively marked to be covered
True - and conversely if it is protectively marked marked then that marking can't be disregarded, so the bloke flogging them doesn't have a leg to stand on, and may have a quiet word said to him (as per your bold about training materials, can't work out the new quotes system yet)

Okay, it would need to be a "damaging disclosure" (which I struggle to imagine wrt bog roll orders, although I can imagine lots of contexts where failing to fill the order could be 'damaging' - to your dignity, at least)
Well, a mass order of bog roll could indicate a lower combat effectiveness if an entire battalion is spending half of its time with ringpieces of fire after a particularly hot curry... I'd call that damaging (to the Bn's image, if nothing else)...
 
#7
He seems to just be re-selling what you can get here.

Are they the real McCoy or just some airsofting waltish version that just happens to have the same title?
I think they are actually the same person / organisation / whatever - you just have direct sales on your link. Frankly, I've no idea whether what he is selling is a direct copy, derived from (which would still be illegal w/o "lawful authority" - it is about revealing "information or documents" - I assume that an assumed senior ex-Brecon instructor going on to train people in current tactics, the apparent SFAT business model, would be equally frowned upon) or simply made up shit. (Actually, I'm not entirely sure that some of the real TAM doesn't fall in to the latter category.) And I'm not going to pony up with £10 to find out.

I hadn't checked the 2nd link before pontificating earlier because the first link gave me a "cannot find" from eBay, so I mistakenly assumed both had been withdrawn. I don't think that changes the fundamental argument.
 
#8
Its a weird one - I'm scanning the Legal Section of my brain...surely its just illegal if he's signed the Official Secrets Act. (A bloody serious document.) If not then he can get away with it. So any of us who have then we would be naughty (I honestly would think of selling things like that as being slightly treasonous and dangerous even if a bit dated etc) but a walty airsofter would be ok in the eyes of the law. Nuts really if that is the case.
Nope. You don't need to sign the OSA - it is a bit of a myth (admittedly one that the MoD has bought well in to - - it just makes it easier to prosecute.) There is some 1970s/80s case law about it however - I can remember whether it was Bettany or somebody else - I seem to recall they got away with something fairly blatant. Hence, amongst other things, OSA89.

If you are being done under s1 (Intel), you need to be "a member" or "notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection". If he has no connection with the military then he can be done under s5 OSA89: Information resulting from unauthorised disclosures or entrusted in confidence. Check the cite:

the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he discloses it without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act
On the other hand, if he isn't ex-forces and he has just made it all up, he can probably be done under Fraud Act 2006. (Legislation.gov.uk is really slow atm - can't bring up the right section for you - fraud by misrepresentation s2, corporate offences s9, 10 & 12 probably all apply.)
 
#9
I may be wrong, but I believe that signing it merely acknowledges that you have read it - as it is a law, not signing it does not mean that it does not apply to you.

However, if what he's selling / taken the information from to repackage isn't protectively marked, then he does have a defence:

OSA 1989 s1. (5) said:
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question related to security or intelligence or, in the case of an offence under subsection (3), that the disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of that subsection.
Government legalese, but essentially if you truly didn't know or believe that it was PM'd, you'd have a defence. You might not get away with it, but you'd have a chance.

On the other hand, it could be airsofting mickey mouse tactics for 25st Speshul Forces and we're getting in a tis about nothing!
 
#10
However, if what he's selling / taken the information from to repackage isn't protectively marked, then he does have a defence:

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question related to security or intelligence or, in the case of an offence under subsection (3), that the disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of that subsection.
Government legalese, but essentially if you truly didn't know or believe that it was PM'd, you'd have a defence. You might not get away with it, but you'd have a chance.
But that is specific to s1. s2 (defence) has an equivalent quote, however, and the "I've never been in, guv" s5 refers back to s1 and s2.

I think the point comes down, assuming there's no 49 Para (i.e. fraud) or Intelligence (no requirement to prove "damage") connection, to whether you can legally equate "damaging disclosure" with "disclosure of protectively marked". If I was a defence solicitor (IANALNDIPOOT) I'd say "of course, that's the whole purpose of the protective marking system", if I was prosecuting, I'd say that there are wider harms, and therefore damage, than simple PM. Interesting to see if there is any relevant case law.

Remember that the public disclosure of the PM tables happened long after OSA89 was passed.
 
#14
I want a nice title too, I want to be a Company Commander, or a Platoon Commander, OK ill settle for Sergeant, or Corporal, OK erm Lance Corporal? right ok Ill take Troop... Ok ill apply now shall I start again?
 

Travelgall

MIA
Kit Reviewer
#20
I want a nice title too, I want to be a Company Commander, or a Platoon Commander, OK ill settle for Sergeant, or Corporal, OK erm Lance Corporal? right ok Ill take Troop... Ok ill apply now shall I start again?
You're thinking too small. Take a leaf out of Idi Amin's book. "His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Last King of Scotland.
 

Latest Threads