Sale of All Arms Tactical Aide Memoires

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by brandywine, Aug 23, 2010.

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. he has on the ad mod or bfpo addresses only
  2. 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...
  3. 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

    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:

    (My bold)
  4. 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)

    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)...
    • Like Like x 1
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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:

    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. ( 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.)
  8. 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:

    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!
  9. 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.
  10. How much is it? ;o)
  11. £6.99 for what more than 100% of our entire phase 1 syllabus! BARGAIN! I could raise my own army!
  12. Bagsy me for CGS ^_^
  13. 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?
  14. I suppose I'll have to stick with O/C "Grumpy Cynics" Troop?