back to article New MoD push to silence internal dissent

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has brought in sweeping new rules intended to prevent military personnel from releasing information which shows the MoD in a bad light. The new document, designated DIN 2007DIN03-006, was first discussed on the ARmy Rumour SErvice (ARRSE) forum yesterday morning. The Guardian has also covered it …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Cris Page

    Whitehall ARRSE h*l*s

    I guess it is easier for the chairbourne warriors in the hazardous theatre of operations known as Whitehall to threaten our servicemen and women rather than correctly and comprehensively equipping them for cleaning up America's mess... sorry I meant bringing democracy to foreign lands.

    Maybe we should bring the troops home and set them to dealing with the threat to democracy we face here... Censorship by a goverenment that cant face or accept critisism.

    How dare the MOD seek to camoflage its failings in this manner, as their paymasters, we have a right to know about the manifold failures of this ministry to service our troops. I bet they wouldnt stand for shortages and inadequacies in the equipment provided to them in their nice safe environments. They have no right to censure our troops for letting us know how badly they (and us) are being failed by these spinless pencil pushers.

    Our over streached and under resourced troops deserve better than to have to endure these chinless wonders handing down high and mighty missives from the safety of their plush offices, especially where this is an attack on freedom of speech a freedom that we are allegedly bringing to some countries and yet seek to deny to our own forces, I think the MOD should look up the word hypocracy, this stinks of it.

  2. Nick Pettefar

    Nothing New

    No, they simply have no imagination or appreciation for their staff. I unfortunately work with some people like this. They are like animated meat.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fix the PR not the problem?

    "all such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence".

    So whenever we hear soldiers tell us the war's going well, and they're happy with the progress, we'll know their word is worthless because they'd under orders to make the army look good.

    Stupid, incompetent media handling, whoever dreamed up that should be fired.

  4. Vladimir Plouzhnikov


    Discussing defence is prohibited but it does not seem to impose any restrictions on discussion of offensives...

  5. Mike Moyle Silver badge

    This could have possibilities...

    Assuming that enough service-folk and reporters are willing to work together, I can see a passive-resistance (or possibly "passive-aggressive") tactic to use here:

    Reporter #1: "So, Young Serviceperson - how are you enjoying your service in your nation's Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, or Reserve?"

    Young Serviceperson #1: "I'm soryy, Mr. or Ms reporter, but I'm not at liberty to say; you'll need to speak to the Press Liaison officer on base, Major NNN #1."

    Repeat through any nera-endless combination of Reporter #N and Y.S. #N (where N is a VERY large number). If *ALL* requests for simple statementrs are sent to Headquarters, much confusion and merriment could ensue.

    I'm just thinkin'.

  6. Jason Hall


    I'm still of the mind that whenever a 'conflict' appears on the horizon, that the whole political branch of government (both/all 3 parties) should be sent to the front lines.

    Whether it is on land in Iraq (wherever) or on a carrier somewhere near the 'danger zone'.

    This will guarantee that the brave people (soldiers/navy etc) who risk their lives to follow these political commands will have the very best available defense systems in place.

    It will also form a great deterrent to conflicts as a whole,as these ,mostly scumbag, politicians will not want to risk months/years away from their cushy lifestyles - and most definitely will want to find a more peaceful solution.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why disarm ourselves?

    As others have noted elsewhere, the primary battle in this on-going "War on Terror" is for hearts and minds, and the terrorist has just been told that the field is his, the Brits have withdrawn from combat in the hearts and minds warfare.

    We give these soldiers weaponry deliberately designed to kill people, lots of people in some cases. Then we train them to use it responsibly and accurately. Why, oh why, will we not provide our soldiers with the weaponry to fight the hearts and minds campaign, and then train them in how to use it effectively, responsibly and accurately. Then let them get on with it.

    Perhaps the Orwellian has already happened (Ministries were always named as the opposite of what they were about). Perhaps the so called "Ministry of Defence" has already become the de-facto "Ministry of Surrender"

  8. El Regular

    Whatever you do! DON'T MENTION THE WAR!!

    Yeah, fact was that Britain was in debt to the USA at the time and prior to the attacks of little real conscequence and of propagandised significance (9/11). The UK was likely leaned on to support the corporate action (I mean, War on Terra, I mean terror). Now the UK is piggy in the middle trying to both atone for mistakes to it's public by taking up multitudinous(love that word) humanitarian causes (live eight, live earth, darfour, Carbon footprint measures.. more to come I expect) and shut up it's own forces at the same time to get everyone to forget the stain on the governments reputation. Cynical? Maybe, but remember what "New" (meaning, in part, "Not" or "No Longer") Labour is built on PR control.

    I stopped watching TV, you should too.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019