British troops and dark veil of silence

Much will probably be made of this.

Armed forces given gagging order

Because it looks like something new.

The Ministry of Defence has introduced new guidelines to prevent military personnel talking publicly about their experiences as members of Britain's armed forces.

Soldiers, sailors and air force members will be prevented from blogging, taking part in surveys, speaking in public or posting on bulletin boards, according to The Guardian.

They will also be barred from playing multi-player computer games and sending text messages, photographs and audio or video material without permission if they relate to defence matters.

The guidelines declare "all such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence", the newspaper reported.

The new policy follows the row earlier this year sparked by two members of the Royal Navy who sold their stories to the media after being held captive in Iran.

Receiving money for interviews, conferences and books which draw on official defence experience has now been formally banned.

Ummm....

This doesn't appear to be new. In almost all armed forces, there is a limit to what members may express publicly. The banning of receiving money for interviews, books, etc., where a member is still in the service is something I completely agree with. If a person wants to get out and then market themselves and their story, that's fine, but as long as one is "accepting the Queen's shilling", so to speak, one's voice is limited - by regulations. It always has been. Some troops have permanent gag orders, undertakings of confidence, which do not permit them to utter anything at all about their work, past or present - ever. (Despite the writings of one Andy McNab).

The UK Ministry of Defence, however, did a pretty awful job of explaining it. Considering it came from their Director General of Media and Communications, that's not surprising.

One of the first questions any British service member would be asking: "Is the DGMC a fucking civvie?"

In that the answer is "Yes", (Simon MacDowall), the average uniformed lower decker or squadie is not likely to take to kindly to the order. And sure enough, they didn't.

All of this stemmed from the capture of 15 sailors by Iran and subsequent to their release, the sale of the story, by two of those members, to the news media. The Hall Report issued a scathing indictment of the mishandling of that affair by the UK Ministry of Defence and recommended that, in future, accepting payment for a story which originated with and related directly to a person's service be prohibited.

To be honest, when I had first heard that some of the released captives were being paid, while still wearing the uniform, for their story, I was appalled.

The rules as published here, are pretty much those which have always existed. The additions which seem to be getting everyones' nickers in a twist are in paragraph 15:

15. Examples of communicating in public in public are:

• publishing material (for example books, articles, papers for academic qualifications, or any other text, audio, still images, video or other content) or submitting material with the intention or likelihood of publication, in any medium (print or electronic) available outside the government;
• self-publishing or otherwise releasing material on the internet or similar sharing technologies, for example through a blog, podcast, or other shared text, audio or video, including via mobile devices;
• interviews with journalists using broadcast, print or electronic media;
• speaking at conferences, private engagements or other events where the public or media may be present;
• completing external organisations' questionnaires, taking part in external surveys or polls, or contributing to external studies or research projects;
• contributing to any online community or shared electronic information resource available outside government, for example a bulletin board, newsgroup, wiki, on-line social network, mutliplayer game or other information sharing application.

The emphasized sub-paras are new, and it is those which are causing the problem. Inasmuch as MacDowall is saying this is nothing out of the ordinary, he clearly doesn't understand sailors, soldiers, marines and airmen, and he has no grasp on the magnitude of censorship the new regulation imposes.

Service in the armed forces is not the same as working for the local company, no matter how large. Service personnel have always bitched, and will continue to bitch, about their lot in life, their leaders and the crappy gear the government expects them to use.

As one member of the Army Rumour Service Forum said, We legally cannot put a memorial up for fallen comrades in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Over at RumRation, the Royal Navy and Royal Marine unofficial forum, the same kind of discussion is going on.

The truth is, it is just an expansion of some very old rules, but the regulation is so badly written that nobody can decide whether they are actually allowed to post to the forums or whether they are now in breach of regulations.

Without clarification, which the MOD's response did little to provide, people in a conversation discussing the crappy food on a past patrol or the lousy weather on an Atlantic crossing are, in literal terms, violating regulations. Telling the world that your new body armour is useless can get you landed in a court martial.

So, yeah. This is a gag order... unless someone with a uniform and a brass hat tells the troops otherwise and clarifies what they are actually allowed to discuss.

Update: It is particularly noteworthy that British service personnel, unhappy with this policy, are expressing themselves in forums. That ought to get MacDowell twisting in the wind, but one of the best comments I've seen so far is this one:

Every one should write in with an application so that they can talk to their mother, as she is a member of the public talking to her is banned. After 4000 applications in a week they will get the message.

[...]

Next time an MP turns up and asks you a question, tell them you do not have written authority to answer there [sic] questions

I feel a breeze....