BBC.co.uk

Talk about Newsnight

Latest programme

MoD blog ban

  • Newsnight
  • 10 Aug 07, 03:14 PM

SoldiersThe MoD has issued new guidelines to personnel in the army, RAF, and navy. They state soldiers can no longer blog, post on bulletin boards, or release video, stills or images.

The government says the new restrictions have been put in place following the controversy over the MoD allowing two navy personnel, captured in Iran, to be paid for their stories.

But through these blogs and video posts (see the Army rumour service board and Live Leak video site - watch Newsnight's recent report about Live Leak) we have learnt of inadequate equipment in theatre, and poor accommodation, as well as unique testimony of soldiers' lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So have these restrictions been put in place to quell criticism? Are they legal? Are there good security considerations for the ban? And why, when blogs and video posts have been used by soldiers since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, are the MoD suddenly gagging their personnel?

Let us know what you think.

Comments  Post your comment

This is a disgrace as the only manner by which we as military journalits can check 'spin' is by talking to the troops or looking at the blogs. The Basra Palace situation has been grossly underreported with many causlaties going deliberately unreported and the 17% casualoty rate which is not being replenished. Equipment faults can only be reported by those operating the systems.

I think that it is outrageous that the MOD is trying to gag its personnel. Blogs and bulletin boards have over past few years given our troops a powerful way to communicate with each other and the outside world. In particular, it allows them to raise their concerns in a way that can't simply be brushed under the carpet by the top brass. This may cause the MOD some discomfort, but it's not a major security threat. Shame on the MOD for this vindictive, narrow-minded action.

  • 3.
  • At 03:52 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Ginger Blymyer wrote:

What about Freedom of Speech in the Constitution. USA of course. It sucks, and to my way of thinking is inhumane. The soldiers must tell the truth if it is ever to be told. The wrongs of the world are mostly lied about unless useful to manipulate us. Those in power want to spin us, frighten us and control us. If we are blind to that it is our own fault. These soldiers are a light in a very black world these days. Don't let the government do this.

  • 4.
  • At 03:56 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • chris jennings wrote:

Having spent 26 yrs in the RN I am v knowledgeable about kit shortages cost cutting and general low morale that our officers and ratings endure just to get the job done from reservists who were told to go to hms raleigh in cornwall to do their training and borrow a uniform cap as none were available for issue!! Where even badges were not being reprinted and you wld see 3 or 4 types of working uniform on one ship. To commanding officers that were afraid of telling bad news to ships company - this is from the front and second line - its worse in the army much worse and helicopter pilots who deploy train deploy train and not a lot else.

  • 5.
  • At 03:58 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Bev wrote:

I'm in too minds about this. On the one hand, I believe that everyone has the right of free speech. Of course we should know about the lack of proper equipment and what life is really like "out there".

On the other hand, if everything was fine, then an anonymous blog could so easily give reverse spin and reduce morale.

Simple answer - treat and equip our service personel properly and there would be no need for blogs etc. The same goes for NHS staff, teachers, police, and employees of private companies.

  • 6.
  • At 03:59 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Edward Treen wrote:

Just another "cover yourself" option for the civil servants, and to hell with the lads at the sharp end, with inadequate equipment, supplies and a totally inadequate ministry to back them up.

  • 7.
  • At 03:59 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Lee Mestres wrote:

The BBC drifts further left every day. Thank you.

  • 8.
  • At 04:01 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Terry Lawley wrote:

Surely the MOD should ban serving personnel from profiting from stories rather than banning all comment? I think the MOD are right to stop personnel from selling stories to the press but they have taken this opportunity to stop all comment including those about poor accommodation, sub-standard equipment and how personnel are suffering from prolonged periods of active service. This decision is contrary to freedom of speech.

  • 9.
  • At 04:01 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Bev wrote:

I'm in too minds about this. On the one hand, I believe that everyone has the right of free speech. Of course we should know about the lack of proper equipment and what life is really like "out there".

On the other hand, if everything was fine, then an anonymous blog could so easily give reverse spin and reduce morale.

Simple answer - treat and equip our service personnel properly and there would be no need for blogs etc. The same goes for NHS staff, teachers, police, and employees of private companies.

  • 10.
  • At 04:04 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Lee Mestres wrote:

The BBC drifts further left every day. Thank you.

  • 11.
  • At 04:08 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • John Egan wrote:

This is yet another example of the Government covering up their inability to manage the departments under their control. They use gagging methods to hide bad news and cover up the conditions that our brave armed forces have to deal with. Despite billions of pounds of direct and indirect tax increases over the last 10 years very few areas that Government control have improved significantly.

  • 12.
  • At 04:10 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Paul Daniel wrote:

The M.O.D. needs to avoid a repetition of the recent Navy Lark but a blanket ban on so many types of communication seems completely over the top.

Given this Government's fascist tendencies (ID Cards, lies to prevent a European referendum, etc) one has to wonder whether the ban is designed at least in part to stop criticism of the Government's handling of the war and the armed forces in general; - their inadequate equipment, inadequate leave allowance, inadequate pay, inadequate numbers, etc. etc. At the very least, this will surely come as a severe blow to the morale of those 'in theatre', when we should all be doing more to help them.

Yet another ill thought out edict from the top, without a proper regard for the consequences. The more that time goes on the more I am glad that I chose not to join one of The Services and I am sure that this new 'guideline' will help more young people to come to the same conclusion as I did many years ago.

  • 13.
  • At 04:11 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Terry Phillips wrote:

This is undoubtedly a gagging exercise in oder to stem criticism of the shabby way in which our Armed Forces have been and are being treated. It gives no credit to the MOD nor credibility to the Government, who have behaved disgracefully to our Soldiers, sailors and Airmen throughout the Iraq and Afghan Campaigns.

  • 14.
  • At 04:17 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Philip Ross wrote:

I have been reading the comments on the ARRSE website today and I think that nothing will change. I can understand that operational matters shouldn't be discussed and that is already the case. Most contributors will carry on and the comments will all appear to be sent from a "civilian friend" or relative of a serving soldier as they aren't covered by the directive.

  • 15.
  • At 04:22 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Peter Dewar-Finch wrote:

I believe that these restrictions fall, quite properly, under the auspices of the Official Secrets Act. I see that many of the servicemen’s revelations under the mistaken belief of Freedom of Information in blogs etc’ fall neatly into this category. Keeping a personal diary is one thing, but broadcasting it around the world - and into the hands of enemies and terrorists is inappropriate. So to my mind, these restrictions are legal and active steps should be taken by the government to tighten up on leakage of potentially sensitive information in the Armed Services.

  • 16.
  • At 04:25 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Dave Draper wrote:

Typical.
Gordon Brown has said he wants a fairer more open Government.
Then they do this - wonderful.

  • 17.
  • At 04:30 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Simon MacDowall wrote:

It is false to say that the updated regulations prevent people from blogging, it simply says that people must seek permission first if the blog is about defence matters, something that is obviously necessary for operational security. In fact there are a number of UK military blogs which operate with MOD authorisation or assistance (SAC Paul Goodfellow's Afghan diary on Youtube, CO of HMS Somerset on Blogspot, RN pilot on Bebo etc.)
We want our people to communicate the roles and achievements of the MOD and Armed Forces. This document just sets out the approval procedures to be followed before people speak publicly about work related issues, broadly in line with the standard procedures of every major organisation.


  • 18.
  • At 04:31 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Barry8 wrote:

MoD have a unique reputation of being totally irresponsible to the electorate. To the very point of
contempt! Witness Porton Down and just what happened there some 50 years ago! Now they are being supported by an UNELECTED pm and his
gang to further suppress truth. Guess
its a reasonable idea for the covering of incompetance! If you can do it, why not? Have we got a grim reaper in our fold? Well only his footprints - so far. Prepare to be amused! The 'lifted out of poverty' are able to show that the lift went down, not up. Oh its so cold in the cellar - but we musn't let on.

  • 19.
  • At 04:31 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Patrick Lyster-Todd wrote:

I have a feeling that many correspondents, including serving and retired Service personnel, will find this a complete over-reaction, an own-goal in fact - and further evidence that the MoD in particular remains out of touch both with its own people and those who pay for them.

We live in an internet age - and this is not going to diminish. Nor is the need for AF personnel - particularly those serving in isolated and often dangerous parts of the world - to remain in contact with the real world - their world, that is, not that of some dusty, fuddy-duddy MoD warrior or civil servant. Chat and blog-sites provide a vital escape valve for many such personnel and an irreplaceable link to sanity and normality.

However - Security and PR are important areas and I can understand there needing to be periodic policy reviews for the benefit of all. Yet, rather than the knee-jerk blanket reaction that would appear to have occurred (arguably rather late in the day, at that!) on this occasion, perhaps it would have been better to proscribe certain blog-sites while allowing personnel to continuing posting to those that already maintain a reponsible approach to security such as 'ARSSE' and 'Proud2Serve' ...

Ultimately, it all comes down to trust - and if the MoD can't place a level of trust in those who it puts in harm's way then I'm not sure that they've earned the right for any in return.

  • 20.
  • At 04:34 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Barry Reed wrote:

The trouble has been over the past few years Tony Blair saying the troups can have anything they want, and we find out in reality they have been given nothing, putting their lives at risk.
I think the reason the soldiers have been censored is, recruitment is at an all time low personel are leaving, and this government think that by gagging the troops, sailors and airmen they can continue on upsetting peace 'round the world at minimal cost.
We would not have found out about the appalling condition of our Nimrod fleet of aircraft but for the Blogs and Emails!

  • 21.
  • At 04:35 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Tim wrote:

I agree with the ban on making money from stories; but this should not be muddled with blogging. Blogging restrictions would sensibly be censored if they contained sensitive operational details. But 'life story' blogs can't do harm - except perhaps to Politicians. We are sick of the spin and reading what real happens should not be banned - in fact it should be celebrated.

  • 22.
  • At 04:44 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Alex Marshall wrote:

It certainly seems to me that this is a method to stop criticism and whistle blowing. But, at least they haven't adopted the Cheney approach of accidentally including the name of a whistleblower into a scripted speech for TV, as was done to the Abu Graib whistleblower..

  • 23.
  • At 04:47 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Robb wrote:

Difficult question. This is not a citizen's army. Everyone who joined swore allegiance and so on. The Iraq war was the first in which censorship of military mail became impossible. Blogs could be easily used to undermine morale, sow discontent, promote mutiny and inform the enemy and HQ made a terrible mistake allowing the precedent.
Blogs undermine the authority of the line of command and their use should have been and should still now be, a disciplinary matter. Who ever thought of 'freedom of speech' in the services, except to complain about the food. The very fact that troops are blogging, other than to send messages home to the family (vis a censor) indicates impotence in command and indiscipline beyond belief and, from the content, a shockingly low state of morale - due doubtless to incompetence in the field and poor quality equipment.
If the press wants to know what's happening, then stop swallowing the military spin and get out into the field and find out for us - but don't complain if some of you get shot in the process!
The real point is that our troops should not be there in the first place and perhaps some of them know it.
I do not think that there is any real security risk now. Dare one say it, the wars have been lost on all fronts, including the home front. So don't bother to stop the blogs, just get the troops back home before they all get slaughtered. And how about a war crimes trial or two?

  • 24.
  • At 04:48 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Mr_Bridger wrote:

It is disgracful the DGMC and in particular its Director Simon Macdowell, are continuing to embarass the nation and our armed forces by the poor handling of Media.

Is it not time for a change of personalities at DGMC?

Why did such a change not take place after the shambles that was the HMS cCornwall affair???

  • 25.
  • At 04:49 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Lesley Boatwright wrote:

Are the MoD also going to censor service personnel's letters home?

  • 26.
  • At 04:49 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Charles Hatton wrote:

In a conflict, isn't information about equipment shortages, layout of bases and troop movements exactly what the other side want to know? What happened to "Loose talk costs lives".

  • 27.
  • At 04:51 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Iain Mackenzie wrote:

This ban is coming about because our Forces are currently involved in two ever-stickier quagmires, if things were going ok the MOD would be encouraging the direct communication from the front.
The unfiltered information lets the public see the futility of those deployments and engage with the politicians to demand withdrawal.

  • 28.
  • At 04:52 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • R Griffin wrote:

It is a disgrace to our armed forces. It is just another way of hiding the inefficiencies of the MoD. freedom of speech-not in this country.

  • 29.
  • At 04:55 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Joanne Campbell wrote:

Blimey, next thing you know they'll be stopping them from writing home to their families. What, I wonder, will come after that?
Ah well, let them eat cake!! That seems to be the attitude. Please tell me what Lee Mestres comment is all about. Does he/she know, I wonder?

The Ministry of Defence has responded to this, and Simon MacDowall (our Director General of Media and Communication) has responded in person to the BBC.

Your statement "The MoD has issued new guidelines to personnel in the army, RAF, and navy. They state soldiers can no longer blog, post on bulletin boards, or release video, stills or images." is false.

The guidelines are not new and do not prohibit serving personnel from blogging etc. They explain only that serving personnel should seek authorisation before publicly publishing material on defence or related matters. These basic guidelines have not changed in some years.

For example the CO of HMS SOMERSET has an authorised blog:
http://www.hms-somerset-co.blogspot.com/

...and SAC Paul Goodfellow of the RAF publishes an authorised video diary on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/royalairforce

Newsnight viewers can read the updated MOD guidelines for themselves at:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/MediaandPublicCommunicationPublications/MediaRelations/Din2007din03006ContactWithTheMediaAndCommunicatingInPublic.htm

And you can find a copy of this response on the MOD's own news blog - further evidence we have not banned blogs! - at:
http://www.blogs.mod.uk

  • 31.
  • At 05:00 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

Why the surprise?
This is only the latest in a long line of restrictions that recent governments have implemented.
There is no stopping the government machine now. It is too powerful and the people/opposition too ineffective.
At every opportunity the 'right' to anything 'free' will be removed.
Free speech, freedom to demonstrate, freedom to go where you want, freedom to write, freedom to object etc., will all be eroded until a form of the old USSR style restrictions exist in the UK.
Politicians everywhere envied the old USSR system of control of the population and they take every opportunity to suppress more of our rights. They are the all-powerful, all-knowing elite. We are nothing more than the 'public' that needs to be put in its place and told what can and can't be done.
They are drooling with ecstasy at the thought of the power they will inherit via the all invasive compulsory ID system.

  • 32.
  • At 05:06 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • chris jones wrote:

I do not think it is either censorship or restictions on freedom of speech.The military has a whole are pretty unique organisations, involved in tasks that are quite different to the'normal civilian world'.In a military situation & especially a theatre of war uncontrolled statements can endanger operations & military personnel. Remember 'careless talk costs lives'!

  • 33.
  • At 05:07 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Joe from the UK in China wrote:

With no smoking almost anywhere, cameras almost on every corner, some police officers now wearing cameras, ID cards, silencing free speech in the army, navy, and air force is just another step to British freedom of speech vanishing.

  • 34.
  • At 05:24 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Paul Hardy Carter wrote:

This is an outrage. It is so clear that this decision has nothing to do with the sailors from Iran being paid for their stories, and everything to do with preventing service personnel informing the public about the woeful conditions in which they serve.

We are witnessing severely testing times for the services, which have been put in the position of fighting wars without adequate political foresight and without adequate funding. And now the government, not being prepared to deal with these issues, seeks to prevent the channels through which the personnel can express their exasperation.

  • 35.
  • At 05:33 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Linda Kirby wrote:

What ever will they put in place next?

What sort of Country do we live in?

Do we have any freedom of speach at all?

How can anyone trust any of the "Powers that be" anymore?

All for themselves and nothing for the general public, it is time things were changed and everything was reported openly and honestly.

  • 36.
  • At 05:35 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • 3 chevrons wrote:

I'm at 2 minds re: MoD policy. Disclosure: I'm retired from USAF. When I 1st saw the pix of the torture at a US pow prison. I thought, "Who was the damned fool who let the troops have cameras?" Pix which get into an adversary's hands can kill your troops.
I now see that the evidence of torture convicted the OR's BUT it hasn't stopped the practice. US forces, in particular, & UK forces were not so tacitly encouraged to committ war crimes. The USA now stands disgraced as a war criminal, an unrepentent criminal. W & co ought to be called to account for this & I hope they face a Calvanist God.
As for the UK's, MoD-they have issued an order which can't be enforced. Orders of this sort destroy discipline. How does the MoD propose to keep troops from using their personal cellies, etc. These devices are small, easy to hide, cheap, easy to get & the troops already have & use them. Failures to properly provision troops can't now be hidden. Official neglect can no longer be hidden.
One hopes that Mr Brown serves his Queen & her people more faithfully & does much better the Mr Blair did.

  • 37.
  • At 05:37 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Brian Kelly wrote:

"are the MoD suddenly gagging their personnel?"


Of course...never understood why they allowed service personel to gossip et al, to the Public in the first place!

"Careless talk costs lives" still applies.

  • 38.
  • At 05:51 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Bill Murray wrote:

The bottom line is that it is a military and government cover-up. Both only want you to hear what the policy is; not the truth. This holds true for bothe the UK and here in the US.

  • 39.
  • At 05:52 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • David HW Allison wrote:

The MoD must think we are stupid when they offer security as the reason for attempting to silence soldiers. We already know that the invasion was a disaster, that the war is lost, that we will be getting out of Iraq as soon as we can. Any secrets that may be left Al Jazeera will reveal. This is an effort by the Colonel Blimps of Whitehall to filter out news that they don't like by denying a fundamental freedom to those who have the misfortune to be under their control.

  • 40.
  • At 06:15 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Ex-Pat Andy wrote:

Until recently I was a serving member of the based at . In my time in the I encountered numerous problems with avaialbility of , in particular the . Despite these shortcomings, the British Dunkirk spirit pulled through and all of us in the plucky British forces were able to support our Government's foreign policy and bring peace to a troubled region with what we had.

Yeah, brings balance and fairness to the average blog/bulletin board doesn't it! :)

  • 41.
  • At 06:24 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Tom Pontac wrote:

Speaking as a Yank, and ashamed at waht my country has become, I must quote Winston Churchill who said, "Truth is the first casulty of war." God forbid and heavan forefend that the public know the brutal and bloody truth of wars, especially this one. The public outcry would end this illeagal, immoral and unwinnable war overnight!

Tom Pontac/Founder
Senior Patriots Against the War

  • 42.
  • At 06:32 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • thomas freund wrote:

as long as the blog does not endanger any specific operation no rights of citizens or residents should be denied to a member of the military.

  • 43.
  • At 06:36 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • A,Dohler wrote:

The MoD should not be changing the rules about how to communicate in the middle of an ongoing "war on terrorism" wherever it may be. I consider that people should not make excessive money for their experiences. However it is essential that true experiences be available from individuals to those they wish to send it to, as a matter of free speech. For the MoD to do this now, and not at the beginning of the 2003 Iraqi War (especially when it was started on false premises)appears that any spin from individuals is to be contained by the MoD. The MoD should show transparency. The MoD has not given sufficient reasons (security isn't even mentioned) for this change.
One understands that accommodation in a war or guerilla situation is not going to be deluxe. Are the armed forces personnel sleeping in tents or in the sand like Lawrence of Arabia? When I was in Baghdad in 1989 I stayed in a onetime foreign embassy that would have shunned in Canada. But it was cheap, wasn't America- or Eurocentric and more in keeping with Iraqi standards. Which is the way to visit a country
It is a different world when you travel in other countries (I've been in 57 countries over the last 43 years. You can't expect 18 yr old newly minted British or American troops to have that cultural knowledge--but they need to be open to new experiences.
A. Dohler, Toronto

Whether or not the MOD statements above are true, and I have no reason to believe they are not, I find it interesting how much reaction has been provoked by one, now questioned, source - Newsnight - who are generally pretty good at getting their facts straight.

Doesn't it show that we are still fairly malleable? And we laugh at those who get all their 'News!' from Fox...

I don't feel that the MOD Blog should be restricted in any way, as people have a right to say anything they want. I may not agree with them, but they do have a right to express it!

  • 46.
  • At 07:07 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Paul Reed wrote:

Every government worker is now being told that to discuss their job to any media is to break their contract. Take, the MANCHESTER Mental Health Nurse suspended for basically showing a duty of care, she along with the colleagues she represents as a Unison Union Official, spoke out before the Manchester Trust implemented changes that all of the professionals consulted said were unworkable and would cause pain and suffering to their patients. Yet. on the 14th August, all what has been apposed will become the rule. This is how Germany began to control its citizens in the 30's. Few, Journalist are listening and the young cannot see how easily history repeats it's self. When will we truly remember the struggle of past generations to change mans in humanity to man. From Peterloo to Moss Side in Manchester, it's always taken sacrifices of the innocent to make the world a better place.

  • 47.
  • At 07:28 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Nakandi carolyne wrote:

i think these people shouldnot be restricted its there right. well that will break the connection between some of us and our people there. which is so unfair, i personally dont support that. thank you for updating us.

  • 48.
  • At 07:29 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Lee Roy Sanders, Jr. wrote:

MoD blog ban, that sounds very much like a prison rule. Much the same in the USA, soldiers are the property of the Military with the only rights given them by the military. Today the military have police state powers, even over the civilians.

Look at the USA and the stooge that is being used by the military. This gag rule your talking about begin to apply it to politics. Try to understand that what told the citizens and the world about a countries governments actions are only what the military want to be thought.

The NSA now has everything providing military and civilian police forces at it's hand. So much crime is being hidden. Preconceived absurdities are programmed nations citizens to quieten crimes against humanity. Research so diabolical are happening and for many it lasts a whole life time. Hear no, see no, speak no evil that has become the masses else there be reprisals.

When or if the cloud of propaganda is dispelled then the citizens of the world might just see it as it is. Structured lifetimes with radio implanted citizens doing the will of their government with out a conscious of their own. History is rewritten and the undaunted human nature and instinct subverted unto a nations circus animal preforming everyday actions much like bashing in their own heads with their own hands and by their own will.

  • 49.
  • At 07:55 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Gordon Henderson wrote:

I was in the RN for 11 years (2 in training and 9 from the age of 18) and must say I'm stunned at the direction the service has taken. Female sailors at sea and relaxed discipline? What a joke!
There was no way any of us would have contemplated talking to the media.
It was paramount to uphold the Senior Service image to retain the respect of the many foreign countries visited.

  • 50.
  • At 08:31 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • chris fudge wrote:

I would have thought the Armed Forces were still governed by the Official Secrets Act. So I was surprised to see the personnel allowed to sell their stories. Call me paranoid but was the Gaffe allowed to happen to justify the new rules being brought in ????

  • 51.
  • At 08:47 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Mr David Hughes, Wendy Harbon wrote:

reference MOD trying to stop military personnel and/or their families, commenting to others about military operations, failures and mistakes or, more importantly casualties.
From our first hand knowledge and experience, we know the MOD officials and the Government are pressurising and basically threatening personnel and the families to not talk to any one. I and my fiance are actually helping injured soldiers and their families, because I'm ex armed forces myself and we both belong to military charities.
So witness this first hand, also officers and other ranks, let alone their families talk to us when they know they could not openly talk to others.
I have actually loaned my spare wheelchair to an injured soldier and his family, visited the likes of Selly Oaks Hospital military wing, been to mitilary funerals up and down the country, taken other wheelchairs given by others to help injured soldiers half way across the country, had welfare officers asking me for help for their men, when there is no help from the MOD or NHS for these injured soldiers, pointed out to Labour Ministers in the MOD as well as Shadow Ministers in Conservative and Lib/Dem Parties for defence, failures and mistakes in not providing properly or the care of our personnel, educated local authorities in how to show proper respect at military funerals, we are equally lobbying for a veterans and service families charitable hospital trust run by military charities, including trying to save military charitable homes from closure.etc
I and my fiance, a Derby City Councillor are equally asking members of the Royal Family for their support for a military ex service personnel wheelchair and disabled scooter display team called The Red Wasps, with military display teams all ready agreeing to us borrowing their own display routines, to raise disability awareness and funding for military charities.
Our own family have been in the armed forces unbroken since 1760 to the present day, I have a cousin in Iraq right now and I lost another cousin in Afghanistan last year. Our first casualty was over the price of tea, we are a professional military family who have served in all branches of the military, we accept death and injury as an occupational hazard, but we expect, in return our duty, honour, loyalty and service to be respected and, if the worst happens we, or our families looked after not mistreated or abused by an ungrateful Government, mobile 07718 331088

  • 52.
  • At 10:00 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Charles Harrold wrote:

Do you not realise that this Country is now a Dictatorship?

Whether you like it or not, the present New Labour Government is now a Dictatorship, which has crept in by stealth and deception.

It really is time the the people of the great British Nation realised this, and take the action required to change it before it is too late.

Think very carefully about this, as we are in a very dangerous situation.

Also it should be known, that all Military Personal Medical History, is not passed on by the M.O.D to the Civilian Medical Authority when you leave the Service, it is destroyed, and only very brief information is kept, basically where you have been Posted during your time in the Service, and this is totally wrong.

  • 53.
  • At 10:31 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Paul D wrote:

We know that the military are over-committed and over-stretched and that recruitment is a priority. We thought that the bad old days when many recruits were thought of as little more than cannon fodder were over.

Perhaps the time has come to recognise that, if you want to recruit intelligent human beings into the military, you should treat them as such and not attempt to gag them when they have something useful to say.

Perhaps it is time the MOD spent more time and money on serious professional personnel and less on their politically correct civil service.

  • 54.
  • At 10:41 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Aimi wrote:

If these restrictions had been in place a hundred years ago there would be no Dulce Et Decorum Est

  • 55.
  • At 10:43 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • PJ wrote:

Just watched your piece about "gagging" - who were the talking heads? No idea who the old man was or the one with the shaven head?? Have you lost your typewriter. Yet another story taken out of context. Well done.

  • 56.
  • At 10:56 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • EX FULLSCREW wrote:

as an ex soldier having done 3 tours of iraq i understand the need for soldiers to have their say about issues that in this day and age should not be an issue in the armed forces of the 21st centry such as accomodation that a prisioner in jail wouldnt have to put up with, massive personel shortages after recent cuts and the (modernisation of the armed forces), kit shortages, having experienced them myself (having to by my own desert kit for telic 1), however i do not think it very professional of soldiers to film themselves inside the camps, having watched alot of the footage from sangin on various websites it is easy to see the complete layout including ammo stores, accomodation, hls's, seeing as the engineers have constructed massive hesko walls around the compounds to keep prying eyes out all they need to do is go onto the web and see where they can cause the most damage. the MOD shouldnt stop the soldier having their shimfs, every soldier has the right to shimf, it should stop these blogs and videos that can be viewed by everyone including the people we are trying to defeat.

Why should the MOD allow staff/soldiers to say what they like about the Army? No other employer would be happy with that. BBC staff do not come out and criticise their employer.
All employers gag their staff.

  • 58.
  • At 11:16 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

For the first time members of the Armed Forces are able to hit back at a Government for the shortages and conditions they are forced to live under. That is what this gagging order is about.
Everyone accepts that conditions on operations will be tough BUT the correct equipment MUST be supplied and decent living conditions must be given to Families and serving personnel when not away on operations. They must also be treated fairly when applying for housing when they leave the Forces. The situation now is that councils argue that sevicemen have no ties to the local area so are ineligible for public housing.

  • 59.
  • At 11:32 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Dan U wrote:

Those of us in the military - especially those of us that grew up with Service parents in the 80's - know that our lives and the lives of our comrades depend on the control of operationally sensitive information.

That isn't what this is about. We know - and the MoD and the chain of command know we know - the difference between posting a patrol schedule and posting a report that medics in Afghanistan are having to mail-order their own trauma kit because it hasn't been issued.

All we want is the tools for the task at hand, and if the government generate the taskings and then fail to resource them properly then they should rightly expect to be embarrassed.

Every soldier - from the newest Tom all the way up to Gen. Dannatt himself - have an annual performance report, and no-one with the least trace of ambition would willingly sanction any news of that nature, lest their recommendation for promotion disappear. This has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with politics and the concealment of inadequate planning, leadership and ultimately a lack of moral courage in failing to demand the resources we need to do our job properly.

We know we might die. It comes with the job. But if we are to die, it should be with the knowledge that everything possible has been done to avoid it - not brushed under the carpet for the sake of someone's job, pension or knighthood. And that, ultimately, is what DIN 2007DIN03-006 will allow to happen.

  • 60.
  • At 11:59 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Ron wrote:

Peter Dewar-Finch and Brian Kelly, with reference to breaches of the OSA on these blogs; they are in the public domain, feel free to read and see how many breaches you can spot. It may surprise you that both posters and moderators take Opsec very seriously, after all it is our own lives and those of our friends that would be endangered.

  • 61.
  • At 11:59 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Ron wrote:

Peter Dewar-Finch and Brian Kelly, with reference to breaches of the OSA on these blogs; they are in the public domain, feel free to read and see how many breaches you can spot. It may surprise you that both posters and moderators take Opsec very seriously, after all it is our own lives and those of our friends that would be endangered.

  • 62.
  • At 12:03 AM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • Ron wrote:

Peter Dewar-Finch and Brian Kelly, with reference to breaches of the OSA on these blogs; they are in the public domain, feel free to read and see how many breaches you can spot. It may surprise you that both posters and moderators take Opsec very seriously, after all it is our own lives and those of our friends that would be endangered.

  • 63.
  • At 12:06 AM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • Ron wrote:

Peter Dewar-Finch and Brian Kelly, with reference to breaches of the OSA on these blogs; they are in the public domain, feel free to read and see how many breaches you can spot. It may surprise you that both posters and moderators take Opsec very seriously, after all it is our own lives and those of our friends that would be endangered.

  • 64.
  • At 12:39 AM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • Thomas Slattery wrote:

The MoD only want senior officers to convey to the public that everything in Iraq and Afghanistan is going just right with their operations when the those who are at the front know what is really happening.The MoD and the government only see things through rose coloured glasses and that there are no problems when they know that they have made a right mess of things.Stop kidding yourselves MoD and Government you are getting deeper into it every minute.

  • 65.
  • At 12:56 AM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • Cris Scott wrote:

I am amazed to read the many almost child-like rants; this is a sensible, responsible and, ultimately pragmatic, measure. It in no way 'gags' would-be bloggers, etc., simply reminding people of their obligation not to willfully distort, or unreasonably denigrate either the service or their colleagues. MoD, as a responsible employer, would be failing those of us in its diverse workforce if it did not ask the chain-of-command to ensure that, where possible, views expressed or illustrated are at least moderately sensible, balanced and well expressed. At one time the media might have been trusted to sift and balance its many sources; this is no longer the case ...sadly.

  • 66.
  • At 01:13 AM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • K Everett wrote:

I find it hard to believe that the MoD find a need to reinforce or gag serving soldiers in our current climate. 99% of our service personnel are either engaged in or have been or are about to be off to sunnier climes. Theyre more than fully aware of the terrorist threat and of any perceived threats to national security. Does the MoD not notice that the people they are seeking to control are the ones who are more briefed than they?!
The revised DIN should be pointed solely to the Office dwelling non combatants and not to the toms on the ground who are making it happen.
There are more leaks in MoD main building than in the rest of the Armed Forces put together. GHet your own house in order before even going there, Fella!

  • 67.
  • At 01:20 AM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • Ethan Allen wrote:

If it hadn't been for the blogs, we wouldn't have known about:
1. the appalling shortages of equipment that our soldiers have been given to fight with in Iraq & Afghanistan, especially the total lack of light close air support helicopters when there are several appropriate low cost types available on the international market,

2. the poor condition of many of the now elderly transport aircraft used to support our troops to theatre - & the failure to buy more to replace aircarft (eg the Tristars) which are frequently breaking down,

3. the lack of helicopters, because our Chinnook, Puma, & Sea King helicopter fleets are ALL approaching block obsolescence, yet nnothing is done to speed up their replacement, & while the Anglo-Italian Merlin is grossly expensive to buy & operate compared as always to US equivalents,

4. the death-trap nature of many of our vehicles in the face of IEDs, RPGs, mines, & snipers - eg the Snatch Landrover, the Wimik-type Landrover, the ridiculous EU-pleasing-purshased Vector vehicle, & even the Marines' Viking vehicle when there are plenty of perfectly good alternatives which our allies are using & surviving attacks in, eg Canadian RG31/33s & Australian Bushmaster vehicles, when our troops are NOT SURVIVING in MoD-chosen rubbish!,

5. the fact that our troops in Basra are under constant mortar attack day & night yet very effective C-RAM (Counter Artillery. Rockets, & Mortar) devices have only been finally been installed at one UK forces' site (Basra Airport) - & there are too few in number there,

6. there are completely insufficient numbers of surveillance aircraft & drones - ie UCAVS (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles) - in either theatres (ie Iraq & Afghnistan),

7. a failure to engage the enemy in Basra caused by employing too few troop there - so that at present it seems to our allies (ie US commanders) that Britain has been beaten by the Iran-supplied insurgents in South Iraq, which will only encourage them to extend their activities elsewhere, etc.

Meanwhile the idiotic top brass in the MoD press for huge expenditures to be made on weapons of doubtful value & usage, eg the Cold War era Eurofighter Typhoon, the army's hugely expensive - but underarmoured in an age of IEDs - FRES program, the 2 proposed over-sized & overly expensive aircraft carriers when 3 is an absolute minimum (to allow for the possibility of loss or unavailability of one of them), but which could quite adequately be about 75% of the proposed 2's sizes & costs.

What a sorry tale! And what a sorry state the extremely inept Mod & the government that runs it have let Britain get itself into! And now, this very incompetent government wants to GAG the voices & words of sense that are coming from our troops in Iraq & Afghhanistan, as wsell of course as elling us all down the EU river, by trying to avoid an EU referendum!

  • 68.
  • At 05:25 AM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • R Leong wrote:

The world will be a better place if we are more open. It will prevent disgraceful acts like the torture of prisoners in Irag and elsewhere by exposing them.

  • 69.
  • At 10:40 AM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • Alex Thomason wrote:

I served 22yrs in the Army, I left in 1998. Since then I have kept upto date on Equipment, Morale, and the real impact of Operations, through the ARRSE forums. I dont log on to Official Forces web sites, as I want to know what is really impacting on Sqaddies lives. This can only be done by listening to the Troops on the Ground, and it canbe at times be pretty damning. It definatly informs the public how poorly equiped the forces now are. Gordon Browns last defence cuts were to deep. Without these blogs Govt and MOD spins will not allow the British Public that they serve, know what is really going on, and how sterling a job with poor kit, are boys and girls are doing. We owe them a voice.

  • 70.
  • At 11:29 AM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • Levers_Aligned wrote:

Nice to see some measure of 'officialdom' vainly attempting to ameliorate the situation here. I'm neither impressed, nor fooled. As has been said on the bulletin boards mentioned, if MoD spent half the time getting their act together and less time lining the pockets of incompetent defence contractors, if they put their hands up to their ears and listened carefully to those charged with doing the nation's dirty work, if they tried better to run the armed forces like a public interest rather than a private asset then maybe the dissenters would just fade away quietly. As servicemen, we love the 'good news stories' - it raises our profile and garners public agreement. But when these stories are used as smoke and mirrors and when we are told that 'good news is the only news' the whole structure takes on a different shape and form. I'm in full agreement regarding OPSEC and PERSEC - this should never be compromised. But let's not forget that we are now at the behest of people who have never, ever served a day in uniform, we have a lower chamber practically bereft of soldiers, sailors and airmen and a government who make it their mark to play risky games with our livlihoods. If we were properly looked after and funded for, there would be no need for blogs and BBs. Like it or not, defence costs money and no amount of KPMG analysts can recommend 'efficiencies' and 'reviews' without it affecting the morale of the people on the ground. We need a vent for that and maybe outlets online are just the ticket, lest we get into the unsavoury situation in which mutiny is a reality.

  • 71.
  • At 12:49 PM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • David Llewelyn Davies wrote:

The new measures to silence the ranks are entirely indicative of the 'controllery' of the current political regime.

If senior officers will not speak out for the soldiers then the soldiers must do it for themselves.

This government has treated the Armed Forces appallingly since 1997. They have despatched them will-nilly all around the globe. In particular they have sent them to be part of an illegal invasion of a sovereign state. Whilst all this grand-standing was being conducting by the grinning-spiv masquerading as prime minister, the growling, anchorite Chancellor was demanding, and getting, savage cuts in manpower, equipment and spares.

Whilst I enjoy what remains of individual freedom in this once great country and whilst I continue to draw breath, I shall do everything in my power to draw attention to the shortcomings of this government and subsequent governments relating to the Armed Forces, their levels of manpower, their equipments, their supply of spares, their stocks of ammunition, their health and medical care and the welfare and well-being of their dependants.

  • 72.
  • At 02:55 PM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • L Lee Hinds wrote:

The very nature of "reality" as we know it can be refined in a blink of an eye. Information in an information age may not only decided the direction of an conflict but also it's outcome. To advance our soldiers with modern means to communicate with love ones, friends, et. al. is OK as long it "IS" not in real time. The conflict and the battlespace must be define within a reality that is known and not with opinions either good or bad in "thier" assessment. Image a weapon system that uses the weapons of a combatant against it self. Histroy reflects many examples of this reality and INFO WAR are no exception. The mear influnce of porn on the net and sub-planted messaging tech has already influnced society. The miltary must be the guards at the gate and above outside influnce.

  • 73.
  • At 05:19 PM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • Sani wrote:

Good

The military has a strict and disciplined Standard Operating Procedure. The British military is the model of many militaries the world over so once again they are living up to expectation. Not everything is for the public all the time.

boggers will alwaays blog,rules do not apply here.ok.

  • 75.
  • At 08:29 PM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • Nicholas Boultbee wrote:

I joined up at the time of National Service 1952- 54. I joined the Royal Marines and if there was a battle or fire fight we fully expected that we might be killed, badly wounded or crippled for life. I think that most of my contemporaries in the other armed services felt the same way. Life in the jungle in Malaya (then known as such), or in Cyprus or other theatres of war could be most
unpleasant but we never dreamed of complaining about it. It would be interesting to know if any of the Royal marines in Afghanistan have complained about the unsatisfactory
condition of personal weapons, lack of armoured vehicles etc.

  • 76.
  • At 12:26 PM on 12 Aug 2007,
  • Jonathon Maw wrote:


I'm thinking of joining the forces but will this ban mean I cannot ask Solidiers their experiences of Active Duty in Iraq etc and how they role helps these places on Forums?

If so, how am I meant to know what life is really like in the Forces?

  • 77.
  • At 05:09 PM on 12 Aug 2007,
  • F E Johnson wrote:

But the two activities were completely different!
The navy team didn't blog - they SOLD their stories. The bloggers are more disinterested - giving interesting information to their colleagues - and the taxpayer who PAYS for this tragic Iraq fiasco.
The army bloggers are men to be proud of.
What should we think of our MoD ?

  • 78.
  • At 07:16 AM on 13 Aug 2007,
  • Fanta wrote:

About the anomynous posting . Why do the goverments ban the posts ? We are in the age of freedom . Every thing must be clear for people to know the situation at site . The soldier have the right to rise his idea and his relative have the right to know their Juniors.
I think we now turn back to the age of 1980s when USSR to forbid personal/information freedom . That age has elapsed for a long time .
If we fight for the justice , we shouldn't be afraid anything, any problem because the justice state everything.
If not...more gags will be more on soldiers' mouth !

  • 79.
  • At 07:22 AM on 13 Aug 2007,
  • Per Manser wrote:

It is not a matter of free speech or human rights or personal gain or lost potential income. When one accepts the Queens's Shilling one accepts the employment conditions that go with it.

  • 80.
  • At 05:26 AM on 18 Aug 2007,
  • D Allan wrote:

I took the Queens shilling some time ago and still Hold the Oath for better or for worse. The Enemy is within. Ask ken living?stone how many children and elderly people have been slaughtered in his Wonderfull shity since he socially Bullshited his way to high/Low office. We are All Kings and Queens

  • 81.
  • At 06:17 PM on 22 Aug 2007,
  • David Edwards wrote:

I think it is absolutely blah, blah, blah, blog! Blog, blah, blah, blah.

  • 82.
  • At 01:59 AM on 23 Aug 2007,
  • Jamlus wrote:

Yes, a referendum should be held, and it's up to the people to decide as it is future of the country that is at stake.

[Preface: Check out sites www.tarpley.net for the unauth biog. of "Poppy" Bush. Has great stuff on US financing of the IIIrd Reich & involvement of Harrimans, Bushes, Farishes--depending on which flavor of conspiracy theories one hankers for. And www.911truth.org for latest questions on our 9/11/01 event.]

Anyway, guys, it's nice to hear that our pals over the puddle have the same problem w/ your government as we do with ours.

Without our grunts ("boots on the ground") communicating w/ CONUS--continental US--we here wouldn't have a clue, either. Although we do have a pretty determined set of journalists working for the Army Times, etc., and our MSM--mainstream mead-drinkers--make that "mediums"--sometimes pick up on those stories--though usually it's the blogs that pick up the Army Times stories (often without attribution) and the "MSM" pick it up from the web logs.

In the US case, our "Support Our Troops" hypocrites have finally been embarrassed into buying mine-deflecting, shape-charge-deflecting V-undercarriaged armored personnel carriers to "support our troops" by protecting them from instant death in the rectilinear rolling tin boxes called Humvees. (The IEDs, of course, are being manufactured with all the ammo looted from Saddam's ammo dumps that the US didn't blow up or guard after the invasion. (Not enough troops, dontcha know. Only enough to guard the Oil Ministry.))

And of course this is, what you say, "four years on," or as we used to say here, before all our broadcast journalists became British, Canadian or Aussie, "four years later," after only 4K Yanks were killed, half by roadside bombs (which is somehow more descriptive than the euphemistic "IED") and 20K or so maimed or wounded. Never mind, of course the 750,000 Iraqis dead, maybe 2.2 million maimed or wounded, 4 million or so displaced. "In order to bring 'freedom and democracy' to Iraq, it became necessary to destroy it." (All is not lost, however, as in the States, tombstones quite often are able to cast election ballots. They elected Lyndon Johnson in his first congressional race and helped out JFK in Chicago during his election. And we can certainly share that technology with the Iraqis, past and present.

My position (as a Viet Vet who only saw tracers flying overhead from time to time during a short tour of duty) has been that our Humvees were only meant to be a very expensive replacement for the WWII/Korea Willy's GP, or Jeep, the Vietnam era's crack-brained, rear swing-axle Ford-made M-151s or Mutts--you could flip them over at 5 mph in the motor-pool.

Every one of the Humvees, "up" armored or not, is still a death trap. They're perfectly suitable to carry dirty laundry, mail, mess hall garbage, etc., around in the bases, but they're sure 'n' hell not combat vehicles. To see a poor unprotected trooper stuck up through the roof with a .50 cal machine gun, looking up at the rooftops, windows and balconies above him, is to shed an angry, disgusted tear at how we're REALLY "supporting our troops."

Anyway, "Support Our Troops" is only a propaganda term, used by our GOP--"Gloriously On-message Propagandists" to terrify the cowardly Democratic Party and slime any truly patriotic American who dares to criticize--or even legislate against--the Cheney/Bush operation.

Can you imagine over there in the UK that we haven't legislators with the brass ovaries/balls to impeach and remove our highest criminals? If you want the Americas back w/in the British Empire, you could probably re-take the country with a press gang of 50 Brits. Just show up at the White House gate and threaten to draft Cheney, Bush and company into combat. Or challenge them to a duel and give them rifles. They'd sign America over to you with just a few whimpers, though Cheney might try to hide in his Mosler safes--or in the WH "bunker". And he is pretty good with a double-barrel shotgun and bird-shot at 15 feet, though he actually can't identify a target at that distance.

As to the Internet again, and muzzling your troops, the word here is that if the Brits pirouette nice-nice for the Cheney/Bush administration, you'll get 25% of the 87.5% of the Iraqi oil that "foreigners" or "investors" (that's the US) get when (now if) the native uprising(s) are put down.

And as the "election" campaigns here are well underway, the Administration wants it "All Quiet on the Mid-Eastern Front." Guess your WM (War Ministry) is indeed coöperating w/ Cheney/Bush.

France, Germany, Spain (now they've pulled out), Switzerland, Monaco, Italy, Russia, China, Japan(?) get nada, zip, zilch (just as all the "reconstruction" pelf goes to Texas companies--just as it did in Vietnam (remember Brown & Root?--now "Kellogg, Brown & Root.)

Time was, the US military had combat engineers, SeaBees, etc., who could build, repair anything. Brits too, probably. Now we've "out-sourced" damned near everything that isn't shoot-em-up, and some of that as well. Fortunately, it's a financial bargain--it only costs about 20 times what it would cost if the military did it. It could cost 100 times that, but for some reason the rapacious war profiteering has been "restrained."

Of course, the reason for the out-sourcing is that if the military did it all itself, there would have to be a draft for every war. And then virtually every citizen (who wasn't profiteering) would pay attention to the casus belli and the management of the war. And even at that, our Vietnam involvement went on for about 16 years or more. After the big march on the Pentagon in 1968 was so effective , Nixon kept the war going until 1976.

But during all that time, the damned citizens kept pestering and second-guessing the government, from Westy Westmoreland on up--that ol' 1st Amendment thing here of "petitioning the government for redress of grievances." It did seem, however, that, dress and redress those grievance how we would, Johnson, Humphrey and Nixon just sloughed off (or beat and tear-gassed, in Humphrey's case) the citizens' complaints. Johnson could probably have won reappointment (formerly known here as "elections") if he'd staged a little state-side bombing before election day that could be advertised to have involved "North Vietnamese Communist Terrorists".

But generally, US citizens are generally too ill-informed to do much about our Court-appointed Administration. I'm 65 and I just learned that our Federal Reserve System is not "Federal," has no "Reserve"--is, in fact, all "System." It's a private bank. You guys probably have the same system--a private banking system astride your entire economy and Parliament. How chilling is that?! And some Brits took exception to George Orwell/Eric Blair? Wowsers. Maybe you're as dumb as we are, after all.

You certainly couldn't hold on to your British Empire in the end--though you did pretty well for almost a century or more (I'm weak on ye olde history--sorry). Of course, we're barely started with our "New World Order," in Poppy Bush's phrase (with eugenics, yet!) for the New American Century or New American Empire and we can't even get it together, much less keep it.

Bottom line of this rant: Without the internet and our other new "best-of-class" communication methods, citizens of any country haven't a chance of influencing their governments. And heaven help us all if we get some kind of global government. In 15 years the US will be a 3rd-world economy, Ireland and China may outstrip us all. In the US, we virtually have no more manufacturing industries. And we became a world debtor nation in 1985-6 under "conservative" Reagan, for the first time since World War I, I think.

Now you guys and China (and, Japan, not so much) own the US. Or at least the private banks of the above-noted countries do.

over 'n' out from a sad Yank (a "Yank" now is a sudden pull, a Jerk--it's no longer short for Yankee. )
______________30_____________

  • 84.
  • At 01:57 PM on 21 Sep 2007,
  • Brit Pat wrote:

The EU wants a European Army of mainly 'imported Europeans', Loyal to their new Home, the EU, NOT BRITAIN...before they can do that they need to Cull the British Army.
Britain is being dismantled, Fishing Industry, car manufacturing, Shipbuilding, overseas sell offs, the suppression of Patriotism, flag waving etc...Bearocracy in the Police, having to cater for around 100 Kanguages...unable to racially profile suspects (previously known as a description)..and now the EU Socialists are culling our Armed Services...
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

  • 85.
  • At 11:23 AM on 22 Sep 2007,
  • ex nco wrote:

local council parades when you return from a tour is a really bad idea.instead of having time off to see my friends and family i would be given the added bonus off preparing for a parade. This would involve endless days of drill, no 2 dress inspections being shouted at and messed around by senior ncos and officers. No thanks. soldiers don't want the publics thanks. What they do want is a good family life when at home . Meat in the cook house that is not flown in from south America . Our old pension scheme back. good accommodation and kit that works. Gordon Brown should try actually paying the boys a bit more rather than dodging the issues every time he is asked with a line about their bravery and how he was just talking to soldiers in Iraq. as if he can Quantify empathy.

locating remembered freinds is impossible on these sites can you do something about it?

  • 87.
  • At 10:02 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Barry8 wrote:

Tony Blair brought a gaggle of would be politicians into power with him.
Sadly, declaring POLICIES might get them elected but what is more important to the electorate is the ability to IMPLEMENT POLICIES. Now
it is clear that all MP's and would be Ministers should be prepared, like good little scouts, to do the job properly. Let them be trained and examined; they have obliged the rest of the electorate to do so and
they are no different. What is good for the goose is ....?

This post is closed to new comments.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites