[NYTr] Brit MoD Gags Soldiers: No More Show & Tell

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by Riaz K. Tayob (activ-l)

[This shows how media relations have evolved since troopers were
allowed to profit from their capture by Iran... -rt]

The Guardian - Aug 10, 2007

MoD issues gag order on armed forces

New restrictions on blogs, emails, websites and text messages

by Audrey Gillan

Sweeping new guidelines barring military personnel from speaking about 
their service publicly have been quietly introduced by the Ministry of 
Defence, the Guardian has learned.

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take 
part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in 
multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs
without the permission of a superior if the information they use
concerns matters of defence.

They also cannot release video, still images or audio - material which 
has previously led to investigations into the abuse of Iraqis. Instead, 
the guidelines state that "all such communication must help to maintain 
and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence".

The regulations, issued by the Directorate of Communication Planning, 
come in the wake of the row over the MoD allowing two of the HMS 
Cornwall sailors held captive in Iran to be paid for their stories. 
Receiving money for interviews, conferences and books which draw on 
official defence experience has now been banned.

The MoD document, circulated last week, covers "all public speaking, 
writing or other communications, including via the internet and other 
sharing technologies, on issues arising from an individual's official 
business or experience, whether on-duty, off-duty or in spare time".

The rules have provoked consternation among the ranks, with human
rights lawyers saying yesterday that they could be in contravention of
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, which allows for freedom of
expression. The rules apply not only to full-time forces but to members
of the Territorial Army and cadets whilst on duty, as well as MoD civil
servants.

Service personnel are currently bound by Queen's Regulations, which
mean they must seek permission before speaking to the press but are
free to blog and take part in online debates. However, many have spoken
out anonymously on issues such as poor kit, housing and the treatment
of wounded service personnel evacuated from combat zones. Criticism of
the RAF in Afghanistan and the state of the ageing vehicles being used
there have all appeared in the press.

An unofficial soldiers' website, arrse.co.uk, was full of angry debate 
about the issue yesterday. One poster said: "Why does it not occur to 
MoD that if it did things properly, and treated its people well, they 
wouldn't feel the need to bring things into the public arena quite so 
often, and they wouldn't need to spend so much time covering-up?"

Another suggested that the rules were intended to silence the average 
"tommy" while senior personnel were free to speak to the media without 
fear of reprimand. "Every single leak of significant information to the 
media, certainly in the last six months, has come from the top down.
Not the other direction," he said. "Should Cpl Bloggs, or Major Good
Bloke in some Platoon House in downtown Helmand-on-Styx complain in a
private letter that he hasn't enough ammo to despatch the Queens'
enemies, or the RAF really should try harder to deliver it, it's 'March
in the guilty B*stard' and 'conduct prejudicial to good order' and
discipline and finger-wagging all round."

The MoD's director general of media communications, Simon McDowell, 
denied that the guidelines were a form of censorship or gagging.

"We are trying to give straightforward, clear guidance that is up to 
date. The existing regulations were confusing and didn't include things 
like accepting payment. It applies to communicating about defence 
matters, not personal things. Particular things can impact on 
operational security; information which somebody can get a hold of.
Even a little photograph sent from Afghanistan on a mobile phone could 
endanger people's lives and break operational security."

He added: "It is not gagging. It is setting out procedures so people 
know what the rules are." Those infringing the rules would be dealt
with on a case by case basis, he said. "There is now far less of a
chance of having the kind of mishaps that we had with Iran now there
are clear guidelines."

Mr McDowell said that the MoD was experimenting with authorised blogs 
from Afghanistan. It was also seeking "legitimate outlets for people to 
express themselves".

Geoffrey Robertson, QC, a leading human rights lawyer, said that the 
guidelines were likely to contravene the Human Rights Act. He said they 
reminded him of the "catch-all" section of the old official secrets
act, which made it a criminal offence to disclose information without
lawful authority. The discredited section, which was repealed in 1989,
"stopped soldiers from revealing the brand of tea served in the MoD
canteen", he said.

"It's increasingly important, given Britain's escalating foreign troop 
engagements, often in conjunction with less-disciplined forces, that 
soldiers, officers and officials can speak frankly to the media about 
their engagements without having their honest briefing subject to any 
spin," Mr Robertson said.