Blogging ban for UK armed forces

[Dwarden 1125]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6940120.stm

weird , anyone want to comment on that ...

i was under impression that games were popular way to kill time while stationed in camps ...

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Lets break this paragraph from the article into 2 parts.

The second reads:

"(No)...sending text messages, photographs and audio or video material without permission if they relate to defence matters."

Purpose makes sense, aggree with it or not. No public discussion of military matters.

But the first part just doesn't fit in there:

"Personnel 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."

Maybe because they have a hard time monitoring chat that occurs in a game?

More likely they just don't want a bunch of WoW zombies eating up all the bandwith.

No rule against SP gaming in there so I guess they are free to rot their brains offline.

[JBâ„¢ 1]

The MoD say they are only updating the Queens Regulations to apply to modern media technology. Soldiers have never been able to discuss what they do or how they do it so nothing has really changed.

I don't really see where gaming itself comes into the equasion though. Maybe they are trying to get the squaddies out of bad gaming habits for when they start to training on VBS2

[BloodOmen 0]

Its pathetic that they would ban the blogs, when those soliders are fighting for them ! fighting for there country.

Then they take away any freedom of speech ?

Bullshit

[Guest Ti0n3r]

How contradictive

[Baff1 0]

Loose talk costs lives.

Propaganda/media war is a factor of modern engagements. Not to mention counter-intelligence.

If you are looking for freedom of anything, you won't find it in the military.

You are perhaps confusing the British with the Americans.

No one in Britain has freedom of speech.

Why should our soldiers be any different from the rest of us?

[BloodOmen 0]

Well thats damn f**King easy question

The people have the power, if we wanted we could easily overthrow any goverment

Thats if they have the balls

P.S

George Bush is a greater dictator than hitler and stalin put together

[walker 0]

Hi all

I wonder how this applies to Arrse?

And of course here.

No more posts on the VBS forums either.

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

Well thats damn f**King easy question  

The people have the power, if we wanted we could easily overthrow any goverment  

Thats if they have the balls  

The people here haven't managed to overthrow any governments for the last 400 years.

No right to bear arms in this country.

No revolution culture or history of successful civil disobedience.

Just surveillance cameras on every street corner.

Having "balls" isn't all it takes.

Besides, British people don't want freedom of speech.

By and large we appreciate the right to shut people up.

[JBâ„¢ 1]

As a serving soldier I have access to ArmyNET (ArmyNET is a restricted access information portal built by the Army) what I find quite amusing on there after reading about the MoD`s ban on blogging is this:

Quote[/b] ]Project Reality

Project Reality (PR) is a modification, or mod, for Battlefield 2 on the PC. The mods aim is to rework the game engine, developed by Digital Illusions CE (DICE), to create a far more realistic combat environment than the original BF2 game play.

ArmyNET Server

Thanks to sponsorship from Multiplay UK the ArmyNET team have been able to provide a server running the PR mod. All ArmyNET account holders have priority on the server and during locked server sessions the password will only be available through this page. Admins on the server wear the "UKArmy" or [ABA] tag before their name. The server is currently set to play UK maps only and is reserved every thursday for the [ABA] Clan to practice or for matches with other clans, see server diary for details...

*Server Details removed for this forum*

Ventrilo

Ventrilo is the next evolutionary step of Voice over IP (VoIP) group communications software. Ventrilo is also the industry standard by which all others measure themselves as they attempt to imitate its features. As part of the sponsorship deal we also have a Ventrilo server that allows us to communicate without the need to be in the same squad. NB: During public sessions the server may fill up quickly, by connecting to Ventrilo you can ask an admin to make room for you.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Well thats damn f**King easy question  

The people have the power, if we wanted we could easily overthrow any goverment  

Thats if they have the balls  

P.S

George Bush is a greater dictator than hitler and stalin put together  

Not sure where that comes rom or where it pertains to the conversation.  I hope for your sake it was some lame joke because it's insulting.

Hitler is responsible for the genocide of some six million Jews, and add to that what ever number you please of Russians and other Allied forces and civillians.

Stalin's purges and ongoing campaigns of political repression killed an estimated 4-9 million people. (add another 6 to 8 million victims if you count the 1932-33 famine.)

GW will have to put in some overtime if he wants to compete with those all-stars before his term is up.

People of your line of thinking count GW as some sort of idiot, and I tend to agree.  But dose a moron have the capacity to kill with the same sort of evil genius?  Pick one, moron...or Dr. Evil.

Before regurgitating the remarks of an ignoramus, try enhancing your own knowledge first.

.........interesting point on the lack of a first Amendment right of free speech in the UK.  I have looked and found nothing to contradict you.  Right or wrong, this censorship of military personal makes makes sense in terms of an information war.  

Yet the part on MP gaming still seems to stick out.  I still wonder what the big issue is with MP games durring offtime....

[Baff1 0]

You can still use them to pass on information avoiding censorship.

Remember that British interpreter Corporal, deployed to Afghanistan, who had been passing secrets to Iran?

An open channel is an open channel. A spy will not differentiate.

Oh, it's a video game so I won't use that.

What nonsense.

Considering the efforts we make to communicate with our spies in Russia, (the bluetooth rock in the garden) an uncensored unmonitored video game seems a bit of a gift horse in my opinion.

I've always thought video games to be one of the few methods of internet communication that our national surveillance systems do not scan.

This webpage (and every single other) is monitored, all my emails are monitored.

The U.S. government is curently in a battle to force VOIP softwares to all provide access for monitoring.

IMS and IRC's are monitored.

Games seem an obvious loophole.

I can't see any problem with multiplayer games on a closed internal system.

With regards to free speech in Britain there are any number of opinions I could post on this forum that would be illegal.

There are words I cannot speak down the pub.

Now obviously I could say them, or I could print them, but to do so places me at risk of prosecution.

If someone made a complaint, the police would be legally obliged to make an arrest.

Typically, I can't advocate acts of sedition, encourage acts of violence. Promote racism or religious intolerance, celebrate terrorism or give away national secrets.

These laws are very popular here.

Neither do I have the right to civil protest or to street gather in numbers greater than two.

Our government is wise to people power already.

This is not America and it's not often described as the "land of the free". There are some values we don't share.

[Gisen 0]

Open channel? WELCOME TO THE INTERNET.

The idea that there is any way to regulate the flow of information on the internet is just stupid. The only half-way working way to do so is to set up an extremely tight proxy/ firewall at the senders end; and even then it's going to let innocuous looking html traffic through. Which, when you consider that other favoured tactic of spies, encryption, is still absolutely no use because hidden information can be passed on in absolutely any message. Baden-Powell used to pass information about german gun positions in drawings of butterflies and that was over 100 years ago.

This is going to do absolutely nothing to prevent real spying and less to prevent loose lips than just making sure soldiers and other people with access to restricted information are aware of the dangers. If people understand the reasons behind something they are much more likely to think about it and not do it. If there are a bunch of rules that they don't understand the reasons for and seem stupid, they'll just ignore them. We did and everyone, especially soldiers, still do.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Typically, I can't advocate acts of sedition, encourage acts of violence. Promote racism or religious intolerance, celebrate terrorism or give away national secrets.

Geez, and you would want to do those things ?!!!

Quote[/b] ]Neither do I have the right to civil protest or to street gather in numbers greater than two.

As I suspected, you do;

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-ri....x.shtml

Just like Australia, you just have to organise it.

So why do you have to organise it? History shows innocents end up on the receiving end, being hurt or killed as the "action" gets out of control for 1 thing.

[Baff1 0]

If I wish to protest, even on my own, I must apply for a lisence. I need state approval.

Once a protest needs state approval, it is no longer a free protest. It is a state approved protest.

By example, recent politically embarassing protests have been banned against George Bush when he visited, and also against the Chinese Premier.

Perhaps the most famous recent protest ban has been against Brian Haw the lone Iraq War protester who's 4 year vigil outside the Houses of parliament led to new legislation criminalising him.

A lisence is now required, which he was not granted. The police took him away.

It is not true to say he posed any risk to saftey. That people may have been hurt. Nor is it true to say that the aims of the new legislation was to protect the public.

They just didn't like his message, so they shut him up.

Steet gatherings are covered by the Criminal Justice Bill introduced in 2002, this reduces the number of people legally allowed to gather in the street from the 6 legislated in the 1984 Prevention of Terrorism Act down to 2.

That is not to suggest that I have seen police officers arresting couples on streets all over the U.K., only that they may do so if they see fit.

This particular drop in numbers was part of the legislation used to curb the Rave scene. A crack down on impromptu unlisenced dance parties.

@Gisen, One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

There are a million reasons why I may wish to support one above another.

The civil war in England brought about the primacy of parliament and the birth of the modern democracy.

The American revolution, the French Revolution and the Russian Revulotion are all widely considered to be have been very advantageous to the populations.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional safeguard the American people have to stop their governments abusing their power.

The Orange revolution in the Ukraine might be another example of when people wish to have ultimate power over their governments. When sedition is a good thing.

In Britain most people don't want a revolution.

Neither do we want to advocate racism or religious intolernce here.

There is no KKK in great Britain.

After 9/11 there were no chain letter emails on the benefits of killing muslims.

The radical muslim protesters with the "kill Bush" etc banners were arrested. As they should be.

I agree. Why would any want the freedom to speak this way?

some cultures want this, but for ours it is no great political principle.

Despite having less political freedom than North Koreans, we are not especially unhappy. We have another kind of freedom that is greater than political freedom, we have financial freedom.

I have mobile phones, multiple TV's. Multiple cars and houses. Roast beef and Yorkshire pudding for dinner. The pick of the worlds finest foods in my fridge. The pick of the worlds finest drinks in my drinks cabinet. The flowers in my garden are beautiful. My wife is beautiful. My house is beautiful, my children are beautiful. I have access to museums, cinema's, restaurents, buses, trains, aeroplanes, theatres, parks, swimming pools, historic buildings, libraries, art galleries, concert halls, sports stadium, the World Cup, the Six Nations, The Ashes.

I have access to money. Opportunity or employment and enterprise. Travel visa's to most of the world.

I have the internet and cable TV.

I might not be free from political interference, but life here is still better than most other places.

Yes the internet is an open channel and that is why soldiers on active duty are NOT WELCOME TO THE INTERNET. That is why they are seeking to restrict it's use.

I'm sure you'll agree that passing messages via butterflies is infinitely more difficult than using a chatroom.

Most certainly you cannot 100% prevent spying. Shall we all stop trying then......  Is that really what you are proposing?

I'm quite sure the army is also looking into ways of reinforcing it's firewalls too.

Quite apart from the obvious stupid slips that all humans are capable of making, there are people out there actively engaged in leaking information to our enemies.

It's not enough to trust soldiers to make informed decisions for themselves, because as the incident with the Iranian spy indicates, some of those soldiers are not necessarily batting for the same team.

Quite apart from the obvious security breaches, appealing to soldiers common sense isn't the brightest thing to do. It's not exactly something they are reknowned for having a lot of.

There are no end of orders soldiers are given and expected to obey without understanding. Yes, many soldiers may ignore them. But those soldiers caught doing so will be disciplined.

A soldier that does not understand the reasons for any rules is free to learn more about why, but he is not free to break them.

Those soldiers that do seek to learn more, are liable to end up promoted.

Of course not all soldiers can learn every element of the armed forces operational procedures.

Nor is their any importance to teach them.

Is a lesson on internet security a more valuable use of resources than a lesson on how to spot IED's? It might be in the intelligence corp, but it isn't in the infantry.

Sometimes you have to just follow orders and trust in those elsewhere in the chain of command to have got their jobs right. Right or wrong it's the army way.

I can't see this being popular with the average squaddie as it results in a loss of privilages.

But to my mind it's been a wide open gaping hole in our communications security for over 15 years now.

[Gisen 0]

@baff:

not sure what your first paragraph to me was about, I didn't say anything about that. I agree revolution can be good if it's replacing a deficient government.

My point about encryption was simply that proper spies aren't going to be talking in plain text 'the RGJ are going to be based at Dakadaka town and get there on the 4th in a convoy leaving from Balakadakadaka at 12.00.' So they are going to use methods such as encryption instead. So this measure will do nothing to stop them.

Some soldiers are indeed stupid which is why they DONT obey rules they don't understand and especially if there is no way of catching them, which in this case there isn't.

I didnt say JUST to appeal to soldiers common sense, I said to explain the rules to them. It doesn't have to take long at all.

I don't think that British soldiers are generally expected to act like robots and simply do as they are told. All briefings are supposed to explain WHY they are doing something ("take hill 102 IN ORDER TO give supporting fire to 2 platoon") and all good officers and NCO's I've been trained by use similar short explanations when talking about other things.

[scary 0]

But the first part just doesn't fit in there:

"Personnel 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."

Maybe because they have a hard time monitoring chat that occurs in a game?

I wouldn't read too much into the bit about multi-player games, it's just really badly worded is all. No one is about to be court-martialled for playing BF online. However they probably would if they told D3ath2Infidel$ that the 3rd Foot and Mouth would be at X on the Y whilst playing.

.........interesting point on the lack of a first Amendment right of free speech in the UK.  I have looked and found nothing to contradict you.

There is no lack of a right to free Speech in the UK. Everyone has the right to free speech within certain limitations, the same as it is in any other liberal democracy, including the US. No country has total freedom of speech.

If I wish to protest, even on my own, I must apply for a lisence. I need state approval.

No you don't.

Quote[/b] ]Once a protest needs state approval, it is no longer a free protest. It is a state approved protest.

Indeed, but as this isn't the case in the UK it is irrelevent.

Quote[/b] ]By example, recent politically embarassing protests have been banned against George Bush when he visited, and also against the Chinese Premier.

Protests against Bush were not banned, they were simply not allowed down Whitehall for security reasons, which was incidentally at the request of the (not so)Secret Service. They went ahead elsewhere. It is not difficult to understand that policing tens of thousands of people within rock throwing range of one of the most unpopular people in the world would be rather difficult. I've yet to see a mass protest on the lawn of the Whitehouse.

Similarly, protests against the Chinese Premier were not banned. Here is a picture of some of those protestors on The Mall waving the (banned in China) Tibetan flag. Civil liberties groups whinged that the public weren't given Hu's exact itinerary, but civil liberties groups do just tend to whinge, it is still not a ban.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps the most famous recent protest ban has been against Brian Haw the lone Iraq War protester who's 4 year vigil outside the Houses of parliament led to new legislation criminalising him.

Wrong. The Government enacted some bollocks legislation to save themselves some embarrassment, but it is hardly difficult to overcome the minor restrictions. Brian Haw is not an Iraq War protestor. He has been there since the 2nd June 2001, quite some time before Iraq, Afghanistan and even September 11th. Unless he is a new Nostradamus, he is just an evangelical fruitloop that has spent most of his life trying to paint the world pink and fluffy when he should really get a  job instead of being a professional protestor bankrolled by the British population.

Quote[/b] ]A lisence is now required, which he was not granted. The police took him away.

Again, wrong. Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied. Gordon Brown has said he intends to repeal clauses 132-137. Brian Haw has not been denied authorisation and was not taken away by the police.

Quote[/b] ]It is not true to say he posed any risk to saftey. That people may have been hurt. Nor is it true to say that the aims of the new legislation was to protect the public.

They just didn't like his message, so they shut him up.

Brian Haw was given authorisation to protest with plaques totaling no more than 3 sq metres. As this picture shows, he has a habit of taking over the pavement with his badly written placards as well as wailing into a loudhailer. Because of this some of his placards (not him) were taken away by the police. As he is still there with his loudhailer and now sub 3 sq metres of placard, 'they' haven't done a very good job of shutting him up.

Quote[/b] ]Steet gatherings are covered by the Criminal Justice Bill introduced in 2002, this reduces the number of people legally allowed to gather in the street from the 6 legislated in the 1984 Prevention of Terrorism Act down to 2.

Try again. The Criminal Justice Act 2002 covers the following

Part 1 makes amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 such as extension of powers to stop and search.

Part 2 makes certain provision in relation to bail, such as grant and conditions.

Part 3 contains measures in connection with conditional cautions given by the police.

Part 4 deals with the charging and release of persons in police detention and introduces a new method of instituting proceedings.

Part 5 makes various provision with regard to disclosure, including initial duties of disclosure by the prosecutor, defence disclosure and contents of defence statement.

Part 6 makes provision related to the allocation and transfer of offences, for instance, the transfer of cases to the Crown Court.

Part 7 makes certain arrangements in connection with trial procedure, including application by the prosecution for complex or lengthy trials, or where there is danger of jury tampering, to be conducted without a jury.

Part 8 deals with the provisions necessary to enable live links to be used in criminal proceedings, including matters relating to rules of court.

Part 9 is about prosecution appeals and includes restrictions on reporting and offences where this is contravened.

Part 10 makes provision for retrial for serious offences and covers matters such as new evidence, the interests of justice, restrictions on reporting and offences where this is contravened.

Part 11 on evidence, consists of three Chapters, the first in relation to evidence of "bad character", the second dealing with hearsay evidence and its admissibility, and the third is supplementary.

Part 12 on sentencing, consists of 8 Chapters. Chapter 1 makes certain general provisions about sentencing, such as its purpose, reductions in sentences for guilty pleas, increases for racial or religious aggravation, definition of community sentence, etc. Chapter 2 deals with community orders and Chapter 3 with prison sentences of less than 12 months. Chapter 4 makes further provision about orders given under Chapters 2 and 3, such as the duties of a responsible officer, unpaid work requirement, drug rehabilitation requirement, etc. Chapter 5 makes provision in connection with dangerous offenders and, for example, specifies relevant offences. Chapter 6 deals with the release of prisoners on licence and includes provision for recall. Chapter 7 makes other provision about sentencing, such as deferment, and Chapter 8 is supplementary.

Part 13 miscellaneous, contains various provision such as guilty pleas and non-attendance at court, jury service, etc.

Part 14 general, deals with matters such as orders and rules, commencement, etc.

Nothing in there restricting congregating in a public place. There is also no mention of it in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, which would be irrelevent anyway as it was only a temporary emergency act that had to be renewed every year, was amended in 1989 and replaced completely by the Terrorism Act 2000, which was itself replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which has been amended as the Terrorism Act 2006 for Section 3 being in breach of the ECHR. There is nothing in that, either.

Quote[/b] ]That is not to suggest that I have seen police officers arresting couples on streets all over the U.K., only that they may do so if they see fit.

No they cannot, which is why you haven't seen it, unlike in the 'free' US where there are laws against loitering.

Quote[/b] ]This particular drop in numbers was part of the legislation used to curb the Rave scene. A crack down on impromptu unlisenced dance parties.

Do keep up, old bean. The rave scene was around in the late 80s/early 90s and was halted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which specifically defined raves, it also criminalised some previously civil offences but did not extend to restricting lawful protest.

Quote[/b] ]@Gisen, One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

There are a million reasons why I may wish to support one above another.

The civil war in England brought about the primacy of parliament and the birth of the modern democracy.

Actually, it brought about a military dictatorship ruled by a puritanical religious nut. Hence, the Restoration.

Quote[/b] ]The American revolution, the French Revolution and the Russian Revulotion are all widely considered to be have been very advantageous to the populations.

Who on Earth would consider the Russian Revolution advantageous to the population?

Quote[/b] ]The right to bear arms is a constitutional safeguard the American people have to stop their governments abusing their power.

No it isn't. Despite the nonsense espoused by the NRA of America, the Second Amendment was a way of providing a cheap (essentially free) Army/Police for a new, and therefore poor, country. There is a clue in the 'necessary for the security' part. England had (and technically still has) the same law. An oppressive regime could easily overturn the Second Amendment by a 28th Amendment  limiting arms to a blunt mango. Other countries stop abuse of power by having a separation between the State and the Executive, which is why the UK has a Parliament and a Monarchy. The Government may pay for the military but the military work for the Monarch.

Quote[/b] ]The Orange revolution in the Ukraine might be another example of when people wish to have ultimate power over their governments. When sedition is a good thing.

I don't think poisoning the oppostion would go down too well here either. Although poisoning all three main party leaders would perhaps get a quiet hurrah.

Quote[/b] ]In Britain most people don't want a revolution.

Probably because we don't need one.

Quote[/b] ]Neither do we want to advocate racism or religious intolernce here.

There is no KKK in great Britain.

No, we have the NF and Combat 18 instead.

Quote[/b] ]Despite having less political freedom than North Koreans,

Say what? You just can't move in North Korea for all the protests

Quote[/b] ]we are not especially unhappy. We have another kind of freedom that is greater than political freedom, we have financial freedom.

Financial freedom requires political freedom.

Quote[/b] ]Yes the internet is an open channel and that is why soldiers on active duty are NOT WELCOME TO THE INTERNET.

Odd that it is provided at bases, in theatre, on board ships, etc.

Quote[/b] ]That is why they are seeking to restrict it's use.

No, they are seeking to clarify things after the Government cocked up the post Cornwall incident media ops to stop any future embarrassment. And not forgetting the fake photos from the beginning of the war.

Quote[/b] ]I'm sure you'll agree that passing messages via butterflies is infinitely more difficult than using a chatroom.

With the current problems with retention I really don't see the MOD banning chatrooms and other forms of contact with families and friends, it really wouldn't be good for morale in hot, sandy places.

Quote[/b] ]Most certainly you cannot 100% prevent spying. Shall we all stop trying then......  Is that really what you are proposing?

I'm quite sure the army is also looking into ways of reinforcing it's firewalls too.

I'm sure LIAG have all that in hand. They're rather good at these things.

Quote[/b] ]Quite apart from the obvious stupid slips that all humans are capable of making, there are people out there actively engaged in leaking information to our enemies.

It's not enough to trust soldiers to make informed decisions for themselves, because as the incident with the Iranian spy indicates, some of those soldiers are not necessarily batting for the same team.

Approximately 500,000 people are involved in the UK's defence. One Corporal giving minor information to a country we are not at war with is good reason not to trust them all, is it? Heads up for you: not only was he caught, he was caught by soldiers trusted to make informed decisions for themselves. Do you see how that works?

Quote[/b] ]Quite apart from the obvious security breaches, appealing to soldiers common sense isn't the brightest thing to do. It's not exactly something they are reknowned for having a lot of.

Well, thanks for that bit of ignorant, classist bigotry. Later, I may go play with traffic. I probably won't make diatribes that assert waffle as fact, though.

Of course, when I say 'play with traffic' I mean pulling civvies out of the 2 metres of flood water they have just driven their small car into. Yes, it's definitely us that take the Queen's shilling that lack CDF.

Quote[/b] ]There are no end of orders soldiers are given and expected to obey without understanding. Yes, many soldiers may ignore them. But those soldiers caught doing so will be disciplined.

Well, I've never been given an order I didn't understand, nor have I given any that haven't been understood. There is no ignoring in either direction, either.

Quote[/b] ]A soldier that does not understand the reasons for any rules is free to learn more about why, but he is not free to break them.

Those soldiers that do seek to learn more, are liable to end up promoted.

Of course not all soldiers can learn every element of the armed forces operational procedures.

Nor is their any importance to teach them.

Is a lesson on internet security a more valuable use of resources than a lesson on how to spot IED's? It might be in the intelligence corp, but it isn't in the infantry.

I take it you are not basing that on all your years of military experience? Because, to be blunt, it's nonsense. We are not fighting WWI, the infanteer is not just a bullet sponge, it is a technical trade with lots of shiny things that go bang.

Quote[/b] ]Sometimes you have to just follow orders and trust in those elsewhere in the chain of command to have got their jobs right. Right or wrong it's the army way.

I can't see this being popular with the average squaddie as it results in a loss of privilages.

But to my mind it's been a wide open gaping hole in our communications security for over 15 years now.

It has not been a hole of any kind, the rules have always been there they have just been updated to specify modern technology.

It is not going to be at all unpopular. All members of the British Armed Forces are well aware of the importance of OpSec and PerSec. Pretty much everyone has been on operations and many have had plenty of exposure to the Troubles. After decades of service personnel and their families being targetted by Nationalists, no one is stupid enough to not understand why there are restrictions. Some of us still have our little mirrors to check for car bombs.

Now after that awfully long post I must dash. It's high tea here in polite society.