Sailors and Marines to possibly get cash for their stories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

I like the guy, and respect him. He carried out the interview with Faye and I thought it was a pretty good interview. I don't watch his show every week, but whenever I do I tend to enjoy it :)

---

As I said, each to their own. I think that programme is the worst form of tabloid news television, and that he is at best a lightweight, mediocre interviewer. This sort of interview with someone who is now little more than tabloid fodder is about his limit. The likes of Jon Snow, Martha Kearney and Gavin Esler are skilled, searching interviewers; Trevor McDonald isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

What would other people do in Faye's situation? Accept the 100k or reject the offer from the Sun and ITV? Just curious? I'm guessing a lot would be dependent on the personal circumstances. If I was a high earner and didn't need 100k, I probably wouldn't be fussed. As things stand I wouldn't think twice about rejecting it.

---

I consider it rather vulgar when done in this way. So too does at least one of the other servicemen who was held captive — he has been quoted using exactly that word.

For me, money wouldn't come into it. I might be prepared to give an interview to something serious like Channel 4 News or Newsnight, but not to those outlets that may be acceptable forums for the likes of Jade Goody but not someone involved in a major international incident. Still, I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would ever join the armed forces, so that's entirely hypothetical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Given her position and the fact that she's very unlikely to be a high earner, I don't think there is any realistic situation where you could turn down £100,000. I don't know her wages but I'd imagine she'd take about 4-5 years to earn that much money, there is no way you can not accept that, especially when you have a family to support.

---

Not everyone would want to have £100,000 under any circumstances. I wouldn't consider it in any way strange or irresponsible if she had turned it down, for example if she didn't like where the fee was coming from (though I realise that this was never likely). It's an old cliche, but money isn't everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Not everyone would want to have £100,000 under any circumstances. I wouldn't consider it in any way strange or irresponsible if she had turned it down, for example if she didn't like where the fee was coming from (though I realise that this was never likely). It's an old cliche, but money isn't everything.

---

You are right, but I think it would only be a problem if it was seen as a gross breach of trust, but IMO it wasn't, it may have been slightly 'not the done thing' but when you are talking about pay off the mortgage kind of money then the outcome is inevitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Given her position and the fact that she's very unlikely to be a high earner, I don't think there is any realistic situation where you could turn down £100,000. I don't know her wages but I'd imagine she'd take about 4-5 years to earn that much money, there is no way you can not accept that, especially when you have a family to support.

---

My sentiments exactly :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

As I said, each to their own. I think that programme is the worst form of tabloid news television, and that he is at best a lightweight, mediocre interviewer. This sort of interview with someone who is now little more than tabloid fodder is about his limit. The likes of Jon Snow, Martha Kearney and Gavin Esler are skilled, searching interviewers; Trevor McDonald isn't.



I consider it rather vulgar when done in this way. So too does at least one of the other servicemen who was held captive — he has been quoted using exactly that word.

For me, money wouldn't come into it. I might be prepared to give an interview to something serious like Channel 4 News or Newsnight, but not to those outlets that may be acceptable forums for the likes of Jade Goody but not someone involved in a major international incident. Still, I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would ever join the armed forces, so that's entirely hypothetical.

---

Vulgar is a harsh word. One of the captives may have used that word. The lead guy has come on TV and defended her though. I think it just shows at the end of the day it's a personal choice, and will vary greatly between each individual.

I think the reasons as to why she did it are completely understandable. I don't think she should be critizised for it. I'm not saying you don't understand why she did it, but there are some people who don't seem to get the gist of why she did it - which is ignorant.

Anyway, just to conclude. I don't think she deserves critizism in the way she has done for doing what she's done (which isn't something bad!) for perfectly good reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

You are right, but I think it would only be a problem if it was seen as a gross breach of trust, but IMO it wasn't, it may have been slightly 'not the done thing' but when you are talking about pay off the mortgage kind of money then the outcome is inevitable.

---

I don't see it as a gross breach of trust, but I do consider it unadvisable. Still, if she wants to be splashed over various cheap media outlets, fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

Anyway, just to conclude. I don't think she deserves critizism in the way she has done for doing what she's done (which isn't something bad!) for perfectly good reasons.

---

Indeed. If anyone deserves criticism, it is the Ministry of Defence for allowing this to happen in the first place, for what I believe to be ill-advised PR-driven reasons. They have obviously realised their mistake, which is good.

I'm not in tune with the discussion about this topic, but here's something... amusing. :)

I have to say he has a point.

Mr. Dunnell, you and I agree on this one. I have no problem with the people selling their story if they are civilians, but I think until they leave the service, the brass should stick to the previous policy.

AS for whether this was a setup as Hazell describes, it is truly amazing that you can be so cynical to think this way Hazell. Why? Simply that it would take the most calculating and cold structure of miltary officers to cook up a scheme and actually expect people to carry it out. No way that would happen. Contrary to what you believe, most military people don't blindly follow orders and I know the first duty of any officer is to bring home his people safely while accomplishing the task at hand. Putting 15 people including a woman in harm's way for the Iranians to do what they wish is just pure folly and would go against every fibre of any moral officers thinking. You might find one loser willing to make such an order, but it would take much more than that for this to happen as a setup.

Also take note, Iran released the pic of the GPS with the co-ordinates where they picked up the sailors, and it was determined that it was Iraqi water. Then the pic was taken off the net and replaced by one that showed the co-ordinates in Iranian waters. Now, was this too a setup? Hardly, it was a no mind fool of a officer in Iran who is no doubt busting bricks somewhere for his screw up now.

Sometimes things are what they are, and now the sailors and marines are home. While I would love to see their stories sold, not while they are in uniform. God knows they all could use the dough, and in England, some unscrupulous "journalists" would love to use these people for pay, but when you wear the uniform of your nation, the military brass has final say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studiose

I'm not in tune with the discussion about this topic, but here's something... amusing. :)

I have to say he has a point.

---

I saw an interview where Faye Turner told that when an Iranian woman came and measure her she thought she was measured for a coffin. I think the logical explanation was that she was measured for an unmatching track suit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

AS for whether this was a setup as Hazell describes, it is truly amazing that you can be so cynical to think this way Hazell. Why? Simply that it would take the most calculating and cold structure of miltary officers to cook up a scheme and actually expect people to carry it out. No way that would happen. Contrary to what you believe, most military people don't blindly follow orders ......

---

Can I just point out a few things here.

I just thought it - I'm no conspiracy theorist as a rule!
I did not at any point mention Tony Blair, or indeed any name, as the plot master (or whatever you'd call him).
I said "one or two" higher up people had simply placed personnel in positions where they may be taken, not that this lot were the specific crew. I didn't suggest the crew knew they were sitting ducks at all - in fact I said they wouldn't know. Their superiors wouldn't know, either IMO. Just the strategy guys who make up these plans with no thought for the disposable human beings at the end of the chain. Orders to go and do something seemingly fairly routine would be followed, just the outcome would be different to normal.


raphael, please read my posts before calling me silly. ;)

More interesting story would be the one of the Aussie, who was at the consentration camp in Guantanmo, but he too is not allowed to tell for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Mr. Dunnell, you and I agree on this one. I have no problem with the people selling their story if they are civilians, but I think until they leave the service, the brass should stick to the previous policy.

AS for whether this was a setup as Hazell describes, it is truly amazing that you can be so cynical to think this way Hazell. Why? Simply that it would take the most calculating and cold structure of miltary officers to cook up a scheme and actually expect people to carry it out. No way that would happen. Contrary to what you believe, most military people don't blindly follow orders and I know the first duty of any officer is to bring home his people safely while accomplishing the task at hand. Putting 15 people including a woman in harm's way for the Iranians to do what they wish is just pure folly and would go against every fibre of any moral officers thinking. You might find one loser willing to make such an order, but it would take much more than that for this to happen as a setup.

Also take note, Iran released the pic of the GPS with the co-ordinates where they picked up the sailors, and it was determined that it was Iraqi water. Then the pic was taken off the net and replaced by one that showed the co-ordinates in Iranian waters. Now, was this too a setup? Hardly, it was a no mind fool of a officer in Iran who is no doubt busting bricks somewhere for his screw up now.

Sometimes things are what they are, and now the sailors and marines are home. While I would love to see their stories sold, not while they are in uniform. God knows they all could use the dough, and in England, some unscrupulous "journalists" would love to use these people for pay, but when you wear the uniform of your nation, the military brass has final say.

---

I would also add that while I remain no supporter of the conflict in Iraq and believe that we have been told many untruths about it, and other aspects of the 'war against terrorism', I am more prepared to believe the British version of events than the Iranian one. This is based on our previous record in such things.

Did we exaggerate the numbers of Argentinian aircraft we shot down in the Falklands campaign? No. The Argentinians exaggerated the numbers of British ones they downed, though. The same goes in relation to the Iraqis in the first Gulf War and the Serbians in the Kosovo conflict. Of course, I am not saying that we hear the full version of events, nor that we should believe everything we hear from official sources. However, in spite of the often dreadful conduct of the UK and US in relation to the conflicts in which we are currently engaged, no-one can deny that British military accounts of conflicts in recent history have been marked by a veracity that those we have fought would do well to emulate if they hope to be credible.

(This, by the way, makes the Americans' ongoing refusal to officially acknowledge that the F-117 'stealth fighter' that was lost in Kosovo was sho down all the more pathetic.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

More interesting story would be the one of the Aussie, who was at the consentration camp in Guantanmo, but he too is not allowed to tell for some reason.

---

Absolutely. Guantanamo is one of the scandals worth focusing on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

I have no problem with the people selling their story if they are civilians, but I think until they leave the service, the brass should stick to the previous policy.

---

That pretty much sums up my position on this one.

There are pretty obvious issues here, especially since 4 servicemen died on the day these guys were flown back. Market forces being what they are, I suspect the relatives of the dead servicemen will not receive anything like the cash the Iranian hostages will. Is that fair? What kind of message does that send out to other servicemen?

Is it right that the details of their capture be left up to the tabloids who are the likeliest to be able to pay to put their own spin on?

Oh and for the guy who was comparing the sailors to footballers and other 'celebrities', IIRC people who sign up to the armed forces are contractually obliged not to discuss details of their job to outsiders including the media. I fail to see how it should be different for someone stuck in barracks on Salisbury plain as for someone stuck in Tehran for a few days.

Something to do with the official secrets act IIRC.

These guys knew they were not to talk to the media. Being involved in an international incident shouldn't change that. If they didn't like those terms, they shouldn't have signed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Oh and for the guy who was comparing the sailors to footballers and other 'celebrities', IIRC people who sign up to the armed forces are contractually obliged not to discuss details of their job to outsiders including the media. I fail to see how it should be different for someone stuck in barracks on Salisbury plain as for someone stuck in Tehran for a few days.

Something to do with the official secrets act IIRC.

These guys knew they were not to talk to the media. Being involved in an international incident shouldn't change that. If they didn't like those terms, they shouldn't have signed up.

---

I ought to point out that, in recent times, the MoD has become absurdly sensitive about serving personnel doing freelance work, whether written or photographic, for publications which touches on anything to do with the service they work for. For instance, serving RAF pilots are not allowed to have anything published under their own name (pseudonyms are also on dodgy ground) about the RAF, including photos taken on deployments and ordinary work, in aviation magazines and other publications. This is simply ridiculous, because none of it to my knowledge touched on anything that shouldn't have been in the public domain.

The MoD has also been making ever more strenuous efforts to edit material about its activities by non-service personnel, often deleting anything of real interest in favour of corporate blandness, and insisting that information which is already well into the public domain be left out on spurious 'security' grounds. All of this makes me all the more irritated that the MoD seriously believed it was a good idea for these stories to be sold, and that the tabloids who were clearly going to buy them would be the best outlets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Oh and for the guy who was comparing the sailors to footballers and other 'celebrities', IIRC people who sign up to the armed forces are contractually obliged not to discuss details of their job to outsiders including the media. I fail to see how it should be different for someone stuck in barracks on Salisbury plain as for someone stuck in Tehran for a few days.

Something to do with the official secrets act IIRC.

These guys knew they were not to talk to the media. Being involved in an international incident shouldn't change that. If they didn't like those terms, they shouldn't have signed up.

---

I can't speak for the contracts of other countries, but here in the US there is no contract obligation limiting freedom of speech, other than safeguarding of classified information.

Even with information I had at my disposal in classified forms could be discussed to the extent it became public information. I simple couldn't confirm or deny that the classified version was in line with what was made public information.




Once the entire thing was a major media event, it's doubtful they could say anything we didn't already know. Unless they said something of a classified nature, here in the US they would not be kept from doing so.

I think the comparison between celebrities and footballers etc, was made to point out the fact that people don't seem to begrudge them 100k a week for singers, or people who kick a ball. However someone who has been fighting a war for our country, gets a one off 100k payment, and people begrudge them it, whatever the past conduct of other sailors have been in the past.

PS: Contract obligations? I thought they were cleared to sell their stories? And a % of what they earned is going to families who have members of their families in the navy etc.

Hazell, I read your posts. I think your idea that this kidnapping plot was staged by the 'UK government' (your words!) is silly. End of. As DBunnell, and more recently Mark, have ripped that idea to pieces. It doesn't add up. I think someone's been watching too many movies :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I can't speak for the contracts of other countries, but here in the US there is no contract obligation limiting freedom of speech, other than safeguarding of classified information.

---

I believe there's a big difference in the way information is handled by the US and UK militaries. Over here there is a much stricter line prohibiting people discussing or informing the media about what would appear to be minor issues.

I suspect this is at least partly due to the experience in the UK of being targetted by the IRA. One of my friends who had a military father told me that an IRA sniper team was caught in Germany with a map of their base and rather chillingly the name, rank and role of every officer living on a particular street plus the number of children living there etc.

This attitude to secrecy has always been the case, and the army has been quite proactive in prosecuting anyone who steps outside the line which is why British military memoirs have been quite a rare occurrence (Bravo Two Zero excepted, and there was a big legal fight over that one too).

That they have suddenly decided to abandon that restraint over this one issue is highly suspect to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I believe there's a big difference in the way information is handled by the US and UK militaries. Over here there is a much stricter line prohibiting people discussing or informing the media about what would appear to be minor issues.

I suspect this is at least partly due to the experience in the UK of being targetted by the IRA. One of my friends who had a military father told me that an IRA sniper team was caught in Germany with a map of their base and rather chillingly the name, rank and role of every officer living on a particular street plus the number of children living there etc.

This attitude to secrecy has always been the case, and the army has been quite proactive in prosecuting anyone who steps outside the line which is why British military memoirs have been quite a rare occurrence (Bravo Two Zero excepted, and there was a big legal fight over that one too).

That they have suddenly decided to abandon that restraint over this one issue is highly suspect to me.

---

It depends what the issue is. It was acceptable until recently for UK service personnel to write about UK service topics of a non-sensitive nature. Now, a new paranoia has set in, partly because the top brass are concerned about people doing this in work time, but also because they are desperate to create 'brands' out of the armed forces, and don't want anything from internal sources to be published without it representing the official PR line.

Dylan,

Information is in general, passed only to those with appropriate access and on a "need to know" basis. Obviously many things are not discussed at all, or made public information.

As suggested above by BDunnell, the major concern for the military branch is that individual statements made are not taken as representing the official view of the government or that branch of the armed service.

At the point the information becomes public and/or is declassified, it is not uncommon to have it spread through the media. I've seen on public TV here in the US interviews with British and other special forces about the Gulf War, and missions that were at the time no doubt highly classified and secretive. Those things which remain highly classified after the action are guarded and protected by security requirements, and in most cases the public will never know the reality of it for many, many years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

As suggested above by BDunnell, the major concern for the military branch is that individual statements made are not taken as representing the official view of the government or that branch of the armed service.

---

The trouble is in the UK that this had never to my knowledge caused a problem, yet people who think they know about PR have told the MoD that it is. It is, as I think I suggested before, ironic that it thought that selling these stories to the tabloids was acceptable in the light of this.