The British Army has updated its guidance on regimental social media use following unauthorised posts by two regiments that promoted a petition opposing government legal reforms.
Earlier this month, the Rifles and the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers posted on X encouraging support for a petition challenging amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act. One post claimed the changes “will mean that veterans can be re-investigated despite having previously been cleared of any wrong doings,” while another urged followers to help reach 100,000 signatures for a parliamentary debate, calling it a fight against “Labour’s two-tier justice.”
In a series of written responses to Conservative MP Mark Francois on 28 May, Defence Minister Luke Pollard confirmed: “The Army has investigated a number of social media posts which were published in error and without correct authorisation. Those posts have been removed and updated guidance has been issued to Regimental HQs on the appropriate use of regimental websites and social media pages.”
Pollard added that the matter had not incurred any additional expense, adding: “This work has been conducted as part of Army routine business, with no additional costs incurred.” When asked if the investigation findings would be made public or brought to Parliament, he reiterated: “The Army has investigated… This work has been conducted as part of Army routine business.”
The posts raised concerns about political impartiality in the armed forces, which are bound by rules that prohibit overt political advocacy.
Seems fair. The military should be politically independent, and British armed forces institutions should not be commenting on politics.
I’ll just add that this is an interestingly phrased headline. Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted it, but it seems a little unnecessarily inflammatory.
Wow, really shows just how low bar army leadership has become. British army regiments calling for political action against the government. That use to be a hanging offence.
No? Two Tweetos posted, perhaps accidentally on an their regimental twitter pages, and the error was corrected. I sincerely doubt that an oversight of this nature would result in a hanging.
The forces should never post anything political, although I think they should be perhaps allowed to comment on things that directly impact them or their effectiveness..
So for me statement one I’m ambivalent about as that is highlighting the impact of a piece of legislation going through parliament..that passes my sniff test, statement two about “ labours two tier justice” is a highly politically and bias statement and does not pass the sniff test.
Whilst it wasn’t the right way to go about it I can understand the frustration at what may be the political persecution of those in the Army who believed at the time that they were following valid but perhaps harsh orders 50 or so years ago.
Two wrongs never made a right so these posts should not have been put up. However, the proposed legislation is close to bringing the legal process into disrepute when it means previously investigated and cleared veterans can have the threat of legal action hanging over them literally for the rest of their lives. All this has been actively encouraged by Sinn Fein for political advantage whilst our Mr Blair gave IRA killers immunity from prosecution.
The most blatant and obvious definition of two tier justice you will ever come across and something that could only happen in the U.K.
Exactly.
OT but useful. BBC says that SDR will be released on Monday.
Yes, there’s already quite a few ‘leaks’ about what’s in the SDSR. It seems the big emphasis will be spending on drones and cyber for the keyboard war.
No doubt at the expense of conventional forces?
That theme is getting a bit old. The importance of Cyber has been highlighted in previous reviews.
The comments apparently made by a couple of Regimental HQs on X should not have been made.
The Army Rumour Service exists for that purpose.
One particular commentator on here might find himself more at home there.
In a spirit of helpfulness, the Army Rumour Service acronym is ARRSE.
What constitutes ‘political’? The issue they’re objecting to concerns proposed legislation and it’s implications for them specifically, and the legislators should be responsive to feedback on such matters.
While “simply following orders” on its own can’t be a defence. I think one of the prerequisites of a prosecution needs to be that the person giving the orders, and every rung between, have been convicted first. Otherwise you’re just passing the buck to the lowest ranks.
On another note it’s not a great look that after decades of criminal cuts the silence is broken, not when the country is put at risk, but when the soldiers themselves were at risk. Smells like they were happy to turn a blind eye so long as it was a future generation going to war with decrepit equipment.
Should probably clarify that second point: that’s not what I think, that’s what I think it looks like to the general public.
The issue is that the armed forces are partitioned off from the rest of society and take an oath of silence so we only hear from them when a truly existential threat like this appears. What happens when people start refusing any orders that could put them at risk of prosecution?
Well, Soldiers can vote and soldiers pay taxes….. why cant they make political statements ! As an ex soldier myself I know that ‘gripes’ ‘opinions’ ‘concerns’ do not go up the chain of command.
They can, just not while representing the armed forces. You are allowed to go to your personal twitter account and say you think the government is terrible and X-Y-Z should be done, but if you are operating your Squadron or Company Twitter page you can’t do that. Equally you can attend a protest as a squaddie, you just can’t do it in uniform. Same thing.
The Army, as an institution, is supposed to be a-political, and for a very good reason.