Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DFR regarding taking and publishing pictures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DFR regarding taking and publishing pictures

    What are peoples attitudes towards the DFR's regarding pictures and video clips of military excercises? Technically, many photos posted in the gallery are in contravention of such.

    (Somebody please tell me how to post a poll?)
    "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

  • #2
    Originally posted by ZULU View Post
    What are peoples attitudes towards the DFR's regarding pictures and video clips of military excercises? Technically, many photos posted in the gallery are in contravention of such.

    [B][COLOR=YELLOW](Somebody please tell me how to post a poll?)
    Check the link below:

    http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...l&titlesonly=0

    Got this by clicking on the FAQ link at the top of the page... the information you're asking about is the subject of the first question in the FAQ section...

    As regards pictures and video clips, I would like to think that people would have enough cop-on to know what is a DO and what is a DON'T, in this regard.
    Obviously, some don't, judging by some of the muppetry that has gone on (posting of daft crap on youtube.com, etc)
    Last edited by FMolloy; 8 October 2006, 22:26.
    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanking you kindly for the info

      On the main point. When does a do become a dont and visa versa. Doesn't clips of mortar course, section attack etc show training methods and standards to the viewer. What about YO's course and Off road training photos. These maybe be good photos and aren't to revealing but they're still in contravention of DFR's. Any other peoples thoughts on this?

      I can see were clips taken by guys in Iraq and A'stan against insurgent or enemy forces could be used by said forces to counter act future engagements.
      "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

      Comment


      • #4
        The reach of the DF is far (that sounds awfully like "The eye of Sauron sees all"). However, it's not far enough to get anonymously posted photos removed from a server in America. Personally, I think it's better to have the content posted on IMO, where those in the know (the mods, who deal with a lot more of this sort of crap than you ever see) can filter it and remove what shouldn't be there, rather than having a video of 2 lads discussing COD6 posted on militaryphotos.net (used as an example only, don't get your knickers in a twist, mugs).

        Unfortunately, common sense is a commodity severely lacking in many young reservists. I would hope that a NCO seeing a Pte videoing something of a sensitive nature would tell them to stop recording immediately and delete the video, or at the very least inform them of the nasty things that will happen if it ends up on youtube.

        Edit: All of the above is my personal opinion, btw, and not necessarily the IMO party line on the matter. You'll know it's the party line when it says "Last edited by boomer" at the bottom of my post......

        EDIT - What he said
        Last edited by Boomer; 9 October 2006, 03:57.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think the attitude withing the DF is once the pictures poted are in a positive light and nothing seditiuos or paints the DF in a bad light..its free adavertising as long as they are concerned.
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • #6
            Example of when a do becomes a don't: Taking excellent positive pictures of an exercise, but the number and armament of the security party is visable.

            Comment


            • #7
              For completeness and subject to later amendments here is S268 of the 1954 Act.

              268.—(1) If any person, without lawful authority, makes or attempts to make any sketch, drawing, photograph, picture, painting, model or note of any fort, battery, field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post, magazine, munition factory, stores depot or any other Government property occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months, and all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, paintings, models and notes and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling found in his possession shall be forfeited and may be destroyed, sold or otherwise disposed of as a Minister of State directs.

              (2) If any person, without lawful authority, enters or approaches any fort, field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post, magazine, munition factory, stores depot or any other Government property, occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof, with sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling materials or apparatus in his possession, with the intention of committing an offence under subsection (1) of this section, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, and all tools and materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling found in his possession shall be forfeited and may be destroyed, sold or otherwise disposed of as a Minister of State directs.

              (3) If any person trespasses on any fort, battery, field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post, magazine, munition factory, stores depot, vessel or any other Government property occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof or any land reserved for or forming part thereof, whether any erection, fort, fortification or work of any kind is thereon or not, or any building or land reserved or set apart or used in connection with the administration, accommodation or training of any part of the Defence Forces, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months.

              (4) Any member of the Defence Forces or of the Garda Síochána may without warrant arrest any person who he has reasonable grounds to believe has committed an offence under this section and bring him before a Justice of the District Court to be dealt with according to law.

              (5) Any moneys arising on the sale or disposal of any articles forfeited under this section shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct.
              "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

              "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

              Comment

              Working...
              X