In the train wreck that constitutes the British media, the story of the day from Afghanistan is how "girlie girl" L/Cpl Amy Thomas, 20, serving with Royal Marine Commandos in Afghanistan's "Helmand province hellhole", loosed off a burst of shots with her SA80 rifle "after being flown into a notorious hotspot with comrades."

Although this must be of some antiquity – the Royal Marines have already returned home – this is recounted in loving detail by The Sun, under the by-line of the Chief Reporter John Kay, no less, billed proudly as an "exclusive".

View full article here

I have bad news for the girly girl. A not so girly girl is said to have slotted a dicker about 18 months ago. Unfortuantly I don't have a quotable source as she was working with a specialist team. But I have it on good authority that it happened.

I do really try to keep up with 'argot'...even subscribing to a daily dose of 'Urban Dictionary'...but I'm behind the curve on this one. An explanation would be deeply valued.

A Hellfire for a double barrelled ZPU-2 and tractor. "As of late 2007, some 21,000 Hellfire IIs have been built since 1990, at a cost of about $68,000 each." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

Granted a Reaper is a ""one size fits all system, we should be grateful that US forces spotted the target." As of 2009 the Air Force’s fleet stands at 195 Predators and 28 Reapers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MQ-9_ ... Oct_07.JPG

My apologies,

Slotted = Killed. Some sources of Army Slang believe it derives from meaning killed using a knife (as in 'I cut him a slot'), others believe from the slotted rear sight of the L1A1 or other rifle type, but now generally used as killed.

Dicker = Enemy observer. Usage; 'We are being dicked', 'Do you think that guy on the scooter a dicker?', 'He has been dicking us for hours'. You can normally spot a dicker because every few minutes he disappears for a few seconds whilst he contacts his commander, often by cell-phone. Normal practice is to have the section's sharpshooter fire a round or two over his head to warn him off. We do stop the dickers where we can, if we find phone numbers etc. in their cell phones to confirm they are reporting troop movements then we hand them over to the ANA/ANP, who take them to town and hand them to the local authorities, who then release them. They then turn up dicking us again. So sometimes with known dickers we cut out all the crap and just slot them anyway.

Is Praetorian really an MOD troll?

He says he was the Operations Officer for 3 Commando Brigade (Major), some of whom just returned from Helmand.

Plus his latest comment isn't exactly an example of 'towing the line'...in fact he delivers quite a pessimistic assessment about the possibility for success in the south of Afghanistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... r-one.html

I suspect those kinds of opinions don't tend to pop up in the daily MOD talking-points.

I don't know enough about the military to assess whether a Major could be expected to speak candidly about the strategic decisions or success of British forces in Afghanistan, but I'd like to see some proof before writing someone of as a 'troll' when they offer a conflicting viewpoint.

At least give the guy a fair shake.

If a serving Major writes on a public comment forum, even anonymously, he is in breach of Queens' Regs. That he has does so in such a way as to identify himself strongly suggests that he is doing so officially, with official permission.

Further, the line he is selling is pure MoD-ese ... everything is everybody else's fault except the military, and if only we were given enough resources ...

"You see ... elementary my dear Watson."

I wasn't aware of the regulations concerned. That certainly provides grounds for suspicion.

There may be a bit of ambiguity in that Praetorian says 'I "was" the Operations Officer for 3 Commando Brigade (Major).' Does that indicate he has left the military? (I suspect it is just innocuous)

It would be best to confront him with these allegations in a comment, but that doesn't seem to be working on my computer.

He would probably only reply if the accusations were false (or he claimed they were false), so it's a longshot, but worth a try.

If the MOD behave in such a manipulative way, trolling critical media coverage, that should be a newsworthy item in and of itself.

The problem is that the Telegraph has not published my (partial) rebuttals and has now closed down the comments, so it is impossible to engage in a dialogue.

The essence of his claim, though, is this:



That is, without equivocation, a complete lie. I am in the process of assembling a record of the "security incidents" in the five major population centres during the deployment of his Brigade. By my rough reckoning, based on an incomplete search, there must have been well in excess of 500 - and those were major incidents.

The man is thus using his authority and status to project a false picture, and make out - as he writes - that Booker is "ill-informed". Booker is not. Our gallant Major is lying.

Incidentally, MoD trolling is quite common. They are forever infesting ARRSE - you can spot them a mile off.

By the looks of it then, Booker won't be able to correct the lies.

Will the telecrap now really allow him to at least link to your demolition of Praetorian?

Given that Booker doesn't seem to be exactly the flavour of the month at the rag with his generally 'unhelpful' offerings I wouldn't bet on it.

Incidentally, I googled around a bit yesterday and discovered that there is also a poster on ARRSE called Praetorian. That could easily be a coincedence though.

If the MoD is being as kniving as you say, trying to monitor and stymie criticism of its performance in the public sphere, then that should be front page news.

There's the dedicated 'spin machine', and then there's this.

That would be a job for a real investigative journalist.

It could be a coincidence, but might not. They tend to keep their screen names constant.

I did make a start on describing the MoD media management machine with this piece here:

http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2 ... art-1.html

I must get around to writing the second piece ... and the third ... they are in my "to do" box.

In short, the MoD has a highly sophisticated, well-funded and ruthless media management policy which allows to to control the flow of information in a manner few would believe possible outside a totalitarian state. If they were half as capable at fighting wars as they were with managing the publicity about them, then the Taleban would already be history.

Cynically, one might say, they find fighting wars a little bit too difficult so instead they put their efforts into managing the publicity on them. As with Iraq, why bother to win when, with a little creative publicity you can actually lose the war and then convince everybody you won it.

Incidentally, I've looked at "Praetorian" on ARRE. I would not have thought they were the same people ... at least, I hope not.

Masked Marauder:
Thank you for your interesting explanation
...................on no account!

I was wrong. Christopher Booker gets a correction in to Praetorius's propaganda and a reference to Defence of the Realm this week (online anyway): Battle rages over our tragic failure in Afghanistan.

Something nice for a change.