But it goes wider than just Defence Writing. If we want to get this type of training, then we go the whole hog. But there are many on here who openly challenge what we happens or what we are told because it doesn’t fit their agenda.
It’s all or nothing. Don’t ask for one thing and kick off if what else turns up doesn’t suit.
There is far more stuff out there that could be imposed which many would attack and refuse to consider, let along do.
Bit in bold wasn’t done in this instance.
And IF those who wrote the document in question try to argue the convention point about suffixing OS various places taking precedence over the lack of other protective markings, that doesn’t matter much in the broader context that just about every other protectively marked document that we’re used to seeing uses the header and footer method - which is the marker that we would be looking for.
A protected document should be easily recognisable in its open/printed form on every page. An exception to that would be protections due to GDPR/DPA, because it’s protected for different reasons under different legislation, and is recognisable as needing protection through other means. However, no breach of GDPR/DPA applies.
Direct quotes were taken from a letter (not policy or training doc) on SharePoint. The letter itself wasn’t shared, no personal info, etc.
Many thanks for the context.
I agree with you. The abbreviation in the filename is simply an additional marking. No marking in the header and footer means, for all intents are purposes, that document is merely OFFICIAL.
Just to confirm, there’s no markings on that document are there? 
It wasn’t even marked OFFICIAL in this case!
As indeed it shouldn’t be. MOD policy is that OFFICIAL documents are not marked unless they are OFFICIAL SENSITIVE.
The reasoning being that because everything which isn’t SECRET or TOP SECRET is automatically OFFICIAL anyway, why bother marking it as such?
(…Hence my pet hate of people marking their emails “-O”)
But we’re not the MOD. So not everything we do is automatically Official.
I’d disagree there.
As an MOD sponsored cadet force, operating under MOD policy I’d say that we can consider ourselves to be the same for these purposes.
@wdimagineer2b is on the money across this thread. However, in other JSPs, routine OFFICIAL information should not be conspicuously marked unless it is appropriate to reinforce the need-to-know principle.
RAFAC TA has taught an abridged Defence Writing module to CFC officers and, for a short time, SNCOs on their initial course. We have also all completed the Civil Service training package for looking after govt and personal data, and this is why aspects of MOD information management policy applies to us.
@Baldrick, there is a real problem where some of these JSPs ought to apply to us and are explicitly referenced as source documents for our own publications… but there is no way for CFAV to access them! Apparently, this is due to their protective marking — albeit a majority (or their leaflets) are OFFICIAL and could easily be placed on Bader. There is already a small pool of other JSPs on Bader for which there should be only one authoritative document residing on MODNET.
But to be even-handed, permanent staff have access to these JSPs. CFAV should ask WHQ staff if they have any questions wrt MOD/RAFAC security and information management policy. Our best chance is to learn from mistakes and encourage greater awareness and promote best practices.
We are all responsible and should protect all information. We should be prudent to publish copies of documents on the internet if they are not otherwise accessible outside the .gov domain.
