In our last blog we said the next one would be all about TSM threats of arrest but when the facts change so do our plans.

Some of you may be receiving Respect the Range sponsored and highly targeted ads on social media. Things like these:

Now, we are all for education and public engagement but in true TAG style we have some questions about accuracy, and just how relevant they really are to the Aldershot Training Area.

So we have applied a bit of fact-checking. It should come as no surprise to regular readers the message Defence Infrastructure Omnishambles is pushing is not quite as truthful as it should be. We will pick apart the claims, visuals and overall message in turn.

Aldershot is used for live-fire training

A quick visual analysis of the lands surrounding Aldershot reveal the extend of live fire and those used for “dry” training (everything from map reading to blank rounds). Here’s a handy map:

The ONLY area used for live-fire (the area highlighted in red) which, when the red flags are down and not displayed is open to the public, is Ash Ranges and the whole area is red flagged when in use. The red flag system is generally believed to be understood and recognised by the local community. There are other ranges, but with no public access at all they are irrelevant to any ad campaign.

The red flag danger area at Ash measures 2412.5 acres and has its own byelaws in place to enable shooting and restrict public access when in use for firing.

The green areas represent the rest of the casual access lands around Aldershot where training may take place but cannot involve live-fire. 

The green areas measure a total of 8480.67 acres total.

The campaign message is not selective in the assertion of risk or harm from live-fire. There is no reference to red flags. The representation of danger applying equally across all training areas is simply not true. 

A reasonable conclusion is that the majority of the Aldershot training area is not used for live-fire and are not ranges. The advert is therefore misleading.

Visual References

The imagery used in one advert presents a Chinook helicopter and Warrior armoured vehicle. We do see Chinook helicopters in the area but they are typically seen at 500′ transiting from or to RAF Odiham. Its the proximity of the airfield that raises their presence here, not the fact we have military lands close by.

The Warrior armoured fighting vehicle is a different kettle of fish. 

Heavy, and with limited driver visibility, tracked armour vehicles can be dangerous. Avoiding them is a very good idea. They only use the main firetracks and are also very noisy.

But the adverts ignore the simple fact the Aldershot Standing Orders do not permit the use of tracked vehicles with the exception of Bagshot Heath South, or with the express permission of the Senior Training Safety Officer (STSO).

Ironically, Bagshot Heath South has more public rights of way crossing the training area than anywhere else but only accounts for 239.3 acres.

DIO will be fully aware of the Aldershot Training Area Standing Orders because they wrote them. It might be possible to ask how often the STSO grants tracked use but with DIO’s record keeping standards it is not geared around evidence based policy (delete em 48hrs after creating them) raising a Freedom of Information request is likely to waste time than achieve anything.

The campaign message visuals is lost in Aldershot. Tracked armour remain largely irrelevant and the imagery used, and specifically the inclusion of a Warrior armoured vehicle and low flying Chinook, is not representative of what actually happens.

The message is irrelevant to the community.

Check the Training Times Now

On one hand, the published firing times for Ash Ranges are reasonably accurate.

On the other hand, the published training times published for Long Valley are shambolic and in the realm of fantasy. The open/closed times on the website not representative of actual use and are – for the most part – untrue.

We won’t labour the point here, but the 7.6 hours of use from 495 hours of locked gates is proof enough.

Sponsored by MOD

Taxpayer money is being spent to raise awareness, This is a good thing. 

But the wider concern is the Aldershot Byelaws and specifically Section 2 (Recreational access when not in use) has been completely overlooked.

This is likely to be due to a cock up or ignorance, or the expression of a desire to see the Aldershot lands treated as the rest of the training estate where access is either not permitted or is strictly controlled.

The concept of casual recreational access when not in use is likely to be causing DIO concerns. It does not fit with their desire to control and manage to the nth degree. For a guide, the experiences of Long Valley highlight the preferred method of “when we say so or can be bothered…or feel like it” rather than when not in use.

The latter is supported by not only the current byelaws but the Minister for Defence Procurement. The fear of recreational users coming to harm is not supported by the statistics; at least 59,000 hours of recreation per week with just one example of DIO being sued for personal injury in 5 years.

And before DIO start to claim success about making things “safe”, that period covers time before fences went up and access was restricted. The personal injury claim had nothing to do with military training. It was triggered by a dodgy manhole cover.

The concept of casual access when not in use is not exclusive to Aldershot. The entire training estate in Scotland reverts to open access when not in use thanks to a right to roam.

DIO can cope with casual access when forced to but it takes political will and desire…something we have found to be lacking around here.

With such a negative “get off our lands” message TAG can only presume the new byelaws are intended to deliver just that.

Summary

The adverts are intended to, and should, convey an important message. But the imagery and overall message is just not based on facts or balanced evidence. The presentation of danger and the deliberate inclusion of scary things like tanks might work elsewhere but Aldershot really does not bear witness to such training.

After years of fear-based negative messaging – COVID being a recent event – it might just be time to find an alternative method? It’s just possible the local community will not take too much heed from being told they might get run over by tank or hit by missile on the grounds that tanks and missiles are not deployed or fired here. 

TAG reckons a positive step would be for Difficult Intransigent Omnishambles to pause insulting the intelligence of the local community. Sometimes doing nothing really is the best option, with the bonus of saving a pile of taxpayer money in these cash strapped times.

The fear-based off-target message is a cheap, tired method. The local community really deserve better, especially when it’s our money being spent. For a moment TAG considered taking the adverts to the Advertising Standards people but then remembered our experience with the Ombudsman ended in a waste of time, but at least we are not alone with the FT raising concerns with other regulatory bodies.

To be fair its not all bad.

The important message remains absolutely sound. Live-fire and training in general by the armed forces must remain respected and is absolutely necessary to ensure our troops are trained to the highest standards.

The TAG code of conduct remains clear, relevant and easy to understand. If the training ops change, so will our guide but for now the absence of tracked vehicles and missiles indicates it is still fit for purpose.

The positive recognition that the Aldershot military lands are a shared space is welcomed, embraced and worth repeating back every time DIO try to restrict recreation. Their acknowledgement people ride bicycles (on singletrack) is good news and another nail in the under the byelaws cycling is not permitted statement DIO repeat ad nauseam whenever the question of MTB is raised and it’s another good reason to grant cyclists legal certainty.

Overall the ad campaign is a clumsy attempt to scare people off the lands and to soften up a community for a more restrictive set of byelaws. The locals who use the lands are likely to see this message for what it is – a waste of time and money – and the outcome will be no overall change in the way, and when they use the lands. The public accounts will record a spend of taxpayer money on something that could have been achieved at far less cost by simply engaging in good faith with the public and groups like TAG.

Finally, the adverts triggered a creative avalanche of ideas around parody. Here’s two examples:

TAG will be taking a look how DIO understands the laws around copyright in a forthcoming blog (spoiler alert – they didn’t understand them) but before anyone heads off down the rabbit hole suggesting TAG are failing to respect copyright and starts asking for removal please read Section 30A of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act before getting in touch.

Parody is easy when DIO offer up a target rich environment. We will return to the matters of arrest, legal compliance and how a new DIO CEO might be an improvement of the previous incumbent.