Equity and ISPs
In the April 30 edition of Navy News I see an article concerning NRLO and Brian is quoted as asking for any ideas on how to improve recruiting. Consider the following.
When I see vehicles emblazoned with the logo Manpower Defence Recruiting running around town I wonder what that says to the community about the ADF? I don't see vehicles with Manpower BHP Recruiting or Manpower Telstra Recruiting so I can only assume the ADF wants to be a Manpower organisation. What a pity we wasted all the resources making the ADF a place where Australia's men and women could both have a worthwhile career.
On another matter completely.
Considering that you are targeting your message to Navy personnel and asking them to email you, how does your email address match up with the small article (Army News page 3 edition 1026 of 10 May) titled Access Denied from DIS which threatens dire consequences for the use of Hotmail on the DRN.
I do not know about navy wide but the sailors I am aware of at DNSDC for example could be tempted to email you from work thereby leaving themselves and maybe even the DRN vulnerable. At the very least they may think if an official Navy organisation uses Hotmail their use is condoned.
Bob Constable
Melbourne
Ed: I don't understand your reference to Hotmail, however, Navy News at Bigpond as is an ADF approved ISP connection. Further, I believe emails from the DRN to Navy Newspaper are a proper use of resources.

Query on Op Spitfire
Just to query what I perceive to be a minor inaccuracy in the text of the ADF Tax Guide contained in Volume 44, edition number 12 of this years Navy News. Page 22 mentions, under the sub-heading of 'Overseas Forces Tax Offset', *Area comprising East Timor and the teritorial sea of Indonesia adjacent to East Timor from 6 September 2000 to 19 September 2000 (Operation SPITFIRE)*.
As a crew member of the first RAN major Fleet unit into the East Timor conflict, HMAS DARWIN, I am sure that Operation Spitfire (of which we were a participating unit) was activated in 1999, not 2000.
I know this is a moot point, but being an avid and critical reader of Navy News I thought I had better bring this to your attention in case it caused some confusion amongst our readers.
Stevan Coll
W.A.

Whose paper is it anyway?
With regard to the letter written by Leut Richard Cullen, in which he questions the sub-title 'The Sailors' Paper', I feel I must point out that the paper has photographs of officers on its pages that outnumber the pictures of sailors by a ratio of 2 to 1.
Perhaps he is correct in that it might be prudent to choose another phrase. Either that or publish a few more pictures of sailors.
Tony Howell
HMAS Stirling
Ed: You make a good point and one that I agree with. Given that officers have greater access to information through the chain of command and the signal network Navy News should and does try to target non-commissioned sailors. We are handicapped in this respect due to the type of images that are supplied by units and those that are taken by Navy photographers who have been given inappropriate taskings. The Navy photographic trade when given the freedom to use their professional skills produce high quality work pitched at the correct level. With regard to news stories these are necessarily attributed to the decisions makers who are in the main officers.

Finally one for us
Congrats on the cover story of the June 11 edition. We need that kind of headline on the front cover of a national newspaper. I believe there have been a few changes in the way you do business there. Hope it's all working out OK.
Mrs Priscilla M. Alchin
Leeuwin

Sole Aussie survivor
I was the sole Australian survivor of the sinking of HMS Jupiter in the Battle of the Java Sea in the last war. I am very keen to hear from any other survivors living either in Australia or the U.K.
John Eden
Melbourne

Humour MIA
I am very concerned about the move of HMAS WORT from the back page of Navy News to somewhere else in the middle. I fear that this is a sneaky move by the editors to dilute the importance of WORT and possible removal altogether.
I do remember similar changes to the page 'three' photo (girl) and hope that WORT is not on the same course.
Concerned