Thread: More Irresponsible BBC Actions

Daily Telegraph response here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...20/nbbc220.xml

Right, so should ARRSE organize a proper boycott of the license fee for this dire act?

To me, a yank in King Tony's court, it is beyond comprehension that a state-owned entity would actively seek information in such a fecking stupid manner that could be detrimental to HM's forces. The BBC has been an embarassement from day one in regards to Iraq, so me thinks it is time for a bit of comeuppence.

What say the list?

I say that this a job for Mi5 the BBC employs some very odd types and this may not just be a meeja blunder.

Originally Posted by angular

Daily Telegraph response here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...20/nbbc220.xml

The Ministry of Defence was not aware of the affair yesterday until alerted by The Daily Telegraph

I find this hard to believe.

Brendan Carlin - still lurking - how about a donation to Service Charities?

Received this reply after I mailed them.(see my previous post)

Dear Mr xxxxx,

Thank you for your email. We can assure you there was absolutely no
intention of putting any soldiers in danger as a result of our asking
for people in the area to contact the BBC. We would not have published
any of the information on the site - and are well aware of the security
issues surrounding this. However, it is usual for us to seek out people
who have direct experience in the region to contact us. Many people do
use the email form to tell us what is going on in Iraq and this is
invaluable in reporting the story from a country where it is
increasingly difficult for reporters to reach all areas. We do accept
the use of the word "troop movements" was not appropriate. We actually
meant to seek out comment and eye-witness views, not anything which
would in the slightest way have a military implication. We are sorry if
there was some confusion in this. The postform has since been removed.

We hope this answers your complaint. Thank you for contacting us.

BBC News Online

"This particular page should not have been published. The BBC never broadcasts or publishes information which may put British troops at increased risk." Quote from the BBC in response to the Telegraphs enquiry.........

Oh fcuking really? Forgotten about Goose Green so quickly have we?

Originally Posted by The Telegraph

The blunder sparked a flood of protests from army insiders and servicemen's relatives, posted on the Army Rumour Service website (www.arrse.co.uk). One woman, who described herself as an "Army wife", said she was "shocked and dismayed" that the BBC was asking people "to report our troop movements on an open forum which could be read by insurgent forces and/or their allies".

The BBC insisted last night that the information would not have been published, saying "this was not a blog".

But the woman went on: "Surely if you want reporting done, you have staff who are able to do that for you. Otherwise why do we pay over £100 in licence fees?"

Another wrote: "Did you realize that the BBC are now helping insurgents in northern Iraq with their intelligence?"

Nice name check for ARRSE though. I suppose that the insurgents will just come on here to find out where everyone is instead.

I also find it hard to believe that the MOD was unaware of the article until the Telegraph told them about it.......It's the MOD's best source of satisfaction survey going.....and I would be surprised if there was a single person in Whitehall that didn't automatically log in when they get in of a morning!!

Originally Posted by maxi_77

Seems to me they are reporting what the septics want them to report.

Huh? Your kidding right?

Far as the BBC goes... they have been nothing but trouble for both our militarys for decades. Remember that idiot they sent ahead of our advance during Desert Storm?

It would appear that they've offered an apology (sort of):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...ad_phrase.html

However, as someone has pointed out, surely "eye witness accounts" of a real time op are reporting of troop movements, and likely to give aid and assistance to the enemy?

Complained and got an apology. However I am still annoyed that they didn't actually apologise for the act, mearly for the words used. Thus they stand by their intent!

OS

Originally Posted by Tooldtodieyoung

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6766217.stm

Did you realise the BBC are now helping insurgents in northern Iraq with their intel??

Tab down to the bottom of the article above...

Are you in Iraq? Have you seen any troop movements? If you have any information you would like to share with the BBC you can do so using the form below:

Well either its dam' well concealed or they've wised up, 'cuz I cannae find anything like this on the page at t'other end of the link posted.

(Or I'm older and blinder than any of the AQ Int Officers seconded to the Beeb . . .)

Originally Posted by fozzy

It would appear that they've offered an apology (sort of):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...ad_phrase.html

However, as someone has pointed out, surely "eye witness accounts" of a real time op are reporting of troop movements, and likely to give aid and assistance to the enemy?

There are some brilliant comments on the bottom of that page, summing it all up nicely. From our lot?

Although the one which suggests that the "BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation should support it's own country" {Paraphrased}, i did suggest that in my original comment on the original, offensive article, but in retrospect it would be better to have an impartial-terroist-supporting news service.....That way, once the Beeb gives out some more information which, heaven forbid, leads to the death of a serviceman, we could distance ourselves rather than being tied into this flawed institution.

At what point will "Eye-witness reports" become so up to date that they have reports coming in whilst troops are still on station? As in "Hi im Micheal Rodent from Main Street in Baghdad, and we have 2 tanks, an APC and a handfull of squaddies here at the moment, hold on, yeap i've just heard from one of the squaddies that they are now running low on ammunition and won't have a resupply for a few hours now. Micheal Rodent, Main Street, Baghdad. (Internet link for google earth to zoom into location)"

I also resent the fact that i have to pay a full year's license in 8 months because i started into the year, but thats just me.

Stonker, the comment box was removed after ARRSErs made complaints (as im sure others did). It didn't last long.

Originally Posted by army-hopeful

Stonker, the comment box was removed after ARRSErs made complaints (as im sure others did). It didn't last long.

Penny dropped after I'd posted and read on . . .