BBC issues formal complaint to Russia over staff data leak

BBC complains to Russia over staff leak
The BBC has formally complained to Russia's ministry of foreign affairs, after a list of BBC staff working in Russia, including their personal data, was leaked online.
The 44 journalists' full names and photographs were published on social media by the For Mother Russia group on 25 December.
The list also appeared on Russian sites pikabu.ru and segodnya.ru.
From my point of view publication of personal data of journalists is absolutely unacceptable.
But why it was possible?
Segodnya.ru stated that the Western media had recently published a similar list of Russian journalists, saying, "to find a list of THEIR journalists who work in Russia and interpret everything as a plot against them has been as easy as pie".
The site appears to be referring to a publication in the Sunday Times, which carried the names and photographs of eight Sputnik UK staff members. Sputnik, a Kremlin-backed news agency, has an outpost in Edinburgh.
You began it first. So what would you expect?
The BBC has published no such list.
And Sputnik hasn't published any lists.
The leak of journalists' details came less than a week after UK media watchdog Ofcom ruled that Russian news channel RT, formerly known as Russia Today, broke TV impartiality rules in seven programmes after the Salisbury nerve agent attacks.
Russia's media regulator retaliated by announcing it would investigate whether the BBC's operations in Russia complied with Russian law.
Btw, it is not so hard task to find examples of fake-news on the BBC-Russian site.
 
You know it's fake news when the words 'BBC staff' and 'working' are mentioned in the same sentence.
 
BBC complains to Russia over staff leak

From my point of view publication of personal data of journalists is absolutely unacceptable.
But why it was possible?


You began it first. So what would you expect?

And Sputnik hasn't published any lists.


Btw, it is not so hard task to find examples of fake-news on the BBC-Russian site.
More dripping from the agitprop merchant. You fail to mention this point:
The BBC has studied the leak and compared it with the data available on social media. At least part of the information is only possessed by the Russian authorities


Basically The Sunday Times release details of eight individuals working for Sputnik in Scotland. So in a fit of pique, the Russian govt somehow loses data on 44 predominantly Russian citizens who work for the BBC and publish them on an ‘anonymous’ (Mother Russia) site.

You support this action of your ‘crooks and thieves’ and somehow wish to come across as an independent observer?

Busted flush Sergey(s).
 
More dripping from the agitprop merchant. You fail to mention this point:
The point is irrelevant because personal data can be found by virtually anybody (by Bell Cat for example) for money or just searching internet.
Basically The Sunday Times release details of eight individuals working for Sputnik in Scotland.

Publication of personal data of journalists is absolutely unacceptable - in Russia and in the UK.
So in a fit of pique, the Russian govt somehow loses data on 44 predominantly Russian citizens who work for the BBC and publish them on an ‘anonymous’ (Mother Russia) site.

Russian government? What is your proof? And was publication of personal data of Sputnik's journalists instigated by HMG?

You support this action of your ‘crooks and thieves’ and somehow wish to come across as an independent observer?

No, I don't support publication of any personal data of journalists in Russia or in the UK. It is absolutely unacceptable. Do you agree with me?
 
The point is irrelevant because personal data can be found by virtually anybody (by Bell Cat for example) for money or just searching internet.

Publication of personal data of journalists is absolutely unacceptable - in Russia and in the UK.

Russian government? What is your proof? And was publication of personal data of Sputnik's journalists instigated by HMG?

No, I don't support publication of any personal data of journalists in Russia or in the UK. It is absolutely unacceptable. Do you agree with me?
Leading questions, deflection and half truths (or half lies...)

You are increasingly tedious in your attempts at posting propaganda disguised as friendly banter.

You have outstayed your welcome.
 
The point is irrelevant because personal data can be found by virtually anybody (by Bell Cat for example) for money or just searching internet.
Not according to the part of the article you somehow failed to quote
Publication of personal data of journalists is absolutely unacceptable - in Russia and in the UK.
Yep, so why say “You began it first. So what would you expect?”
Russian government? What is your proof? And was publication of personal data of Sputnik's journalists instigated by HMG?

The part of the article you somehow forgot to quote. Dunno re Sputnik, but I notice the dripping on the Embassy site

No, I don't support publication of any personal data of journalists in Russia or in the UK. It is absolutely unacceptable. Do you agree with me?
As above, you imply it’s okay “You began it first. So what would you expect?”
 
You have outstayed your welcome.

He did that about six years ago. I am beginning to have nostalgia type feelings for the time when the main subjects of conversation were:

1] How to convert one's anus into a flamethrower using only a straw and some sticky back plastic.
2] The leather treatment regimen best suited to using one's foreskin as a convenient all weather poncho.
3] Who was hard enough to eat Salmonella infected eggs.

It's just not the same anymore. @Grey Fox has just accused @Andy Farman of writing a major opus about something or other involving big tanks. Significantly, he accuses Mr. Farman of stealing malted milks from his office canteen.

Things are getting serious now.
 
The list of BBC journalists with their photos and personal data was first published on entertainment site pikabu.ru by unknown user. His post is now removed. Site segodnya.ru is unawailabe. Now the list can not be found in Russian internet. It would be logical to expect that Sunday Times would also remove the list with Sputnik's journalists.
Btw, there is a strange situation with BBC complaint. Russian FM hasn't received it according to Russian FM spokespoerson mrs.Zakharova.
 
The list of BBC journalists with their photos and personal data was first published on entertainment site pikabu.ru by unknown user. His post is now removed. Site segodnya.ru is unawailabe. Now the list can not be found in Russian internet. It would be logical to expect that Sunday Times would also remove the list with Sputnik's journalists.
Btw, there is a strange situation with BBC complaint. Russian FM hasn't received it according to Russian FM spokespoerson mrs.Zakharova.
Russian google is pants Comrade:
Wall
 
Not according to the part of the article you somehow failed to quote
They are just allegations. Allegations just remain allegations.
Yep, so why say “You began it first. So what would you expect?”

As I understand journalists from Sunday Times violated some unwritten rules that journalists have to follow. BBC hasn't accused the sunday Times for the publication. So BBC has no moral right to complain.

The part of the article you somehow forgot to quote. Dunno re Sputnik, but I notice the dripping on the Embassy site

Allegations can not be used as a proof.

As above, you imply it’s okay “You began it first. So what would you expect?”
Say directly YES or NO.
YES - it is acceptable to publish personal data of journalists.
NO - it is not acceptable.
My position is - clear and unconditional NO.
 
The list of BBC journalists with their photos and personal data was first published on entertainment site pikabu.ru by unknown user. His post is now removed. Site segodnya.ru is unawailabe. Now the list can not be found in Russian internet. It would be logical to expect that Sunday Times would also remove the list with Sputnik's journalists.
Btw, there is a strange situation with BBC complaint. Russian FM hasn't received it according to Russian FM spokespoerson mrs.Zakharova.

What's new? Russia denies everything!
 
They are just allegations. Allegations just remain allegations.

As I understand journalists from Sunday Times violated some unwritten rules that journalists have to follow. BBC hasn't accused the sunday Times for the publication. So BBC has no moral right to complain.

Allegations can not be used as a proof.

Say directly YES or NO.
YES - it is acceptable to publish personal data of journalists.
NO - it is not acceptable.
My position is - clear and unconditional NO.
Oooh tetchy!
 
They are just allegations. Allegations just remain allegations.
How come it’s always ‘truth’ when you quote it, but allegations elsewhere?
As I understand journalists from Sunday Times violated some unwritten rules that journalists have to follow. BBC hasn't accused the sunday Times for the publication. So BBC has no moral right to complain.

Different company’s

Allegations can not be used as a proof.

You sound more and more like @YarS every day

Say directly YES or NO.
YES - it is acceptable to publish personal data of journalists.
NO - it is not acceptable.
My position is - clear and unconditional NO.
Which part of ‘Yep’. do you not understand?

Publishing info which is freely available is neither here nor there. Publishing info in a direct state sponsored retaliation is wrong.

Thanks. I missed it.
Well pop along the corridor and get them to remove it.
 
He did that about six years ago. I am beginning to have nostalgia type feelings for the time when the main subjects of conversation were:

1] How to convert one's anus into a flamethrower using only a straw and some sticky back plastic.
2] The leather treatment regimen best suited to using one's foreskin as a convenient all weather poncho.
3] Who was hard enough to eat Salmonella infected eggs.

It's just not the same anymore. @Grey Fox has just accused @Andy Farman of writing a major opus about something or other involving big tanks. Significantly, he accuses Mr. Farman of stealing malted milks from his office canteen.

Things are getting serious now.
Accusations of biscuit theft, even of the malted milk variety is the lowest level. @Grey Fox greyshould be taken to the cellar and have the error of his ways explained to him.
 
Which part of ‘Yep’. do you not understand?

Publishing info which is freely available is neither here nor there.
So BBC has no any ground to complain.
Publishing info in a direct state sponsored retaliation is wrong.
But why? Even if it was 'state sponsored' then why it is wrong?
It is very hard and even impossible to prove that it was namely 'state sponsored'.
Btw, was publication of personal data of Sputnik's journalists sponsored by HMG? Who knows?
 
Last edited:
BBC complains to Russia over staff leak

From my point of view publication of personal data of journalists is absolutely unacceptable.
But why it was possible?


You began it first. So what would you expect?

And Sputnik hasn't published any lists.


Btw, it is not so hard task to find examples of fake-news on the BBC-Russian site.
Shouldn't you be in Crawley flying your drones?
 

Latest Threads

Top