| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| BBC deliberately risked safety of troops |
| 2007-06-20 |
| The BBC was accused last night of risking the safety of British forces in Iraq after trawling for information on troop movements in the war-torn country. Politicians reacted in disbelief to the revelation that for over two hours yesterday, the BBC News website carried a request for people in Iraq to report on troop movements. The request was removed from the website after it sparked furious protests that the corporation was endangering the lives of British servicemen and women. But according to accounts last night, a story on a major operation by US and Iraqi troops against al-Qa'eda somewhere north of Baghdad contained an extraordinary request for information about the movement of troops. Last night the BBC confirmed the wording of the request was: "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." The BBC confirmed last night that this form of words had appeared on the website from "late morning" until early afternoon. "It was down by 2pm," The Daily Telegraph was told. A spokesman was unable to offer a detailed explanation of why anyone at the BBC should be seeking such information or whether any details on troop movements had been received. He refused to identify who put the message up but said that "the journalist" responsible had been reminded that "this is not a form of words we would use". However, in a statement, the BBC added: "BBC Online regularly asks visitors to its websites to supply information they may have relating to a specific story through a response form posted at the end of a news item. "This particular page should not have been published. The BBC never broadcasts or publishes information which may put British troops at increased risk." Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, 151 UK troops have lost their lives, 115 of them in hostile action. The Conservatives demanded an investigation be carried out into the information search and urged the BBC to make sure any information received had not fallen into the wrong hands. Dr Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said, "I am appalled because it shows either a wilful disregard for the safety of our Armed Forces or a shocking lack of understanding about their safety. ... It makes me wonder who makes these decisions. The BBC now needs to have urgent discussions with the Armed Forces as to how this message came about." 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?" |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #19 #16 I don't get it. What's speculative about that? |
| Posted by: Matt 2007-06-20 20:29 |
| #18 Sorry, missed that one. How about forced to hand dig the graves of every fallen Allied solder. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-06-20 18:01 |
| #17 Notice: If you are in Iraq and have any information on the movements of BBC spies, scouts, and reconnaisance parties that you would like to share with CIA , MI-6, and the SAS, please post it here. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-06-20 17:24 |
| #16 Speculation, possible avenue of investigation: AQ leaders have lost contact with their own spy network because of the disruption caused by recent allied operations and a mole or sympathizer at Beeb has tried to take up the slack. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-06-20 17:17 |
| #15 They should be hung, shot and then burned at the stake. Just to make sure. You left out "torture". My own prescribed method has always been, "Shot and hung after torture." Burning at the stake is merely gilding the lily but, hey!, gilded lilies have their place in this world, too. My mother used to say that one should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity... but in the case of the BBC, I'd be pleased to make an exception. Too right, Sgt. Mom! This sort of crapulence simply cannot be atributed to brain death. It is the sole product of calculated and vile treason. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-20 17:15 |
| #14 A BBC staffer named... Moohamhead? It seems inevitable. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-06-20 15:58 |
| #13 Scurilous traitorous bastards. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-06-20 14:39 |
| #12 My mother used to say that one should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity... but in the case of the BBC, I'd be pleased to make an exception. Sweet Jumping Jeebus on a pogo-stick, who ever posted that little request had better be hiding under their desk this morning. Hundreds of thousands of pissed-off friends and family of military members over there are on the warpath and looking to put his/her head on a stake. Not that the Brits really go in for that these days... but again, for this kind of malign stupidity they might make an exception, also. |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2007-06-20 12:40 |
| #11 “I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast.” - William Tecumseh Sherman |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-06-20 12:39 |
| #10 Simply put these people are traitors and freedom of the press has nothing to do with it. They should be hung, shot and then burned at the stake. Just to make sure. Also we need to keep in mind that our own PBS is joined at the hip with the BBC. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-06-20 11:57 |
| #9 Sounds like somebody needs to be locked up for espionage. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-06-20 11:43 |
| #8 I s'pose it never occurred to Aunty to inquire after the troop movements of the insurgents... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-06-20 11:32 |
| #7 I was on their website looking for the story. And I'm looking and looking and looking... I'll keep looking. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-06-20 11:25 |
| #6 Oh no Seafarious, you have it all wrong. It makes perfect sense, after all, you get 50% of the licence fee if you're blind... |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2007-06-20 11:24 |
| #5 I wonder how much longer the average joe/jane will tolerate their tax dollars going for BBC/PBS propaganda for the terrorists. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-06-20 11:09 |
| #4 "This particular page should not have been published. The BBC never broadcasts or publishes information which may put British troops at increased risk." Yeah, I believe that. When's Alan Johnston gonna be appointed Hamas's new Minister of Information? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-06-20 10:46 |
| #3 Different fees for BW and color TV's? That's ... unbelievably lame. My thoughts on the BBC's request are unprintable in a family weblog. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-06-20 10:30 |
| #2 From 1 April 2007 the licence will go up by 3% to £135.50 for colour (per TV) and £45.50 for black and white. Or the British could eliminate the fee, buy a new 32" color TV every year, screw up enemy spying and propaganda and still have left over change. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-06-20 10:19 |
| #1 Why would anybody be under the impression that the BBC was anything but the propaganda and intelligence arm of the enemies of the West? |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2007-06-20 10:11 |