tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148951396576155849.post5920873050964180305..comments2024-01-30T14:57:53.352-05:00Comments on Town Commons: BBC The Fifth Column?scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05052920226349799408noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148951396576155849.post-53405766031711574622019-12-15T05:01:04.473-05:002019-12-15T05:01:04.473-05:00anniversary wishes for uncle and aunt<a href="https://www.quotewishes.online/2019/05/wedding-anniversary-wishes-uncle-aunt.html" rel="nofollow">anniversary wishes for uncle and aunt</a>Jatin Sethihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809681545644007453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148951396576155849.post-31785275323968275582007-06-23T08:41:00.000-04:002007-06-23T08:41:00.000-04:00The person who posted this request should be suppl...The person who posted this request should be supplied to both the British and US governments for questioning. Where do you catagorize this action: extreme naive stupidity or treason during war? As the media has shown a willful desire to enter the fray and become a combatant we should prosecute accordingly. When they undertake actions like this they are no longer neutral observers, they are valid targets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148951396576155849.post-8369343582589370892007-06-22T07:58:00.000-04:002007-06-22T07:58:00.000-04:00It may well be that this turns out to be much ado ...It may well be that this turns out to be much ado about nothing. But it also needs to be thoroughly investigated. This cannot just be brushed off. Whether the BBC published the information is irrelevant. The questions are who requested the information, did they receive information, what did they do with it, was it retransmitted, and if so to whom. <BR/><BR/>A request for information on "troop movements" during a major offensive is information that the enemy would dearly love to have. I find it difficult to believe that both an journalist and an editor are so clueless of the miitary and basic security that they would request such specific information in blissful ignorance. It may be the case. But it seems at least equally likely that someone at the BBC may have an ulterior motive. It is that someone with whom I am concerned. Memories of Kim Philby are coming to mind.<BR/><BR/>In retrospect, you are probably correct that "Fifth Column" is far to strong a term to describe the BBC as a whole. Granting that, I still strongly believe that the BBC news division is hopelessly biased and needs to be spun off the public dole.scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05052920226349799408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148951396576155849.post-60887820492470165382007-06-22T07:35:00.000-04:002007-06-22T07:35:00.000-04:00I've seen a lot of excited comment about this, but...I've seen a lot of excited comment about this, but surely the real story doesn't bear up to the scrutiny it is being put under?<BR/><BR/>For two hours, on one page of the BBC's website, someone made the wrong choice of words. The BBC doesn't as a routine ask for details of troop movements. The BBC didn't publish or broadcast any details of troop movements. It isn't even clear that the BBC received any details of troop movements. The BBC removed it and apologised as soon as it was pointed out. A true fifth column would be doing this on a regular basis and publishing the results, surely?Martin Belamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03545948950673194456noreply@blogger.com