The allagations of the 'mole' were on there own not worth the breath used to speak them. However as the reporter pointed out they then set out to corrobarate them by her working in security. To a large extent the original allagations were proven by her direct evidence as shown on the admitadly poor quality filming.
Leaving aside the spotters guide and the sparsely furnished flat (although she was rather nice to look at) which perhaps are irrelevent, the original object was to show the lapses in security...that having been achived, it is more worrying that the attitude of the management at Man was so poor. Thier written answer was as I say pure bullsh**t.
TCXcadet
Do you know she lied? It wasn't made clear what her referrees said when asked. yes she said she used to work as an English teacher, they did not say it was not true, she may have done so.
No jurnos do not have the right to lie, however to prosecute it would have to be in the public interest. Which public interest is served to a greater extent? Exposing a big hole in security, or taking someone to court the end result is unlightly to be a conviction and even if it does will only be a small fine.
There was more than fiddling numbers involved, the broken xray machine for instance, the lack of staff search, the fact that she could get a video camera airside without it being found. The claim that security patrols were carried out when they could not have been for, the list goes on.....
My recollection was they did inform the DfT after they finsished filming. I can see why they didn't before, note the comments about how obvious the DfT inspectors were.