Seems the BBC have changed their tune! The article has been heavily re-written and the journo's name has been removed - no apology obviously
Now as a rule I wouldn't use a blog as a source but have a look at this just to provide an 'alternative view' to the BBC's – balance? Yes, I know the guy has his own agenda - a right winger with a dislike of the BBC
http://ussneverdock.********.com/200...ion-story.html
The guy uses the BBC's own figures
1999 - Just under 2,000 Desertions
2003-5 1,000
Now I'm no mathematician (IGCSE Grade C) but isn't 1,000 over 30 months less than 2,000 over 12?
According to MoD figures 2,670 soldiers went "absent without leave" in 2001, with the figure rising to 2,970 in 2002 and falling in 2003 to 2,825. In 2004 it rose to 3,050, falling back again in 2005 to 2,725.
Taken from the 'new and improved' article, seems someone (perhaps from their legal department?) pointed out the difference between AWOL and desertion
Now as I see it the BBC has a problem, before the internet chances are few would have noticed the contradictions between the two reports, now, with old stories being around forever wildly inaccurate or just plain made-up agenda-setting stories can be ‘outed’ by a quick cross reference top previous work or other sources. One of the desertion stories must be wrong.
So the other alternative to unbiased reporting, apologising for ‘mistakes’ and retracting untrue stories is by editing them surreptitiously – Now normally I’m wary of comparisons to George Orwell’s 1984 because it’s been over-done but the BBC do seem to be running a ‘Ministry of Truth’ – their truth.
The link came from ARRSE - just to attriblte the source - see? Pongos do have their uses