Having now properly read the article and thread, I'm not so sure it's worth any of our time.
Again, please pay attention. The British Ministry of Defence wrote the report. It is their report.
I'm told I'm the one who needs to pay attention?
I am told that a report circulating at the highest level in the Ministry of Defence
So what report is this she's on about, exactly? Is there even a report? Can we see it please.
How can you arrive at your superior conclusion when you don't even know for certain the full details, the correct context or even if there are details and a context at all?
Truth is, the speculation of a hack has got people's knickers in a twist. You could easily be the victim of manipulation. The tabloids are the masters of farce, but the broadsheets manipulate through the 'authoritative' approach.
And what if someone's spinning her a yarn to push their own agenda? That only happens, like, every day of the week in the media after all. I can tell you that for a nailed-on fact (I've had the free lunches, thank you very much).
So why's your speculation more valid than someone else's? You don't know sh*t - same as the rest of us. You can't pass off your speculation as being more valid than someone else's. Rumour discussion - fine - but your tone is purely authoritative.
This is probably all just gossip on a slow news day. The article is low quality, and littered with "a source told me" and "I'm told that a report". Conveniently, all these mystery sources and quotes fit nicely with the crux of this pre-conceived, commissioned article.
Facts please.
One nil to the meeja.