Every copy of Afghanistan war book bought and pulped by MoD

[Warmtoast]

The entire print run of a highly critical and embarrassing account of Britain's role in southern Afghanistan has been bought and pulped by the Ministry of Defence at a cost of more than £150,000.

So says The Guardian here:
Every copy of Afghanistan war book bought and pulped by MoD | UK news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/15/afghanistan-war-book-bought-pulped)

[N707ZS]

Fly fishing by J.R Hartley!

[Doctor Cruces]

Nothing MOD does could surprise me any more.

I would be surprised if this turns out not to be true.

Doc C

[JFZ90]

...it looks like it was pulped as it had 50 words that could compromise the safety /security of current ops/people.

So not related to it being embarrassing or critical as implied above - it seems likely the reprinted version MoD will allow published is almost exactly as embarrassing and critical.

Assuming it was the authors mistake in revealing damaging info or failing to get it vetted properly, it seems appropriate for the MoD to also go after him for their costs (get taxpayers money back from his personal profits from the book) - unless the deal struck was an admission that the vetting missed it by mistake.

[November4]

Good to see the Guardian catching up with a story that was covered in the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362828/MoD-Afghanistan-book-blunder-costs-taxpayers-150k.html) 10 days earlier following an article in the Telegraph.

Also would appear to be an MoD mistake and not the authors if the Mail article is correct

But in an astonishing blunder a day before the book was due to be published, Armed Forces chiefs decided still more changes were needed on top of the 500 already made.

But by this time the publisher, Quercus, had already printed 24,000 copies, the MOD agreed to buy and destroy them.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox was said to be 'insensed' by the error and attacked the MOD's culture of waste and 'mushrooming costs'.

[JFZ90]

But in an astonishing blunder a day before the book was due to be published, Armed Forces chiefs decided still more changes were needed on top of the 500 already made.

But by this time the publisher, Quercus, had already printed 24,000 copies, the MOD agreed to buy and destroy them.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox was said to be 'insensed' by the error and attacked the MOD's culture of waste and 'mushrooming costs'.

This sort of thing irritates - it was the authors mistake first and foremost to include information he should have known was likely to compromise - the MoD error was only in picking out his errors. 500 changes?! Sounds like it was littered with inappropriate information and indescretion. Who is responsible & accountable - why not the author?

Why is Fox not critical of the author?! Misplaced "insense" surely?