Posted by phil tomaselli on July 21, 2002 at 16:11:49 from 212.211.107.3 user Phil_T.
In Reply to: Re: Arthur Ransome - A Spy, again posted by Adam Quinan on July 21, 2002 at 12:27:49:
Dear all
Confirming again my opinion that all journalists are lower than tapeworm the Observer correspondent has lefted (virtually verbatim)a short piece that I wrote for BBC History Magazine which comes out Tuesday. He has obviously obtained an advance copy and decied to lift it.
It would be an interesting challenge (if anyone cares to take it up) to ask him to produce the remotest shred of evidence for his story ie copies of correspondence or PRO file reference numbers. Several pints (or equivalent) for anyone who does this and a gallon of whatever he drinks to the Observer correspondent if he can actually produce anything.
The story, as run, is essentially correct though it is a much edited version of a much longer piece (you should have seen the embarrassing mess the BBC originally wanted to publish after their first edit).
Ransome really did operate as an SIS agent under code name S76 but I am inclined to believe that a large part of his motivation was to try and present his view of the truth to HMG by whatever means possible. There is also the slightly more selfish reason that he would never have got Evgenia back here if SIS/MI5/Special Branch had decided to really put the boot in.
I will make all file references etc available on Tarboard in a few days (I promised the BBC not to do so until after publication).
Phil T