I was listening to a BBC World Service programme called Outside Source recently. It had an item about, Aleksei Navalny, an opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, being accused in a television documentary of conspiring with the CIA and MI6. But Outside Source said the poor English in the documentation which supposedly supported the allegation suggested it was a clumsy forgery. This seemed a little ironic as Outside Source itself usually includes several red flags which suggest it is produced by people with little knowledge of Britain or of the correct use of English. Do Britons really "arrive to" destinations these days? Would someone from the British Isles really refer to the last letter of the alphabet as "Zee"? When someone broadcasting from London refers to the "East Coast" would they really mean the Atlantic seaboard of the United States and not Ipswich? By Outside Source's own journalistic criteria it would be easy for a listener to believe it is produced by some latter-day version of Radio Moscow and not the BBC at all. Alternatively, as the same sort of people who work at MI6 also work on Outside Source, the catalogue of errors in that spy allegation documentation perhaps prove nothing.