US Embassy goes on sale for £90m

[homesick_american 1]

I just reported it too. Told them they were pathetic.

How do you report inaccuracies to BBC?

(I've seen serious miscalculations in their series on India automobile industry--just one of a plethora of places)

Via the 'contact us' link at the bottom of almost every page.

Is it able to take a book (say about the size of "Gray's Anatomy") of volume?

No.

It's ironic that they publish incorrect stats about India, since they really should know better; rumor is that the BBC is a big client of an outsourcing firm in India. Their website work is definitely outsourced; you could see the quality of the site plummet as soon as the work was moved out-of-house. Frankly, it's an embarrassment to a news organization that once had a sterling reputation. I feel that reputation is no longer deserved.

Eh? I haven't heard a peep about this. The alt tag on the BBC's website says the building closed last month. #######? That can't be right.

Update: they've changed the story so it no longer says that the building closed last month, but it's still pathetic that we had to TELL them that.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Well, the FT got it right:

Financial Times -- 2 May 2007

by Jim Pickard

"US Embassy could fetch £300m, property experts predict

"The US Embassy in Mayfair could fetch more than £300m if and when it went on the market, property experts predicted yesterday.

"The building is in Grosvenor Square, in the heart of one of London's most expensive areas. As such it is likely to attact a ferocious bidding war from UK property companies, Middle Eastern money, Irish investors and others.

"The US government insisted yesterday that no decision had been made to sell, saying that 'no options have been ruled in or out'. Given its plum spot, the building might sell for well ahead of the £90m figure reported yesterday by the BBC.

"Chelsea Barracks was recently bought by Qatari Diar and CPC Group for close to £1bn -- more than four times the initial price sought by the Ministry of Defence.

"One agent said yesterday: '£90m would only be £700 per sq ft, while many residential buildings in the area are fetching three times that.'

"The embassy is one of America's biggest, employing 750 staff. Recognisable from the aluminium eagle on its roof, the nine-storey building was built in the late 1950s and opened in 1960.

"Given its age, the successful buyer is likely to knock down the premises and replace them with more glamorous, modern buildings. It would be expected to submit plans for a larger scheme than the existing 133,300 sq ft building.

"The embassy has 939 years remaining on a 999-year lease from Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster's private property company. It is understood the US is considering moving the operation to another part of London, but has not yet made a firm decision.

"The embassy has had increased security in recent years, aprticularly since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

"Experts said its departure could increase the value of homes and offices in the surrounding streets of Mayfair as residents would then be less concerned about the threat of a terrorist strike.

"Rumours of the US embassy's departure first broke in February, when the US government said any decision was still in the early stages. It said it was 'assessing various property management options, among which are the continued possession of its current premises or relocation'...."

Glad someone takes the time to research! A lot of the confusion seems to come from the fact that the Embassy is indeed selling off its Navy Annex in the square, which closed last month. Even some of the articles which note this correctly, appear to confuse it with the Embassy -- the AP newswire used by some publications say the Annex is 133,300 sq ft and has 939 years left on the lease, but these are figures applicable to the Embassy itself. (See the story here: http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...010328/-1/State)

Torygraph gets it wrong: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../nembassy02.xml And no surprise that the Sun does too: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007200192,00.html Wow! So does Sky News: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1263525,00.html

Does ANYBODY do fact-checking anymore???

(PS -- I have decided this is MUCH more fun than doing my proper job! )

[homesick_american 1]

Well, the FT got it right:

Financial Times -- 2 May 2007

by Jim Pickard

"US Embassy could fetch £300m, property experts predict

"The US Embassy in Mayfair could fetch more than £300m if and when it went on the market, property experts predicted yesterday.

"The building is in Grosvenor Square, in the heart of one of London's most expensive areas. As such it is likely to attact a ferocious bidding war from UK property companies, Middle Eastern money, Irish investors and others.

"The US government insisted yesterday that no decision had been made to sell, saying that 'no options have been ruled in or out'. Given its plum spot, the building might sell for well ahead of the £90m figure reported yesterday by the BBC.

"Chelsea Barracks was recently bought by Qatari Diar and CPC Group for close to £1bn -- more than four times the initial price sought by the Ministry of Defence.

"One agent said yesterday: '£90m would only be £700 per sq ft, while many residential buildings in the area are fetching three times that.'

"The embassy is one of America's biggest, employing 750 staff. Recognisable from the aluminium eagle on its roof, the nine-storey building was built in the late 1950s and opened in 1960.

"Given its age, the successful buyer is likely to knock down the premises and replace them with more glamorous, modern buildings. It would be expected to submit plans for a larger scheme than the existing 133,300 sq ft building.

"The embassy has 939 years remaining on a 999-year lease from Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster's private property company. It is understood the US is considering moving the operation to another part of London, but has not yet made a firm decision.

"The embassy has had increased security in recent years, aprticularly since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

"Experts said its departure could increase the value of homes and offices in the surrounding streets of Mayfair as residents would then be less concerned about the threat of a terrorist strike.

"Rumours of the US embassy's departure first broke in February, when the US government said any decision was still in the early stages. It said it was 'assessing various property management options, among which are the continued possession of its current premises or relocation'...."

Glad someone takes the time to research! A lot of the confusion seems to come from the fact that the Embassy is indeed selling off its Navy Annex in the square, which closed last month. Even some of the articles which note this correctly, appear to confuse it with the Embassy -- the AP newswire used by some publications say the Annex is 133,300 sq ft and has 939 years left on the lease, but these are figures applicable to the Embassy itself. (See the story here: http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...010328/-1/State)

Torygraph gets it wrong: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../nembassy02.xml And no surprise that the Sun does too: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007200192,00.html Wow! So does Sky News: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1263525,00.html

Does ANYBODY do fact-checking anymore???

(PS -- I have decided this is MUCH more fun than doing my proper job! )

I just find it astonishing that several major British media outlets...supposedly run by people with a triple-digit IQ...could report that the US Embassy at Grosvenor Square in London had closed, when they could just get on the tube and see for their f*cking selves that it was not true.

Idiots, idiots, idiots. Lazy idiots. What's worse is I have to listen to Brits and Americans alike yap in my ear all day about how much better the BBC is than any American network. Eh...no. 10 years ago, maybe. Now...I think the Fox News channel is probably a more accurate source of news. That is how bad the BBC has gotten. It has made so many glaring factual errors in the last few years that I simply don't trust it anymore.

In response to your fact-checking question: No. The Beeb used to, but they obviously don't want to waste money from the pool that pays Jonathan Ross and Jeremy Clarkson's salaries with something as unnecessary as FACT-CHECKING.

[TheZilla 0]

Oooh, I've got to mark this thread so my man can have a look. He swears by the BBC and it's 'sterling rep', I started to believe it too. Mwa-ha-ha! Inaccuracies a-go-go!

[homesick_american 1]

Oooh, I've got to mark this thread so my man can have a look. He swears by the BBC and it's 'sterling rep', I started to believe it too. Mwa-ha-ha! Inaccuracies a-go-go!

10 years ago he'd have been spot-on, but the BBC has gone down the toilet in the last few years. Even my husband, a staunch defender of the BBC, sees it!