The writing follows no thread, the article contains no more information than interleaving parts of two press releases would give you, it's a complete mess. This would not pass for a decent writing assignment at the high-school level — and yet it's published by the BBC somehow. Even the subheadings are weirdly chosen.
Was this even touched by a human?
Here's an example:
Mar 14 "Ageing equipment puts Army at risk, MPs warn British army armoured vehicle. The British army is likely to find itself "outgunned" in any conflict with Russian forces" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56386446
Then 3 days later a new UK foreign policy increasing military spending https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56391994. The fact check here from the BBC is interesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56417924
What happens here is that voters see the first article, it sits in their mind a bit and they think "well maybe we should increase military spending, we need a good armed forces" then lo and behold their wish comes true a few days later.
We're just living in an real world Yes Minister episode.
Very short paragraphs in a semi-random order, together with a smattering of out of place headings. I assume they must have some internal style document, because it applies to a good chunk of their stories on diverse topics.
"The occasional quote which is unsourced, and doesn't have an end quotation mark.
Questions have been asked
Not unlike this comment really.
I suck at writing in general but it just seems so odd to me that the article quotes such short phrases.
Then you get several sentences on the police's view, and several on Sci-hub's.
It's mechanically straightforward, like most news.