So, what do you make of the BBC’s coverage of the “Number 10 Bullying” story? Clearly Mandelson’s attempt to dismiss the entire issue of the Prime Minister’s character backfired but now the attention seems to be have switched to Christine Pratt and the National Bullying Helpline. Is this an attempt to re-frame the essential issue – namely the alleged mental instability of Gordon Brown.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Martin says:

    What I find amazing is how the BBC can be so pro the one eyed coward yet ITV seemed to have it sussed that there is a big smear campaign going on in particular from Lord Fondelbum and the getting even fatter Prezza (is he still shagging cheap slappers by the way?) who seems to be allowed to make all sorts of accusations yet not one journalist has picked him up.

    No wonder no one who has been bullied wants to comr forward, the BBC would destroy them.


    • Robert Soul says:

      When you have to rely on the likes of “Two Jabs” as a character witness then you know things are desperate. Nevertheless a cornered rat is dangerous and should be approached with caution.

      I do agree though the smear machine is in overdrive tonight, aided and abetted by the ever loyal bBC


  2. John Horne Tooke says:

    We have been here before.

    “Pam Warren, the woman who became the voice of the Paddington rail crash victims, rounded on Tony Blair last night after another damaging email emerged from the Department of Transport, this time suggesting that a “dirty tricks” operation was being carried out against her survivors’ group.

    The Prime Minister’s office expressed “regret” over the revelation that Labour officials were investigating the political backgrounds of those representing Paddington survivors in an apparent attempt to discredit them.”

    It seems that these are the tactics of Labour when they feel they are being backed into a corner.

    I am not sure if Christine Pratt did the right thing, but this attack on her from Labour/BBC is a great way to avoid the issue of Brown himself. Attack the messenger and not the message.


  3. dave s says:

    I have no doubt it will all backfire on Brown. He is terminally unpopular and gives a lot of women the creeps. JUst keep it in the headlines and let public opinion do the rest. The BBC has probably called this one wrong and the more it keeps on about it the greater the damage.
    It is not the all powerful infallible organisation of it’s dreams.


  4. Martin says:

    Unbelievable. The BBC are now claiming that this charity has links to the Tories because…… the local Conservative office is on the same industrial estate!!!!! I kid you not. The BBC are desperate. How can Prick Robinson say that it’s all over and NOT mention the smear campaign, yet Tom Bradby standing just a few feet away from Toenails in Downing street points out the totally obvious?

    The BBC also smeared the couple that stated 5 bellies Smiff wasn’t spending all the time at her sisters that she claimed. I remember the likes of Newsnight suggesting they were politically motivated. No BBC they were telling the truth.

    Surely the Tories must see now the BBC has to be cut down to size?


  5. George R says:

    Good point here, I think:

    “Rawnsley’s indictment of the entire Brown government is lost amid a smokescreen about bullying”

    (David Blackburn)



  6. George R says:

    ‘The Thick of It’ -BBC interview, Nov 09


  7. Cassandra King says:

    The BBC has played the story perfectly on behalf of the labour party, it couldnt have been played in isolation from labour could it?
    More time was given to the defence of the accusations than the accusations themselves, the string of guests were lined up perfectly to defend Brown and rubbish the accusation muddying the waters as only the BBC can.
    Its clear to see how different it would be if Cameron had been the accused, the line of critics would stretch round the block, yuman rites lawyers and charity heads would be crammed into the studios in an endless parade of talking heads!
    The BBC double standards are clear to see.


    • Martin says:

      Don’t forget the Unions, who have been strangely (not) silent here. in fact has the BBC even approached the civil service union I wonder.


  8. Damon says:

    Interesting how the whole story has diappeared from the BBC this morning

    If it was Dave in the court of public opinion I bet they would still be ferreting away


  9. Cassandra King says:

    Time and again the BBC betray their own desires onto the media in general. This time its the BBC toady show desperate to kill the Brown bullying scandal and move the news narrative along onto more comfortable ground ‘lets move along and nothing here to to see’.
    According to the toady comrades the story has no legs,news editors want to kill the story, the media in general want to move on, the accusations are groundless and in any case there is no story, its all very boring for the BBC news team who wish to cover other more exiting scandals preferably ones implicating their political enemies 🙂 !

    See how it works? The BBC want to move on so their logic requires them to believe that the entire media wants to move onto other stories, the labour party wants to move back to its re-re-re-launch MKX111+ and its activists within the media are being ordered to move along.
    A scandal that the BBC would certainly flog to death for weeks had the target been a BBC political enemy is now barely covered at all, skated over with blinding speed and then buried. The hundreds of important questions remain ignored as the BBC devote more time to defending the accusations than to investigating them.
    So there you have perfect evidence of the dovetailing of BBC and labour narratives, tailormade and working in perfect harmony, the BBC seem to move with the labour party perfectly and so the scandal is buried by the BBC as so many other stories have been buried by the BBC.
    Another day another cover up, just another story killled by a grotesque and dishonest and bloated propaganda wing of the left.


  10. Will says:

    Mark Easton has an easy life, he usually parrots the government line on how low crime really is in the UK. Yesterday’s easy brief (per R4 midnight news) was to read out every piece of sh*t about Ms Pratt’s life & work that had been turned up by Labour spinners, irrespective of what relevence it had to the current bullying furore.


  11. George R says:

    “Is he a bully”

    (Peter Brookes cartoon)



  12. George R says:

    “A new slogan should do the trick”

    (Gerald Scarfe cartoon)



  13. George R says:

    ‘Evening Standard’ -Londoners Diary-

    “Putting Prezza on the spot”

    “JOHN Prescott nearly exploded on Newsnight trying to defend Gordon Brown against Andrew Rawnsley’s accusations of No 10 bullying. The former Deputy Prime Minister, who himself famously punched a protester in 2001, repeated the now standard stuff about Rawnsley ‘just wanting to sell books’ and The Observer ‘just trying to relaunch their newspaper’.

    “But Rawnsley hit back where he knew it would hurt. ‘And what about your wife’s recent serialisation in the Daily Mail?’ he taunted, referring to Pauline Prescott’s intimate personal revelations earlier this month. ‘And by the way, perhaps you would like to tell us how much she got paid for that?’

    An apoplectic Prezza declined the offer and was not heard from again.”



  14. Millie Tant says:

    I have to laugh at the very idea of bringing Prescott on to defend anyone from allegations of bullying. This is the “minister”, gawd ‘elp us, who thumps people and has a tawdry affair behind the filing cabinets with junior office staff. And he looked about ready to explode on the programme.

    Is that what the BBC considers a credible and suitable speaker on the subject of bullying? Is this their idea of a reliable witness? Do they see him as admirable, authoritative?  Or did they merely wish to give a platform to a combative, bullying labour government and party?


  15. Robert says:

    The Beeb, today:

    …immigration minister Phil Woolas told LBC radio: “It’s a tough business, politics. It is 18, 20 hours a day that people like the prime minister work. “I think this attack on him by this prat of a woman down in – where’s she from, Swindon? – I think that’s backfiring on her.”…”

    Nope, it is clearly totally inconceivable that it could ever be possible that any minister has ever name-called, been nasty, or otherwise made working life miserable or frightening, for subordinate staff?

    What might well also be asked: if that is what one of them is willing to blurt out in public, one can only imagine what can go on in private?

    Funny how “politics” is supposedly more rough and tumble than any other workplace.  Note, too, how, in the private sector, behaving like a martinet is totally inexcusable to this Government.  But when working for them, though, hey, whaddya know, working is “tough.”


    • John Horne Tooke says:

      “I think this attack on him by this prat of a woman down in – where’s she from, Swindon? – I think that’s backfiring on her.”…” 

      What a reply. Now that is insulting and as you say this was in public, what is he actually like in private?


    • Teddy Bear says:

      You’d think somebody with a name that sounds like Fill Wool and Arse would think twice before using somebody else’s name in a way that’s insulting. Especially for somebody who one can well imagine does just that — Sheep screwer!


  16. Millie Tant says:

    Yes, I see Phil Woolas is following the Prescott Brown school of management, laying about him like a mini Prescott and calling the whistleblower names. Nice  bunch, aren’t they?

    Of course, that advice on the government website about what to do about bullying is intended for all employees, whether in the public or private sector. Yes, it is aimed at themselves! And we have seen the photos of Brown with children, lending his support to anti-bullying campaigns in schools and the rest.  That nice Mr Brown. Hm…


  17. kitty shaw says:

    Gordon Brown is useless, inept and doomed to being voted out.

    That said the argument here is ludicrous.

    He might try to bully but he is far too weak to actually successfully bully.

    Most of the time I dislike bullying intensely, but in power it might actually be a plus as it helps to get things done. Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were bullies but they used it successfully so, I trust you are not having a go at them for that character trait.

    But worse still this “charity” is highly dubious. Your defence of their indiscretion for an anonymous line is mind boggling. All four patron have resigned, including a Conservative MP and Conservative councillor. The charity itself has now suspended it duties. The head of the charity Mrs Pratt has backed and down and admitted she had no intention of making any accusation that Gordon Brown had personally bullied anyone and would not even have been aware of such accusation. The charity has now said that Mrs Pratt will resign if need be. Just how clear do you want it. The BBC bas is perhaps they have not made this case strong enough, but instead all has gone quiet.

    And why has the BBC gone quiet? Because they see they may be on another loser. Having lost their shirt on the incompetant fictive Gilligan they do not want to go the same way for Rawnsley. And though Rawnsley may have had some points he decided to spice them up with fictional elements which he claims are 100% accurate from sources but which can be shown to be clearly provably false, such as claiming the odious Balls involvement when he was provably 200 miles away onthe day in question. Plays right into NewLabour’s spin machine hands. Woeful. But then Rawnsley is a left liberal luvvie, don’t fall for BBC lies he is attacking Brown from the right, far from it.