South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu is one of those to whom the BBC always shows great respect. That makes me suspicious of him and so it is this morning, Christmas Eve, that the BBC has been trailing Tutu claiming that South Africa had lost “moral leadership” by not taking a stand against Mugabe. Tutu goes on to claim that the use of force should be considered to remove this tyrant from power since he is persecuting his own people. Two points here; 1. Where has Tutu been for the past few decades on this issue? Zimbabwe, the bread-basket of Africa, has been systematically turned into a basket-case by the Marxist Mugabe and I can’t recall too many protest by Tutu. 2. Interesting that the BBC echoes the request by Tutu for the “international coimmunity”to consider force to topple the tyrant in power I seem to recall Tutu joining in the chorus for the “international community” NOT to use force to topple another tyrant from power. Presumably Desmond reckons the life of an Iraqi is worth less than that of African. It strikes me that Tutu is himself a moral hypocrite but the BBC will never ask any hard questions of him. The BBC have their little favourites and this elite are truly blessed at this, and indeed every other season, insofar as they can say what they want without fear of any contradiction.


Intrigued to listen to an interview on the BBC this morning that pointed out that tyrant Mugabe was cut off from “his feelings” because of a “rough childhood”. I was touched. South African journalist Heidi Holland then went on to equate Mugabe’s belligerent intransigence with the current US position on his failure to share power as explanation as to why there can be no progress here. So, even in Zimbabwe, the US is to blame, eh?


Have you noticed the shameless shilling for Prudence Brown the BBC has engaged in today? It has been leading with Prudence’s exhortation “to the world” no less to do something about the situation in Zimbabwe. Brown is full of hot air on Zimbabwe and for eleven years he has sat complacently at the heart of a government which has impassively watched Mugabe systematically destroy his own country. Yet the BBC is now presenting Brown as some sort of political dynamo behind a global effort to shift Mugabe from power.


Hats off to the United Nations, once again it has demonstrated it’s undisputed position as the world’s highest moral authority by vetoing sanctions against Zimbabwean tyrant Mugabe. The only bit that confuses me is when this repoer states that ” A BBC correspondent at the UN says the failure of the resolution will be a major blow for the United States and Britain.” Eh? Surely it will be a major blow for any nation that believes in liberty and freedom???


. Oh no – not ANOTHER post on the BBC’s coverage of Mugabe! Yes, ‘fraid so. You see until I tuned in to the BBC this morning, I did not fully appreciate that the way for the Zimbabwean tyrant to be toppled from power is to force Waitrose from trading with some small family fishing and agricultural enterprises in Zimbabwe. Peter Hain, that model of financial propriety, was on Today this morning to explain that corporate Britain should be banned from having any trading links with Zimbabwe, regardless of the misery this would have on those denied the chance to export their produce. The BBC interviewer did not demur from Hain’s line of thinking, so absolving African nations from their responsibility to isolate the tyrant and instead putting corporate Britain in the frame.


Is it just me or do you also detect that the BBC has been spinning madly wildly and deeply for Mr Brown in regard to his serial mutterings over Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Not a day goes by without some new headline on the BBC expressing the Great Leader’s “outrage” at just about everything the thug Mugabe is doing. Now don’t get me wrong, I would like to see Mugabe meet his maker right now -( in whatever way would facilitate such a meeting) – but I suspect there is a cynical hand at play here and even as Labour disintegrates in front of our eyes Brown gets fawning coverage on this issue from the BBC, He makes lot of noise about Zimbabwe whilst actually doing NOTHING of any substance. Why does the BBC not query why Labour has sat back over the past decade of Mugabe’s violence against his own people and done nothing? I suppose when it was just white farmers and their workers being ethnically cleansed and murdered there was little need for the BBC to stir from mute complacency?

I am not normally someone who fulminates about the BBC…

writes Daniel Finkelstein.

No, but we’ll listen when he does– thanks also to David Preiser who has highlighted this in the comments sections:

John Simpson hearts Mugabe

I have watched Simpson for a long time and he does seem to have a soft spot for dictators. He was once rather chummy with some of Saddam’s ministers and expressed a “sneaking regard for Saddam“.

Now he has some rather bizarre things to say about the political situation in Zimbabwe, and presents it all more as though Mugabe had won a game of chess than battered his opposition with violence.

Simpson doubtless thinks he’s being rather clever to see Mugabe’s power-politics through the haze of violence, but it comes across as apologism. One of the big things we should keep in mind regarding dictators is the mythology that surrounds them and protects them- it’s that that Mr Simpson is reporting, rather than the squalid reality. He admires Mugabe’s mythmaking, instead of reporting the reality on the ground.

Hat tip to Iain Dale too.


I think it can be safely said that the BBC views the United Nations as “the world’s highest moral authority” insofar as it’s coverage of this institutionalised vast bloated corruption is always glowing. So when the UN Security Council condemns the violence and intimidation against Zimbabwe’s opposition party, the BBC runs with this and no tough questions are posed as to what these words amount to. It also throws in a few specious lines about the brave attempts by South African President Mbeke to find a solution to the Zimbabwean nightmare . This is pathetic stuff. The UN, and Mbeke, have done NOTHING to seriously pressurise the thug Mugabe. In fact Mbeke has given years of tacit support to his Marxist pal Mugabe. What is happening in Zimbabwe demonstrates two truths which sit uneasily with Beebview. It shows the utter impotence of the UN to do anything of substance and demonstrates the callous disregard that South Africa’s President has for the suffering of those poor people under the jackboot of Mugabe.


The BBC faithfully reports that former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, one of their favourite sons, has urged African leaders to “do more” with regard to Zimbawe and Mugabe’s thuggocracy. One wonders why the BBC does not see fit to ask why Kofi himself did nothing during his years as Secretary -General? Maybe for the same reason that Annan did nothing during the Rwanda genocide and the Darfur genocide? The pious words of this morally bankrupt fool are reported by Al Beeb as if they have real moral and political meaning when in fact it is obvious that they are – unreal.