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?

Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to SHADOW BOXING.

  1. GCooper says:

    I wish I could believe that ‘Call Me Dave’ would reform the BBC. Sadly, I suspect he is so determined to keep the chattering classes from ripping out his throat (egged-on by the Beeb), that he will give them the same sort of easy ride he has given the eco-fascists.

    To be frank, I think Cameron is part of the problem. We need rid of him and the BBC.


  2. Leotards for Jebus says:


    The BBC knows that when the Tories win the next election there is a good chance that they might finally see there is an appetite from the people of this Country to see the BBC taken out and its throat slit.

    Let’s assume for another moment that that is true.

    Just how pointless on a scale of 1 – 10 do you think a strategy of falsely boosting Brown would be, especially in the face of such dismal polls for Labour?

    Then ask yourself whether it’s at all plausible that the BBC is really trying to shaft Cameron.


  3. disillusioned_german says:

    In this solemn hour it is a consolation to recall and to dwell upon our repeated efforts for peace. All have been ill-starred, but all have been faithful and sincere. This is of the highest moral value–and not only moral value, but practical value–at the present time, because the wholehearted concurrence of scores of millions of men and women, whose co-operation is indispensable and whose comradeship and brotherhood are indispensable, is the only foundation upon which the trial and tribulation of modern war can be endured and surmounted. This moral conviction alone affords that ever-fresh resilience which renews the strength and energy of people in long, doubtful and dark days. Outside, the storms of war may blow and the lands may be lashed with the fury of its gales, but in our own hearts this Sunday morning there is peace. Our hands may be active, but our consciences are at rest.

    We must not underrate the gravity of the task which lies before us or the temerity of the ordeal, to which we shall not be found unequal. We must expect many disappointments, and many unpleasant surprises, but we may be sure that the task which we have freely accepted is one not beyond the compass and the strength of the British Empire and the French Republic. The Prime Minister said it was a sad day, and that is indeed true, but at the present time there is another note which may be present, and that is a feeling of thankfulness that, if these great trials were to come upon our Island, there is a generation of Britons here now ready to prove itself not unworthy of the days of yore and not unworthy of those great men, the fathers of our land, who laid the foundations of our laws and shaped the greatness of our country.

    This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man. Perhaps it might seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty and right should require, as a necessary part of its processes, the surrender for the time being of so many of the dearly valued liberties and rights. In these last few days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of Bills which hand over to the executive our most dearly valued traditional liberties. We are sure that these liberties will be in hands which will not abuse them, which will use them for no class or party interests, which will cherish and guard them, and we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day, when our liberties and rights will be restored to us, and when we shall be able to share them with the peoples to whom such blessings are unknown.


  4. Leotards for Jebus says:

    disillusioned german:

    Oh, for goodness’ sake, it was only a football match.

    And Spain were so much better on the night.


  5. MisterMinit says:


    The BBC knows that when the Tories win the next election there is a good chance that they might finally see there is an appetite from the people of this Country to see the BBC taken out and its throat slit.

    Martin, in your opinion, how prevalent is that attitude? Do you have any research that would back that up?


  6. Cockney says:

    “No it isn’t working very well for one simple reason. The internet.”

    No chance, hardly anyone gets their ‘news’ from the internet. It isn’t working very well 1) because the credit crunch, taxes, ridiculous rules bothering people and loathsome scally kids everywhere are very real problems which are blighting people’s lives and 2) because the popular press, where people do get their news, hates Brown and is whipping it up a bit.

    One pisstake headline in the Sun making him look like an imbecile is worth 50 laudatory stories on Today or indeed 100,000 anti-‘socialist’ rants on a niche website.


  7. Cockney says:

    “Free yourself from socialist slavery, British people!”

    Blimey that’s a bit melodramatic… Can I do it tomorrow? I’ve got a lot of work on today and I quite fancy a few beers tonight.


  8. Martin says:

    I don’t agree. I think more and more people (in particular the young) do use the internet for info.

    You also have other TV news sources that can give a different opinion to the BBC.

    The main reason I said the internet is we can see things like stealth editing of their website AND that amazing story with Harrabin and the loopy green dyke. Without the internet that would probably have never been found out about.

    Regarding the BBC and its future. There is an appetite for the BBC to be slaughtered like a wild pig.

    Most people now have some form of digital TV and many don’t watch the BBC to anything like the extent they perhaps used to or their parents did.

    The BBC’s “claim” that £140 a year is good value only stands up if you watch the BBC every day.

    A basic Sky subscription is about £16 a month and I’m guessing other services (like Virgin) offer similar starter packages (you can also get a non subscription Sky service for a one off payment)

    Only the BBC still lives in the fantasy world (like our friend Hillhunt/ Colin Chase/Leotards for Jebus etc) where millions of people sit down in front of the BBC every night.

    And yes the BBC is backing Broon as they still think they are powerful enough to change the minds of people.

    The BBC is of course run by drug taking halfwits who live in their fantasy world of left wing multi cultural liberalism and don’t really care about how ordinary people feel.

    The BBC is finished, it just doesn’t know it yet.

    If the BBC is as good as the beeboids here think it is, why are they frightened of going over to a subscription based service? Won’t we all be queuing up to sign up to the £140 a year BBC?


  9. George R says:

    The BBC talks about the boycott of Zimbabwe, even though the BBC has taken the moral decision to have Al Jazeera TV as a partner in, e.g. the current example of the BBC using Al Jazeera TV coverage from inside Zimbabwe (see above 29.06.08 3:33 pm).

    The BBC should NOT use UK licence-payers’ funds to co-operate with Al Jazeera TV, which puts out Islamic propaganda like this- (‘Harry’s Place’):

    “Avoiding the issue”


  10. Simon Lote says:

    There seems to be a consensus on this blog that the BBC is trying to talk up Labour. I think thats wrong, the BBC switched it support to Cameron after he dutifully pulled out the long knives against any tory uttering vaguely conservative sentiments.

    Think of Gordon Brown is portrayed as tired, boring without charm. Cameron is young, charismatic with great ideas.

    A conservative government will merely be a continuation of the liberal left agenda by other means.

    I won’t vote the stab in the back tories, I won’t vote BNP because regardless of whether the BNP has changed it will always be tainted by its nazi past and I won’t vote UKIP because I think they are a farce.

    This will probably be the first time I will not vote on principal and simply hope for the destruction of the conservative party so that a credible conservative party will rise in its place.


  11. David Preiser (USA) says:

    George R | 30.06.08 – 5:50 pm |

    The BBC should NOT use UK licence-payers’ funds to co-operate with Al Jazeera TV, which puts out Islamic propaganda like this- (‘Harry’s Place’)

    I’m not sure this is technically funded by the license fee. The BBC made this deal to use uplinks, etc., from Al-Jazeera more than five years ago,

    It says “BBC News”, but these things are often funded in part (if not totally) by a grant from the Foreign Office. The FO generally does this sort of thing through BBC World. That would make it worse, of course, but there are so many hands in so many different pockets at the Byzantine BBC Accounting Dept. at Bush House that sometimes it’s hard to tell what starts where and ends where.

    In the case of Zimbabwe, though, I’d almost say the moral problem is worth it. Without that agreement, there wouldn’t be any coverage at all other than John Simpson’s occasional contributions.