speedking

State sponsored breaking of foreign laws ... or a justifiable means to an end.

I tend towards the former, but it wouldn't be quite so bad if the BBC didn't keep saying "We've been banned from Zimbabwe, but our man John Simpson managed to get this report out." Brave chap, but is it justifiable?

PeteBrant

Course it's justifiable.

Which part of it do you think isn't?

David Lock

Do you think that the general population of Zimbabwe would want a chap like Simpson reporting to the outside world what is really going on in their country?

I support him 200% dl

dpb

Ive no doubt some will assume he/bbc an imperilist worm in their midst - who the **** knows

Leslie

Its not State sponsored anyway! Good luck to him, his reporting might even do those poor people in that country a bit of good.

Les

speedking

Of course having independent journalists is essential. But they're not all banned are they?

An organisation has been banned from a country and then illegally places an employee in that country.

Compare to the attitude to illegal immigrants in this country.

PeteBrant

Lots of them are - Zimbabwe has extremely harsh laws controlling the media. The World Press Freedom Review stated that Zimbabwe, whils tnot being th emost dangerous place in the world for journalists, was certainly the most difficult.

Zimbabwe in is a situation that the world needs to be aware of. There is a very real risk of massive loss of life if Mugabe/The military decide to fight it out, or if the people deicde to protest violently agaisnt the run-off vote which seems increasignly likely.

The more jounalists in that part of the world, banned or not, the better.


I dont think there is a comparison to be made between media restrictions and illegal immigration.

scoobynutta555

Can anyone tell me what's the point of the 'anchor' of the news being out in Africa (not even Zimbabwe) reporting on this?

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

with you on that!

"our reporter is in South Africa..."

Really? Why? May as well be in london really! they never speak to the local government about their feelings on it. If they did that i could see the justification.

5t.

ChrisB

It's a good jolly on expenses

Luan Pra bang

Remembering that Mugabe WAS democraticaly elected. surely the people have a right to decide who is allowed entry to their country whatever the personal opinions we have is it not their own business.

SJ_Skyline

Chris you cynic! I thought he was there to report the news. You have shattered my illusions of the BBC being an independent broadcaster of the truth!

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

BBC NEWS | Africa | Confessions of a Zimbabwe torturer

Martin2005

Do me a favour, democratically elected my ****!

I can't believe he's got the bloody nerve to stand for 're-election' given the appalling state he's left his country in.

scoobian

I just got back from Zim a month or so ago after touring around.
its a VERY crazy place at the mo (and that was only with 2 million Zim$ to the US$) however the amount of propoganda that is floated around about the safety within Zim is ridiculous!....we (a girl and I ) felt VERY safe touring thru and the locals went out of their way to make us feel safe
yes there are HUGE financial problems facing the people and the country as a whole and its prolly gonna be a whole lot better for them if the Southern Black Tit is ousted (peacefully) but its in the UK's and US's interests to make it look as bad as possible over there (if for nothing else(!) than to make us all think we're having a great time over here!)
imho

Bodgit

Did anyone else almost puke when he described the pliers and genitals???

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

I've personally spoken to a number of Zimbabweans who have been tortured by Mugabe's thugs.

How Luan Pra bang can defend Mugabe given some of the posts they've written regarding the 'immoral' behaviour of UK/US government policy is beyond me.

Mugabe is a self interested worm who has raped the riches of his country, removed its capability to run and feed itself in order to line the pockets of his imbecile supporters who haven't got the intelligence to grow a packet of cress, let alone run a farm.

He has harassed, beaten, imprisoned and tortured many of those who have publicly criticised him. He has all but banned independent journalism. He has made tens of thousands homeless conducting his slum clearances - taking away what little these unfortunate people had.

Diesel

Being a few miles from Zimbabwe's border, rather than a few miles within the M25 is likely to make a journo far more tuned in and clued up. People they meet fleeing the country etc are asked questions, contacts are made etc etc.

As to the original question, good people break bad rules.

D

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Plus there are thousands of Zimbabweans living in South Africa due to harassment from Zanu-PF members.

Luan Pra bang

I don't remember defending his actions. I have very close contact with families in Zimbabwe and I know better than most about whats going on there but remember that many people go back there for hollidays every year and have a great time living the life of luxury. All of which is irrevlevant. Many people, me included think George Bush stole the election and is also guilty of a mass of crimes against humanity but he still has a right to choose who he lets into his country.

Suresh

Let me guess - you also believe that Zim is in the state it is because of the West?




P.S. Bush did steal his first presidency, but not the second one.

dpb

More specifically commonwealth expulsion ..!

scoobynutta555

There's obviously a need for the reporter to be as close to the story as possible. What I have said is what's the need for the 'anchor' to be there asking the reporter questions he could have asked in the main studio.

A good example was that bloke on ITV being in SA doing a very poor interview with Tutu who was miles away from the 'anchor'. In fact he looked a clueless muppet without an autocue in front of him.

Luan Pra bang

The white population of zim treated the blacks like slaves they thought it might last for ever they were wrong. The inevitable backlash has cost the country dearly because the blacks forgot one thing. They did not have the education or knowledge to run the country and now its fcuked.

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...-zimbabwe.html

David Lock

That's only partly true. Yes the white rule did go on far too long but the fact is that many blacks working on white farms had a better life than those working for black employers. They had stability. a home, food and even education for their children. And the country was a net exporter of food.

But some, like Mugabe, were so bitter that instead of a gradual change over a generation or more they made disastrous decisions like burning the big farmhouses and putting war veterans in to run the farms. And what was that slum clearance all about??

Don't be taken in. Mugabe has been a complete and utter disaster.

If there is to be a new Government and President they have a hell of a job on their hands. dl

dpb

The land was promised to be given back to the indigenous population by Mugabe when he came into office ..!!

- and only delivered in a dreadful panic over the last 8 years or so

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

I just love the way that there is lightly vailed support for the theft of privately owned farms and quite often, the murder of the Zimbabwean Farmers and farm hands, just because they happened to be white or worked for whites.

Just to make sure I've got the - White Zimbabweans arn't as Zimbabwean as Black Zimbabweans, but Black British are just as British as White British? (or indeed any non-indigenous population in any other country).

Right. Now theres a nice bit of liberal hypocracy for you.

When South Africa had apartheid and mistreated Black South Africans, people protested outside the South African embassies world wide. Yet when Mugabe did the same to white Zimbabweans - the same do-gooders stood by saying they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Quite frankly - I think thats ****ed up.

One day there will be one rule for all - regardless what colour you happen to be. Won't that be nice?

Diesel

That post really made me think! However it is unfortunately fundamentally flawed.

Africans have never imperially colonised the UK or taken any dominance or position of power or governance over the indigenous population (that feat has only been achieved internally between the tribes!). AFAIK Rhodesians (sic) havent had white proletariat as slaves for them on turkey farms formed from half of Norfolk?

The fact that these Africans on a moral and practical level treat each other worse than the whities (who were there for economic exploitative benefit) is truly saddening, but doesn't validate what you are saying.

I still like the sentiment of your last line, but there is an awful lot of catch-up to be played yet...

D

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

So a few hundred years of history justifies the treatment of a section of the Zimbabwean population?

Mind you - its not the first time that several hundred years of colonial history has been used as an excuse for genocide - look at Rwanda, and that was blacks vs. blacks just because one side got on with the Belgians.. Not that I expect many of the idiots who were hacking off peoples limbs actually knew that.

I just hardly think that its fair to hold a group of people responsible for the acts carried out hundreds of years ago. Even if people want to criticise how Rhodesia/Zimbabwe was ran in the past, Mugabe has raped the country in order to line the pockets of himself and his supporters in a way that I'm sure Queen Victoria would consider to be a little over the top.

If we are going to justify the punishment of a racial group based upon the history of their government - it looks like Sub-Saharan Africa should be handed back to the old colonial powers tomorrow.