Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Have we done Mugabe in prominent WHO role yet?
  • Premier Icon deviant
    Free Member

    I hope it was a spoof, to be honest it read just like one those ‘the Onion’ stories that float about taking the proverbial out of current affairs….but no, on further checking my source it turned out to be the BBC, not that it makes much difference these days, they’re all as bad as each other and carrying a deafening agenda ‘alongsiide’ the news.

    Anyway, the clown, despot, dictator, murderer etc has been given a role at the WHO….jesus Wept I hope it isn’t paid or they’ll have a job balancing the books next year.

    If international politics is so bad that this was given serious thought (and then carried through!) then why for the love of God does the uk continue to fund these joke organisations!?

    Premier Icon cranberry
    Free Member

    It takes amazingly brazen corruption for this to happen, sadly it won’t be the last time.

    Premier Icon Del
    Full Member

    Yes, rather amazed by this. Way to damage an organisation I would say.

    Premier Icon bikebouy
    Free Member

    F’arse.

    Premier Icon martinhutch
    Free Member

    WHO is being pragmatic. Mugabe is a dictator that controls access to outside health programmes and organisations for his considerable population. The WHO wants to meet certain targets for disease prevention and control in his part of Africa, because it will save many thousands of lives. If sucking up and flattering Mugabe with some honorary role is what it takes, it’s worth it.

    The WHO boycotting Mugabe and calling him a **** doesn’t hurt Mugabe, it potentially hurts his people.

    Premier Icon deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    But I’m angry with the WHO.
    And the BBC.
    And us funding international organisations.
    And FakeNews.
    Don’t be bothering me with the practicalities of getting shit done FFS.

    Premier Icon jambalaya
    Free Member

    An absolute disgrace and sadly just another example of how the UN has totally lost it’s way (WHO is a UN agency)

    Premier Icon jam-bo
    Full Member

    An absolute disgrace and sadly just another example of how the UN has totally lost it’s way (WHO is a UN agency)

    Are we leaving that now too?

    Premier Icon leffeboy
    Full Member

    Yep. There has been some dealing going on here that we can’t see but its still difficult to understand 🙁

    Premier Icon deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    An absolute disgrace and sadly just another example of how the UN has totally lost it’s way

    Easy on the adverbs there chuck. They are the tool of a weak writer.

    Premier Icon MrWoppit
    Free Member

    Have we done Mugabe in prominent WHO role yet?

    Somebody should.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    martinhutch makes an interesting point that I hadn’t thought of in my instant outrage, to be fair

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Full Member

    Most unbelievable appointment since Blair became peace envoy to the Middle East.

    Premier Icon Junkyard
    Free Member

    what martin said they did it because it will save lives and some of us still care about that more than “punishing” him.

    Premier Icon somafunk
    Full Member

    One of a handful of folk in the world who i’d have absolutely no qualms about placing a gun in his mouth and blowing the back of his head off (had friends out in zimbabwe who lost their farm and were raped n’ burnt by his henchmen throughout the land grabs)

    Premier Icon tomhoward
    Full Member

    Previous appointments to a similar role include Wonder Woman (genuinely) so I can’t see this being a major issue, despite how disappointing it is.

    Premier Icon Tom_W1987
    Free Member

    What Martin said. With that said…

    Dr Tedros, who is Ethiopian, is the first African to lead the WHO . He was elected in May with a mandate to tackle perceived politicisation in the organisation.

    lol #TIA

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Full Member

    It’s been revoked

    Premier Icon mikey74
    Free Member

    WHO is being pragmatic. Mugabe is a dictator that controls access to outside health programmes and organisations for his considerable population. The WHO wants to meet certain targets for disease prevention and control in his part of Africa, because it will save many thousands of lives. If sucking up and flattering Mugabe with some honorary role is what it takes, it’s worth it.

    The WHO boycotting Mugabe and calling him a **** doesn’t hurt Mugabe, it potentially hurts his people.

    I get that, but do you honestly think making him an ambassador would change anything in Zimbabwe? Dream on. People have tried the “let’s bring him in from the cold” thing before and he’s remained as corrupt and dictatorial as ever.

    The appointment was no less than a complete disgrace. The fact they’ve now reneged on it just proves how incompetent these people are.

    Premier Icon bikebouy
    Free Member

    Didn’t the WHO state “they’d listened to the reasoned arguments and comments and decided to revoke the appointment”

    Could have saved a bucket load of time and money by listeneing to the same voices before the appointment.

    Pathetic.

    Premier Icon dragon
    Free Member

    The new guy at the top of WHO was partially put there by Mugabe, so this was what he got in return. Unfortunate for Mugabe sounds like behind the scenes a few countries suggested they might reduce WHO’s funding unless Mugabe was dumped. And that is his we got to where we are.

    Premier Icon martinhutch
    Free Member

    The appointment was no less than a complete disgrace. The fact they’ve now reneged on it just proves how incompetent these people are.

    I’m coming around to the incompetent/corrupt assessment of the appointment now!

    Still think it’s important to engage with scumbag regimes like Mugabe’s when it comes to stuff like public health, however distasteful it may be. Some of these programmes to beat malaria etc are hard enough to implement without some bitter despot getting in the way of NGOs and making it harder to reach the people who need assistance.

    Premier Icon bikebouy
    Free Member

    Absolutely….
    How can you just sit by watching your own countries subjects die when there are cures..

    Pathetic.

    Premier Icon Tom_W1987
    Free Member

    Ahhh well, the west will probably be accused of patriarchal colonial attitudes by various corrupt actors, now that it put pressure on the WHO.

    The brazen corruotion that comes out of Africa, really does make me laugh sometimes.

    Premier Icon onehundredthidiot
    Free Member

    WHO have had a good old fashioned think about it and changed their minds. Apparently he’s not a nice man.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)

The topic ‘Have we done Mugabe in prominent WHO role yet?’ is closed to new replies.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.