Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

LSE students union on Panorama: "BBC used LSE students as a human shield" watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    They were perfectly safe at all times. North Korea is one of the safest places on earth to visit as a tourist since they can't risk any harm coming to tourists. All this fuss from the students is OTT to be honest.
    Yeah but is it one of the safest places for a group of tourists harbouring an undercover Western journalist? NK doesn't take kindly to the sneaky types.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    They were perfectly safe at all times. North Korea is one of the safest places on earth to visit as a tourist since they can't risk any harm coming to tourists. All this fuss from the students is OTT to be honest.
    :lol:

    Must be joking.

    On the programme, didn't really offer much. Just felt like a platform for Sweeney to continous spout out "NK bad, NK Nazi...."

    The hospital scene where he mentioned how they're not fools and wanted the see a patient- I was expecting him to be arrested or something.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    Yeah but is it one of the safest places for a group of tourists harbouring an undercover Western journalist? NK doesn't take kindly to the sneaky types.
    Yes, that's the well known one, although they entered covertly without a visa.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    Yeah but is it one of the safest places for a group of tourists harbouring an undercover Western journalist? NK doesn't take kindly to the sneaky types.
    Sure the journalists were in danger, but the students weren't. They weren't harbouring them, they just happened to be with them.

    (Original post by 419)
    :lol:
    Must be joking.
    It's true, how many tourists do you know that have been arrested there? The answer is very few. Those who have have been released and deported pretty quickly without being harmed. Undercover journalists in danger, yes, tourists...nope.

    There's no risk of crime towards tourists because civilians know if they did ANYTHING to harm them, they'd disappear along with their families.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    Sure the journalists were in danger, but the students weren't. They weren't harbouring them, they just happened to be with them.
    In my opinion, if the journalist was uncovered, the paranoid, virulently anti-Western military dictatorship government would have no qualms about holding the students hostage as well. They aren't exactly big on human rights.

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Yes, that's the well known one, although they entered covertly without a visa.
    Yeah but that was 2009; now we've got Kim Jong Un trying to prove himself on the world stage.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    It's true, how many tourists do you know that have been arrested there? The answer is none. Undercover journalists, yes, tourists...nope.

    There's no risk of crime towards tourists because civilians know if they did ANYTHING to harm them, they'd disappear along with their families.
    They weren't allowed to go near the civilians. And they were under constant survelliance, any movement that's against rules impossed on them, possibly sent to camp 14.

    Not really utopia tbh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    In my opinion, if the journalist was uncovered, the paranoid, virulently anti-Western military dictatorship government would have no qualms about holding the students hostage as well. They aren't exactly big on human rights.
    No but they are big on their image, and holding tourists hostage is not a good look for them. Yeah I know they're sabre rattling with the nuke thing, but the way the Kim's think, that's not a bad thing. Holding westerners hostage, they see that as bad press.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    No but they are big on their image, and holding tourists hostage is not a good look for them. Yeah I know they're sabre rattling with the nuke thing, but the way the Kim's think, that's not a bad thing. Holding westerners hostage, they see that as bad press.
    Yeah perhaps they'd want to preserve some credibility. Although I never really had them down as too focused on the long term.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    Yeah perhaps they'd want to preserve some credibility. Although I never really had them down as too focused on the long term.
    That's the problem with applying logic to DPRK thinking, you can't. The only goal they have is keeping Kim Jong <insert name here> in power and the population controlled. The ways they go about that can seem totally nuts to outsiders.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    Yeah perhaps they'd want to preserve some credibility. Although I never really had them down as too focused on the long term.
    Within their narrow frame of reference, they are, at least to some extent - their sole aim is the survival of the regime and the present ruling circles. What we interpret as 'mad posturing' is in fact seen as a shrewd policy by them, since in the past they have obtained multiple concessions and extra supplies by doing it.

    The principal players, China, Russia, SK, the US and Japan, all seem much more determined this time to not give way to their tantrums, so they are more up against the wall; it sounds like things are very bad in every way in the country, with a total lack of productivity, food and trade - the only real employment seems to be the army and weaponry.

    A very unpredictable situation and yes, the regime does now appear to have a definite and expiring shelf life - the question is, in what further ways will they lash out?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Within their narrow frame of reference, they are, at least to some extent - their sole aim is the survival of the regime and the present ruling circles. What we interpret as 'mad posturing' is in fact seen as a shrewd policy by them, since in the past they have obtained multiple concessions and extra supplies by doing it.

    The principal players, China, Russia, SK, the US and Japan, all seem much more determined this time to not give way to their tantrums, so they are more up against the wall; it sounds like things are very bad in every way in the country, with a total lack of productivity, food and trade - the only real employment seems to be the army and weaponry.

    A very unpredictable situation and yes, the regime does now appear to have a definite and expiring shelf life - the question is, in what further ways will they lash out?
    I think if the rest of the world refuses to give concessions then it will be a very interesting situation. I agree with you that there's a (mad) method in their madness, and undoubtedly they are looking for aid and probably recognition as a nuclear power. If they don't get it then I wonder if they'll just keep cranking up the brinkmanship, because those around Un must be aware that if the rockets fly they aren't exactly going to come out on top. Although I had heard that defecting army officials strongly believe that their troops are armed to the teeth with state-of-the-art kit. All part of the indoctrination I guess.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Thought people might like Scott Adams' take on the NK missile threat.

    http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000...2304.strip.gif
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The people suggesting the BBC's behaviour was acceptable and this fuss is for nothing don't know what they're talking about. Complaints have come from multiple students on the trip as well as at least one parent. There are conflicting accounts but it is clear that the BBC acted deceptively. The school itself was not informed of the trip and the students were only told "a journalist" would be going with them.

    As for John Sweeney, he didn't just join the trip but told North Korean authorities he was a PhD student at the LSE and even went as far as to give an address and office on campus which belonged to a genuine LSE academic. If his subterfuge was uncovered before they left North Korea he could have put the students on the trip in serious danger.

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    One could be a complete cynic and wonder if the BBC and LSE acted in cahoots and kicked up a bit of a ****storm so as to publicize both the programme and the university? As if they would stoop so low.
    What a silly suggestion. Aside from the dangerous situation the students were put in the reason the LSE is so upset is because this documentary hugely compromises the position of LSE academics, who carry out research all over the world in often politically sensitive areas. Their ability to travel to these countries and work relatively freely is because of LSE's reputation and it's obvious that an event like this could seriously undermines the school's academic integrity.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arakasi 2.0)

    What a silly suggestion. Aside from the dangerous situation the students were put in the reason the LSE is so upset is because this documentary hugely compromises the position of LSE academics, who carry out research all over the world in often politically sensitive areas. Their ability to travel to these countries and work relatively freely is because of LSE's reputation and it's obvious that an event like this could seriously undermines the school's academic integrity.
    Is that the same 'academic integrity' that had them arranging a special place for Gaddafi's son, passing him through the course without proper marking and accepting large sums from his Dad?

    There's an excellent piece about Sir Peter Sutherland, chairman of LSE, who was particularly strident about this during the week, in today's Private Eye. As chairman of BP, he was full of praise for Gaddafi at his birthplace in Sirte, Libya, in 2007, to welcome the deal BP did with the dictator. He was later warned of the reputational risk to LSE of accepting Libyan money (presumably stolen at some point from the people of Libya) but ignored it.

    Sutherland also made his mark at BP by choosing Tony Hayward, later named 'the most loathed man in America' for his bizarre mishandling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

    Last but not least, the LSE Chairman was a non-Exec on the board of RBS all the way up to its collapse, in which role he did, er, nothing to speak out about the madness at the bank.

    Sounds like LSE have a good one there! It's good to hear his views on the BBC's ethics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Is that the same 'academic integrity' that had them arranging a special place for Gaddafi's son, passing him through the course without proper marking and accepting large sums from his Dad?

    There's an excellent piece about Sir Peter Sutherland, chairman of LSE, who was particularly strident about this during the week, in today's Private Eye. As chairman of BP, he was full of praise for Gaddafi at his birthplace in Sirte, Libya, in 2007, to welcome the deal BP did with the dictator. He was later warned of the reputational risk to LSE of accepting Libyan money (presumably stolen at some point from the people of Libya) but ignored it.

    Sutherland also made his mark at BP by choosing Tony Hayward, later named 'the most loathed man in America' for his bizarre mishandling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

    Last but not least, the LSE Chairman was a non-Exec on the board of RBS all the way up to its collapse, in which role he did, er, nothing to speak out about the madness at the bank.

    Sounds like LSE have a good one there! It's good to hear his views on the BBC's ethics.
    I really don't see how any of that is relevant. The fact of the matter is that LSE academics are allowed to carry out research in certain countries solely because the school's academic reputation means that their integrity is taken for granted. Trust is absolutely crucial because a lot of these countries are highly suspicious of independent academic work and events like this seriously undermine the school's ability to carry out legitimate research. Do you think North Korea will allow any LSE academics back into the country anytime soon?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arakasi 2.0)
    I really don't see how any of that is relevant. The fact of the matter is that LSE academics are allowed to carry out research in certain countries solely because the school's academic reputation means that their integrity is taken for granted. Trust is absolutely crucial because a lot of these countries are highly suspicious of independent academic work and events like this seriously undermine the school's ability to carry out legitimate research. Do you think North Korea will allow any LSE academics back into the country anytime soon?
    It's relevant because the alleged threat to academic research is a huge exaggeration and (it looks as if it is) a politicized attack on the BBC from a notoriously right-wing institution headed by a man with a strong agenda for attacking the BBC, given the hammering applied to LSE over the Gaddafi affair by the Beeb and other media.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arakasi 2.0)
    Aside from the dangerous situation the students were put in the reason the LSE is so upset is because this documentary hugely compromises the position of LSE academics
    You said yourself that the students knew a journalist would be with them. It's not as if they weren't informed at all. The all still went on the trip and therefore accepted that there was a risk. If they were really that outraged they wouldn't have gone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting development.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22196971
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't actually think the footage they've got is worth the risk! Nothing new was revealed, a decent documentary but to warrant such risks I feel they should have found something more incriminating
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    Interesting development.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22196971
    That is interesting. It's becoming clearer now that LSE management are the people who've blown this story up, for reasons that are conceivably little to do with the ostensible damage to academic rights of visitation and more to do with a desire to have a bash at the BBC.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 18, 2013
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.