The Student Room Group

Dalai Lama says...

The Dalai Lama has said refugees should return to home and help rebuild their countries as "Europe belongs to Europeans".


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7248455/dalai-lama-europe-refugees-rebuild-countries/

The point is: had he put the boot in Trump and it would be all over that mainstream media. As it is, it was impossible to find any mention of it on the BBC, after a short search. Try it yourselves if you like, good luck.

Again, had he criticized Trump and it would be all over their news bulletins. Together with all others (Guardian, Independent, could find no mention whatsoever from them) that exercise their editorial option on whether this fits their political narrative or not.

Of course this got very little coverage, that's the whole point. A blackout by the Indy...

https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/DalaiLama

by the Guardian...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/china+dalailama

and by our dear BBC, naturally. Not in the public interest.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cdl8n2edewzt/dalai-lama
(edited 5 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
What point are you trying to make exactly? Or are you just trying to put out another sob story about how the big mean media is being unfair to trumpykins again?
Original post by Napp
What point are you trying to make exactly?


That the BBC are politically aligned with the Guardian and the Indy and their promoting of the open-borders immigration policy, obviously. It's nothing new, BBC 3 could be moved to the Guardian's site and nobody would notice but they really shouldn't evidence their political tendencies in this blatant way.

it's gone to the dogs, the BBC. It really has.
Reply 3
Original post by zhog
That the BBC are politically aligned with the Guardian and the Indy and their promoting of the open-borders immigration policy, obviously. It's nothing new, BBC 3 could be moved to the Guardian's site and nobody would notice but they really shouldn't evidence their political tendencies in this blatant way.

it's gone to the dogs, the BBC. It really has.


A conspiracy then is what you're driving at then? Assuming there was one, which one politely doubts, what exactly do you suppose they should be doing instead then? Bending over for His orangeness Trump or?
Original post by Napp
A conspiracy then is what you're driving at then? Assuming there was one, which one politely doubts, what exactly do you suppose they should be doing instead then? Bending over for His orangeness Trump or?


Nah, for them to be political neutral would do me. It would take too long to explain the concept to a Guardianista, never mind.

It was the feminist takeover that sent them into overdrive, they think they were put on this earth to change the world,
Reply 5
Original post by zhog
Nah, for them to be political neutral would do me. It would take too long to explain the concept to a Guardianista, never mind.

We'rent you recently bashing me for reading RT? Surely you cant stomp up and down for me notionally reading both? [I do not buy the guardian at any rate]

It was the feminist takeover that sent them into overdrive, they think they were put on this earth to change the world,

Uhuh...
Reply 6
Perhaps the BBC haven't reported on it because there is no way to independently verify it?

There doesn't seem to be any transcripts or videos, only reports from the gutter trash press and heavily biased sites like Brietbart. The only actual, verifyable quote I could find comes from the Dalai Lama's own website, and does not include the "Europe belongs to the Europeans" bit:

Recently large numbers of refugees, many from the Middle East, have fled to Europe in fear for their lives. They have been given shelter and support, but the long-term solution should include providing training and education, particularly for their children, so they can return to rebuild their own countries when peace has been restored.


It could be they're being deliberately selecive to gloss over a controversial point, of course.

But anyway, there's definitely an evidence gap here, and the BBC has pretty stringent rules about printing stuff without any credible validation.

The other more cynical point is that the Dalai Lama has likely managed to annoy both political tribes with his speech - calling both for refugees to be taken in without question, and also for them to be ousted and sent home to "rebuild". So neither side wants to actually report on it, hence the story's absence in most of the MSM. Also it was a speech at a university in Sweden, so it isn't a very UK-centric story to begin with.
Original post by Dez
Perhaps the BBC haven't reported on it because there is no way to independently verify it?


Of course there is a way, you yourself have managed to find a credible link to his words in Sweden. Did you manage to find anything at all on those from the BBC? Of course not, it goes against the political narrative of the open-borders camp and their media outlets. That is why you can't find anything, this feeble excuse that it was only the Mail, the Sun and Breitbart has only got that much mileage to it. You have to look them up sometimes to know what is being swept under the carpet by the leftist media, you know?
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by zhog
Of course there is a way, you yourself have managed to find a credible link to his words in Sweden. Did you manage to find anything at all on those from the BBC? Of course not, it goes against the political narrative of the open-borders camp and their media outlets. That is why you can't find anything, this feeble excuse that it was only the Mail, the Sun and Breitbart has only got that much mileage to it. You have to look them up sometimes to know what is being swept under the carpet by the leftist media, you know?


Did you actually read my post? The quote going around those trashy "news" websites has no basis to it at all, at least none that I can find.

Also "leftist media"? Gimme a break. You mean those famously left-leaning media outlets like the Times and Telegraph, neither of which have reported on this story either?
Original post by Dez
Did you actually read my post? The quote going around those trashy "news" websites has no basis to it at all, at least none that I can find.



if you're going to stick to that line forget it, there are several sites reporting his speech in Malmo. So what if the Times and the Telegraph opted out too, they have their own agendas as well. Don't bother insisting he never said what is reported, I'm satisfied that he did.

What sites do you trust so much then? Name one that could be safely expected to report it that didn't. The Guardian's?
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Dez
Did you actually read my post? The quote going around those trashy "news" websites has no basis to it at all, at least none that I can find.

Also "leftist media"? Gimme a break. You mean those famously left-leaning media outlets like the Times and Telegraph, neither of which have reported on this story either?


It would have been interesting though, to discuss the statement itself, whatever it has really been stated or not.

Running away from an area affected by some serious political problem is not a long-term solution.
If he did say that then he should be ashamed of himself. The world belongs to everyone and everything that lives in it.
I personally would have to agree. I feel as though a lot of refugees coming into Europe may not be here due to genuine threat, considering most have past through one or two safe countries to get here in the first place (e.g. turkey). When you then consider that the majority of refugees who settle in Europe are fighting age males, this does make me wonder why on earth they would rather come to our country instead of remaining in theirs to help develop and support their own countries.

I feel as though it would be much more productive for Europe to financially support these countries themselves, as opposed to taking away their potential workforce.

Source: Pew Research (2013) http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/08/02/4-asylum-seeker-demography-young-and-male/
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by akbar0123
If he did say that then he should be ashamed of himself. The world belongs to everyone and everything that lives in it.


Israel and the Gulf states would beg to differ.
Original post by akbar0123
If he did say that then he should be ashamed of himself. The world belongs to everyone and everything that lives in it.


So I presume you don’t lock your door? After all the world (on which your house is situated) belongs to everyone.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by akbar0123
If he did say that then he should be ashamed of himself. The world belongs to everyone and everything that lives in it.


Make an intellectual experiment:

Imagine that in WWII, Poles and Soviets don't give a stand to IIIrd Reich, and all flee somewhere, eg. outside Europe.

Even if there was no-war related problems now, you can't have masses of population moving from countries that are very much underdeveloped, to the developed countries. Even if those masses were compatible in terms of culture (which they are not, at least a significant part of them) and they were qualified well enough for the needs of developed markets (which they are most often not either) it would cause a very serious economical problems in the developed countries, such as rapid growth of uneployment and rapdily rising prices of houses, flats and rents.

The world needs balance. Of course, it is good to help those who need help, and some imigration may be beneficial, especially if somebody who migrates to another country, has something to offer to the country's economy and society; at least a will to work, and adapt to how the society and the country works.
Otherwise you may expect huge problems of all kinds. Unemployment, homelessness, cultural conflicts, banditism, riots, rise of nationalism among native citizens who work hard for their country and see that lots of their tax money goes to people who havent contributed to the country or society.
Original post by Underscore__
So I presume you don’t lock your door? After all the world (on which your house is situated) belongs to everyone.

There is a big difference between entire nations and someone’s private property. You can own a house, you can’t own a country.
Original post by akbar0123
You can own a house, you can’t own a country.


Nations own their countries. That's why individuals feel it makes sense to pay taxes or sacrifice their lives at (non-religious) war. For example a defensive war.
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 18
Original post by zhog
if you're going to stick to that line forget it, there are several sites reporting his speech in Malmo. So what if the Times and the Telegraph opted out too, they have their own agendas as well. Don't bother insisting he never said what is reported, I'm satisfied that he did.


Without a primary source to check there is no way to actually verify the quote. I'm not saying it's a lie, chances are it isn't but if we're going off why it hasn't been reported in a particular news site, well, that's going to be a major reason why.

Original post by zhog
What sites do you trust so much then? Name one that could be safely expected to report it that didn't. The Guardian's?


I don't fully trust any news website really. If you rely on a single source for news you're bound to end up with a narrow viewpoint.

Original post by PTMalewski
It would have been interesting though, to discuss the statement itself, whatever it has really been stated or not.


Well I was replying to OP who doesn't seem interested in discussing the statement either, they'd rather just bash the BBC for their imagined crimes against neutrality.
Original post by Dez


Well I was replying to OP who doesn't seem interested in discussing the statement either, they'd rather just bash the BBC for their imagined crimes against neutrality.


I don't watch BBC much enough to see if that's true or not, but from what I watch I get an opinion that maybe it's not perfect it's still one of the most neutral media companies.

Quick Reply

Latest