Live Aid

8 Mar 2010

Charity begins at home in my book.
Sorry, but it's just the way I am - always the cynic wink

I didn't give anything to the Haiti fund either. How can you ever be sure you are not just lining someone's pockets who are less deserving. How is it that the charities always seem to have nice offices and big expense accounts?
I'm not in the least surprised to read that the band-aid money was misplaced tbh.

8 Mar 2010

Agreed GNV.
Charity does begin at home and I have no faith whatsoever that the money raised for overseas projects, ever actually gets to where it was intended.
Only foreign Governments and their armies seem to gain from a lot of it.
I look after my own first, then the people in this country second, and then others third...which is a bit of a way down the list.

8 Mar 2010

Quote by varca
Well done to the Media again We will find now that when the next big disaster happens people will think more and more like the opinions posted here and not give. This story is based on the word of two former rebels and I quote "Both Mr Aregawi and Mr Gebremedhin fell out with the TPLF leadership and fled the country" What better way to try and destabilise an already fragile country and it's government than to make such claims. I may be wrong and I sincerely hope that what is claimed did not happen but I do wish the media would back up their stories with hard evidence rather than the word of two men who it appears have axes to grind.
I would still give as as Kaz says I feel that the magnitude of disasters would outweigh my concern

... but that is the point both kent and I are making... to whom are you giving??

8 Mar 2010

I give to disaster relief. I do not give to the on going demands of charity that only do the same work each year and prompt up systems that encourage cash crops on large scale and do not produce food for the local population. Even if those crops are food.
...and yes I do by fair trade. Trade not charity.

8 Mar 2010

Quote by varca
Well done to the Media again We will find now that when the next big disaster happens people will think more and more like the opinions posted here and not give. This story is based on the word of two former rebels and I quote "Both Mr Aregawi and Mr Gebremedhin fell out with the TPLF leadership and fled the country" What better way to try and destabilise an already fragile country and it's government than to make such claims. I may be wrong and I sincerely hope that what is claimed did not happen but I do wish the media would back up their stories with hard evidence rather than the word of two men who it appears have axes to grind.
I would still give as as Kaz says I feel that the magnitude of disasters would outweigh my concern

... but that is the point both kent and I are making... to whom are you giving??
I agree but you have to have some kind of faith that it gets to those that need it. Stories like this will make people question that and think twice about giving and then who suffers
The same people suffering in the first place.. because they never received the aid bought and paid for by donors!
Witness the Haiti aid. Millions of dollars worth of it rotting on the airport apron - some of rotting before it was ever loaded on a ship or aircraft. That which did get through was hijacked by and large by the gangs.
This is no different to what has gone on for years. I can think of other ways of appeasing any guilt held by those who have about those who have not.
I can provide my Swiss bank account number on request :grin:

8 Mar 2010

I give and have given for years, to Cancer research in the UK.
I know my money gets there and it treats the very people I want MY money to go too.
Sorry until they give me proper assurances as to where my money goes to when going abroad, then I will not give anything.
What other people do is up to them, but like the Live Aid money....in the long term did it really make a jot of difference? Short term yes...but long term?
I feel sorry for the Earthquake victims I really do but...charity begins at home in my house, and as it is MY money then I will decide where I send it.
I give to Children in need....what a wonderful charity that is and goes to the children over here. That may sound a bit heartless to some but once again it is my money and I will deem it fit to give it to charities over here.

8 Mar 2010

I support a children's hospice and a couple of other UK charities myself when I am able to - cannot help but think that as sad as these international causes are, that we have to be realistic with what we can spare here as individuals. Also, I do believe that there is corruption in most of these countries and a lot of aid does not get through as it should. To conclude, I think that international disasters such as earthquakes should be government issues not individuals.
Plim :sad:

9 Mar 2010

Is anyone realy suprised?

10 Mar 2010

Quote by browning
Is anyone realy suprised?

Did anyone really believe this dreadful BBC report in the first place? Bob Geldof has buried this report in a couple of excellent BBC articles. As Varca pointed out above, the BBC, in an act of wilfull stupidity, found two disgruntled former rebels with an axe to grind, and ran the story without nay corroboration or evidence. As journalism goes it was simply awful.

10 Mar 2010

This whole African aid thing has been going on since europeans first set foot there. there has only been partial development of the continent. It is consistently stalled by the geographical constraints, sickness, tribal wars, climate etc. Its unlikely to develop in the way we would imagine.
Its not surprising that the money bought weapons. The gun is everything in africa, it gets you anything you want easily.
Also many of the people you see as 'homeless' are part of a vast group of people known as the bayeye. who are already homeless living in effect a nomadic lifestyle; wearing modern clothes and carrying modern tools. this is how they live on the move from area to area.

11 Mar 2010

Quote by duncanlondon
This whole African aid thing has been going on since europeans first set foot there. there has only been partial development of the continent. It is consistently stalled by the geographical constraints, sickness, tribal wars, climate etc. Its unlikely to develop in the way we would imagine.
Its not surprising that the money bought weapons. The gun is everything in africa, it gets you anything you want easily.
Also many of the people you see as 'homeless' are part of a vast group of people known as the bayeye. who are already homeless living in effect a nomadic lifestyle; wearing modern clothes and carrying modern tools. this is how they live on the move from area to area.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but I'll ask you this. Besides a poor quality BBC piece that's hotly disputed, have you seen any evidence for the assertions that BBC piece made?

11 Mar 2010

I give to any Air Ambulance collectors I see......And thats it.....

12 Mar 2010

Quote by Steve
I give to any Air Ambulance collectors I see......And thats it.....

A whole different thread I fear Steve, but I am extremely sad that the Air Ambulance Units throughout the UK have to beg for public subscription to keep them in the air doing the vital work they do.

12 Mar 2010

Quote by awayman
This whole African aid thing has been going on since europeans first set foot there. there has only been partial development of the continent. It is consistently stalled by the geographical constraints, sickness, tribal wars, climate etc. Its unlikely to develop in the way we would imagine.
Its not surprising that the money bought weapons. The gun is everything in africa, it gets you anything you want easily.
Also many of the people you see as 'homeless' are part of a vast group of people known as the bayeye. who are already homeless living in effect a nomadic lifestyle; wearing modern clothes and carrying modern tools. this is how they live on the move from area to area.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but I'll ask you this. Besides a poor quality BBC piece that's hotly disputed, have you seen any evidence for the assertions that BBC piece made?
That's usually the kind of thing that Europeans expect to see. A nice cleaned up space with a building on it, new fields where agriculture is thriving and happy healthy people going about an industrious life. This kind of 'progress' often appears as evidence that it had been attempted or abandoned. The kind of problems I mentioned above all too often reoccur.
So with that kind of result its difficult to prove or disprove that the money was used in any other way than what it was intended for. It may well have been spent on a failed idea or plan, it may well have been used for weapons. The outward appearance of african life remains the same in either case.
You can pour money into Africa for centuries and it is very likely to continue being as it is now. Digging wells and small scale projects like that are the kind of level of progress that one can expect to be reasonably successful in Africa. But that isn't progress to a European.
Also Europeans may think they know what's good for Africa. But Africans themselves know what does and doesn't work in their own country, probably better then Europeans do, so they use the money how they see fit. Often that is simply to rebuild their small armies. that would be the more likely place to look for evidence that the money was spent there.

12 Mar 2010

Quote by GnV
I give to any Air Ambulance collectors I see......And thats it.....

A whole different thread I fear Steve, but I am extremely sad that the Air Ambulance Units throughout the UK have to beg for public subscription to keep them in the air doing the vital work they do.
They prefer it that way.......If they were local authority funded then they would be at the beck and call of local authorities where as being public funded gives them more freedom...
Thats what I'm told anyway.....

12 Mar 2010

Quote by duncanlondon
This whole African aid thing has been going on since europeans first set foot there. there has only been partial development of the continent. It is consistently stalled by the geographical constraints, sickness, tribal wars, climate etc. Its unlikely to develop in the way we would imagine.
Its not surprising that the money bought weapons. The gun is everything in africa, it gets you anything you want easily.
Also many of the people you see as 'homeless' are part of a vast group of people known as the bayeye. who are already homeless living in effect a nomadic lifestyle; wearing modern clothes and carrying modern tools. this is how they live on the move from area to area.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but I'll ask you this. Besides a poor quality BBC piece that's hotly disputed, have you seen any evidence for the assertions that BBC piece made?
That's usually the kind of thing that Europeans expect to see. A nice cleaned up space with a building on it, new fields where agriculture is thriving and happy healthy people going about an industrious life. This kind of 'progress' often appears as evidence that it had been attempted or abandoned. The kind of problems I mentioned above all too often reoccur.
So with that kind of result its difficult to prove or disprove that the money was used in any other way than what it was intended for. It may well have been spent on a failed idea or plan, it may well have been used for weapons. The outward appearance of african life remains the same in either case.
You can pour money into Africa for centuries and it is very likely to continue being as it is now. Digging wells and small scale projects like that are the kind of level of progress that one can expect to be reasonably successful in Africa. But that isn't progress to a European.
Also Europeans may think they know what's good for Africa. But Africans themselves know what does and doesn't work in their own country, probably better then Europeans do, so they use the money how they see fit. Often that is simply to rebuild their small armies. that would be the more likely place to look for evidence that the money was spent there.
So that's a no then?

13 Mar 2010

Quote by awayman
This whole African aid thing has been going on since europeans first set foot there. there has only been partial development of the continent. It is consistently stalled by the geographical constraints, sickness, tribal wars, climate etc. Its unlikely to develop in the way we would imagine.
Its not surprising that the money bought weapons. The gun is everything in africa, it gets you anything you want easily.
Also many of the people you see as 'homeless' are part of a vast group of people known as the bayeye. who are already homeless living in effect a nomadic lifestyle; wearing modern clothes and carrying modern tools. this is how they live on the move from area to area.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but I'll ask you this. Besides a poor quality BBC piece that's hotly disputed, have you seen any evidence for the assertions that BBC piece made?
That's usually the kind of thing that Europeans expect to see. A nice cleaned up space with a building on it, new fields where agriculture is thriving and happy healthy people going about an industrious life. This kind of 'progress' often appears as evidence that it had been attempted or abandoned. The kind of problems I mentioned above all too often reoccur.
So with that kind of result its difficult to prove or disprove that the money was used in any other way than what it was intended for. It may well have been spent on a failed idea or plan, it may well have been used for weapons. The outward appearance of african life remains the same in either case.
You can pour money into Africa for centuries and it is very likely to continue being as it is now. Digging wells and small scale projects like that are the kind of level of progress that one can expect to be reasonably successful in Africa. But that isn't progress to a European.
Also Europeans may think they know what's good for Africa. But Africans themselves know what does and doesn't work in their own country, probably better then Europeans do, so they use the money how they see fit. Often that is simply to rebuild their small armies. that would be the more likely place to look for evidence that the money was spent there.
So that's a no then?
Don't you mean yes? I am more of the opinion that the money bought weapons. I expect most people will go along with idea too.
But how well are these things accounted for? If millions of money goes out of a country, surely it should show up as a deficit, in the overall gross domestic accounting? Where does that occur in our system? Is it easily seen or conveniently concealed?
And in the case of fraud. Even in a country of educated people fraud cases are abandoned because people simply can't follow the complexities involved.
Again this is human folly. An idea got about in the most excitable way,and it was only afterwards that people began to implement what they had started.
As far as the BBC are bothered, why are they doing this now 25 years later. is it some cynical anniversary present. What do they hope to get out of this? Its daft.