Haiti DO IT NOW!

[far]

I saw Gordon Brown on the news last night promising that the UK by itself would match the aid given by the UN. One country matching the entire United Nations donation, straight from our taxes. The way I see it, we're already doing more than our fair share before giving more to Oxfam and all that.

 

Your personal tax wont go up will it? I dont get the attitude 'my countries donating so I wont' The work being done by Oxfam is very much different to what the UN are going to be doing for a start - just read their website, secondly since you are a higher rate tax payer an extra £10 wouldnt really make that much difference in your life would it? Or are you not donating on principal because you feel you pay too much tax

 

whats disappointing about it? because not many have come forward to donate for this one specific cause?

 

i donate to causes that have either affected myself or family directly or those that have helped.

i find it easier this way as if you are going to start donating to random causes then where do you stop?

 

Just because you donate to one cause doesnt mean you cant donate to a major world incident as a one off. If you feel the quake was a 'random cause' then I dont think you understand the scale of what has happened out there.

[Chris Wilson]

OK, I am on a honesty mission in 2010 I think some people feel we have done, and do enough for the worlds poor, their support, and often their assimilation into our own country. I feel a groundswell has occurred in recent years where the British feel they need to look after their own, rather than see their sons and daughters killed in wars for which they have no real understanding, and which have a tenuous and often unbelievable link to dangers to life here at home. As far as natural disasters are concerned I think age has a lot to do with it, younger people are not so inured to death and trouble as older ones, and get caught up in a groundswell of emotion without true clarity of thought as to the long term efficacy of money sent. The Christian Aid woman is no longer on speaking terms with us as she asked why her envelope left at the front door was still there a week later, and I decided to tell her. I want a choice as to where my dosh goes, and feeding and encouraging gross overpopulation in the short term, in Africa, is not one of them. We have no children, and I have no immediate relatives, when we pop our clogs various charities should do OK, but they'll be charities close to home. Sometimes a nation feels that they are a bit put upon, I feel such a time is upon many us here in the UK, and people are more choosy where they send donations, and think about how well the money will be distributed, whether it will be used or abused, et cetera. Considering the UK is all but bankrupt at the moment, and our own Social Services are in a cesspit of political correctness whereby they are hamstrung to the extent lives are lost on a regular basis, there's much at home to sort out first. The scale of the disaster in Haiti could possibly be said to be caused by overpopulation of an unsuitable region, could it not?

[AndrewOW]

 

 

My mum would agree with you, Chris. She has exactly the same views on 'natural' culls such as these, and overpopulation in Africa etc. It does shock me sometimes at the hardness of her opinions, but it's not all that far from the truth to be honest.

[johnny g]

I agree with the above sentiments.

 

The UK does enough to help those abroad already - our country is on it's knees, yet there's £x million going there. That could be wisely spent here.

 

I donate to a lot of charities already (CLIC Sargent, Cancer Research, etc), not this one for me though, sorry chaps. A wise man by the name Sir Thomas Browne, once said that Charity Begins At Home.

[Bobbeh]

Our country is hardly on its knees compared with what's happened in Haiti. Comparing the two places is plain silly.

[johnny g]

Not really - there's a whole world out there who can help Haiti, other places out of recession. Brown's over-committed there, and under-committed here.

[Bobbeh]

We're the only ones in the world suffering with a recession? LOL. A country in ruins cannot be compared with a country where unemployment is up.

[johnny g]

We're the only ones in the world suffering with a recession? LOL. A country in ruins cannot be compared with a country where unemployment is up.

 

No, many countries are out of recession, we're not.

 

Well, if you point out that a country in ruins should not be compared to a country where unemployment is - who is going to donate to those over here who are below the poverty line? It's our Government's responsability to look after our own people. There's families starving, OAP's dying with the cold because they can't put heating on, etc.

 

Britain is always the first to give - let someone else take the burden for once? Why do we have to be amongst the top donators, every time?

[Bobbeh]

Agreed, domestic government policy can and should help with OAPs and people who don't have anything, or have ended up destitute, there are countless charities in the UK alone that exist for that very reason.

 

.. but if you're trying to compare that situation with a country who have, nothing, no running water, food, electricity, healthcare because its been virtually destroyed (totally) by an earthquake... then there's no point me trying discuss anymore.

 

Trust me, we are not always first to give lol... where do you come up with this stuff? We are one of the richest countries in the world, that's why we donate but don't assume we're alone in that.

 

Would you expect some help from other countries if something similar happened to us? Those people cant help where they were born. The amount we are giving is hardly going to hit us (UK) for six either.

 

There's probably more money wasted on the scum in this country through benefit cheats and morons who just can't be bothered to work, than what the government is giving to Haiti.

[johnny g]

.. but if you're trying to compare that situation with a country who have, nothing, no running water, food, electricity, healthcare because its been virtually destroyed (totally) by an earthquake... then there's no point me trying discuss anymore.

I'm not asking for a discussion!

 

Trust me, we are not always first to give lol... where do you come up with this stuff? We are one of the richest countries in the world, that's why we donate but don't assume we're alone in that.

But we donate to everything... We are one of the richest agreed, but also we have our own problems.

 

Would you expect some help from other countries if something similar happened to us? Those people cant help where they were born. The amount we are giving is hardly going to hit us (UK) for six either.

You tell the poverty stricken that £6m wouldn't help them in one way or another. Plus, keep adding up all these "little" bits that won't hit us for six, they'll soon add up to a lot more.

 

There's probably more money wasted on the scum in this country through benefit cheats and morons who just can't be bothered to work, than what the government is giving to Haiti.

And the money that goes there will, as Chris Wilson says, be taken by Politicians, internal corruption, Police, etc.

[Bobbeh]

That's a whole lot of assumption right there.

 

Again, there is MORE than enough money floating around in this country to sort out our poverty issues.

 

I'll just agree to disagree with you

[Ark]

Your personal tax wont go up will it?

 

Maybe not until _after_ the election and everyones paycheque gets written out "payable direct to HMRC" to make up the deficit. If the government has to borrow a metric arsetonne of money just to function each year, giving away loads of that money is just plain idiocy.

[johnny g]

Maybe not until _after_ the election and everyones paycheque gets written out "payable direct to HMRC" to make up the deficit. If the government has to borrow a metric arsetonne of money just to function each year, giving away loads of that money is just plain idiocy.

 

Agreed. Looks good, though, doesn't it.

[Kopite]

Donated

[Kopite]

Again, there is MORE than enough money floating around in this country to sort out our poverty issues.

 

I'm not gonna get into a debate but a lot of taxpayer money here is just wasted.

[n boost]

If kids were starving on my street then i would feed them first before i started feeding other families in another town.

Brown needs to check his rotten head and and sort the problems over here out before trying to win some sort of nobel prize.

Gives us all this hardship here and screwing us in every direction but can throw millions at other causes.

Rape's us through global warming and how the economy is in tough times etc....its a feckin joke!

 

Still........charity is always good and its the sole intention of the person giving which counts and makes u feel better inside knowing at least u tried to help.

Whether they get it or not is another story.

[Tannhauser]

Just because you donate to one cause doesnt mean you cant donate to a major world incident as a one off. If you feel the quake was a 'random cause' then I dont think you understand the scale of what has happened out there.

 

Agreed again. I already have a monthly direct debit for Oxfam. This is 'above and beyond', because it's a full scale disaster in one of the world's poorest countries.

 

As far as natural disasters are concerned I think age has a lot to do with it, younger people are not so inured to death and trouble as older ones, and get caught up in a groundswell of emotion without true clarity of thought as to the long term efficacy of money sent.

 

I consider my decision to give a small donation to be based on crystal clear reasoning, which I would be able to explain at punishing length. I would lay odds that it is as rational and unmuddied by emotion as your decision not to donate. I'm older, too.

 

The Christian Aid woman is no longer on speaking terms with us as she asked why her envelope left at the front door was still there a week later, and I decided to tell her. I want a choice as to where my dosh goes, and feeding and encouraging gross overpopulation in the short term, in Africa, is not one of them. The scale of the disaster in Haiti could possibly be said to be caused by overpopulation of an unsuitable region, could it not?

 

I understand the point about aid only encouraging overpopulation. However, though poverty and overpopulation go hand in hand, it's usually argued that it's the former that causes the latter, not vice versa. Only when a country starts achieving a decent level of affluence does the birth rate start dropping. That's why most of the aid agencies don't focus on disaster relief, but on development and educational work.

[AndrewOW]

I donated this time, and for the tsunami too, as they are exceptional circumstances, but I would hope that our lovely generous government would be contributing some of my tax money to good causes anyway.

 

Maybe I'm just a disillusioned optimist.

[Tannhauser]

I have to agree with you chris,

 

I recently went to Phuket along the coast where they had the Tsunami, speaking to a taxi driver there we asked how much did the people actually see from the UK, his answer was "not a lot from anyone at all" he mentioned they had some food supplies but no evidence of the millions we/other countries pledged to them for rebuilding the area.

 

This comment disappointed me, ok my money went towards the flight fuel, cost of food supplies etc, but 90% of it was probably eaten up by "admin" costs, I think that dedicated disaster aid charities operation costs should be funded by the government, and majority if not all of the donations collected sent to these countries.

 

I will still be donating as every little bit helps but there should be a better way.

 

Naomi Klein's book 'The Shock Doctrine' has a lot to say about the post tsunami development and 'disaster capitalism' in general. There's a documentary of the same title, but it kind of skimps on a lot of the detail. It's well worth a look, one of the best non-fiction books I've read in a long time.

[AndrewOW]

So some shady governments rub their hands together when there's a natural disaster in their region, as they can make themselves a quick buck by sifting off charitable donations for themselves, rather than where it should be going? How cynical, but it happens. Such a shame isn't it?

 

That's if they survive the disaster in the first place though.

[Tannhauser]

I donated this time, and for the tsunami too, as they are exceptional circumstances, but I would hope that our lovely generous government would be contributing some of my tax money to good causes anyway.

 

Maybe I'm just a disillusioned optimist.

 

I think the target for most western countries is to give 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid, but most are still miles off that.

 

The development given has gone up a lot under Blair and Brown - both pretty firm in anti-poverty commitments - but I would be surprised if it's more than the target levels.

[Chris Wilson]

Our country is hardly on its knees compared with what's happened in Haiti. Comparing the two places is plain silly.

 

Not really, with the population growth we are seeing, and the fall in GNP, we are en route to third world status A bit of snow has shown are abilities to handle the gentlest of natural phenomena, can you imagine local government coping with a big `quake?

[MARTIN R]

I respect the ones that donate and the ones that do not. We have a CHOICE and that is fair enough. My choice is to not.

[far]

So some shady governments rub their hands together when there's a natural disaster in their region, as they can make themselves a quick buck by sifting off charitable donations for themselves, rather than where it should be going? How cynical, but it happens. Such a shame isn't it?

 

That's if they survive the disaster in the first place though.

 

 

I dont get your position on this, are you assuming that the funds are somehow transferred directly to that countries central government and thats the end of it? Who do you think pays for the direct aid such as food, medicine salaries for aid workers from the UN etc (the list goes on) It doesnt go to the countries government then the UN/Charity invoices them the majority of the current aid and work being done out there is a direct cost. Maybe central government of the given country may take care of rebuild costs, infrastructure etc but surely that comes much later.

 

Having listened to peoples view on this, one thing is clear a lot more transparency could be added into the equation to see exactly where our money goes and the flow from 'send through to action'

[far]

I respect the ones that donate and the ones that do not. We have a CHOICE and that is fair enough. My choice is to not.

 

I wouldnt say I respect people who dont donate. Isnt respect associated with someone or something you hold on high regard, something that has a high sense of worth?