talkFORUM

Perhaps a rather sensational title but the article itself makes for some very sobering reading.

Live Aid: The Terrible Truth

https://www.spin.com/featured/live-aid- ... f-feature/

'Most damningly, Keating reported that Geldof was warned, repeatedly, from the outset by several relief agencies in the field about Mengistu, who was dismantling tribes, mercilessly conducting resettlement marches on which 100,000 people died, and butchering helpless people. According to Medicins Sans Frontiers, who begged Geldof to not release the money until there was a reliable infrastructure to get it to victims, he simply ignored them, instead famously saying: “I’ll shake hands with the Devil on my left and on my right to get to the people we are meant to help.”'

Saint Bob indeed.

African nations have received international aid for years. I always found things like live aid and do they know it’s xmas a bit patronising . The lyrics to that song are cringey

But every penny was worth it for the warm and fuzzy feeling of becoming a modern-day SAINT !

theleader82 wrote:African nations have received international aid for years. I always found things like live aid and do they know it’s xmas a bit patronising . The lyrics to that song are cringey

If it creates money to provide infrastructure like giving clean water and improving sanitation, not sure that first world problems like the lyrics to the songs that raise money really matters that much.

Now, I may be getting mixed up with something else, but I seem to remember my husband telling me about a shipload of goods being insured through the Corp[oration he worked for, on looking at the manifest it became clear that instead of food aid the shipment consisted of Whisky from Scotland, it later became know in the press that the president had ordered this vast amount of whisky as part of his celebrations for some anniversary of his becoming president, this was about the time Saint Bob was telling us to 'give us yer fucking money' to feed the starving of Ethiopia.

It has been known for decades that aid funds, wherever they come from, I remember a news item about a school in India paid for by some of the huge amount the UK sends out in foreign aid, there is no school, just a shell of a building, no windows, no toilets, no running water or leccy let alone books, when a local bod was asked where all the money went there was just one word,'bribes', seems that no one factored in that you have to bribe everyone to get anything done, even the driver who delivers the cement, so why don't they send some bod from the foreign aid budget to supervise the building works and make sure the work is carried , or is that that too much to ask for?

Write off third world debt....

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/201 ... x-affairs/

...with other people’s money.

birdie wrote:Now, I may be getting mixed up with something else, but I seem to remember my husband telling me about a shipload of goods being insured through the Corp[oration he worked for, on looking at the manifest it became clear that instead of food aid the shipment consisted of Whisky from Scotland, it later became know in the press that the president had ordered this vast amount of whisky as part of his celebrations for some anniversary of his becoming president, this was about the time Saint Bob was telling us to 'give us yer fucking money' to feed the starving of Ethiopia.

It has been known for decades that aid funds, wherever they come from, I remember a news item about a school in India paid for by some of the huge amount the UK sends out in foreign aid, there is no school, just a shell of a building, no windows, no toilets, no running water or leccy let alone books, when a local bod was asked where all the money went there was just one word,'bribes', seems that no one factored in that you have to bribe everyone to get anything done, even the driver who delivers the cement, so why don't they send some bod from the foreign aid budget to supervise the building works and make sure the work is carried , or is that that too much to ask for?

One of the issues is that much of the aid is delivered into countries with civil wars or corrupt regimes. The judgement has to be made if a little help is better than no help.

When it comes to saving lives I'll side with a little help.

Ralph wrote:Write off third world debt....

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/201 ... x-affairs/

...with other people’s money.

A bit like asking the bank who I have a mortgage with, to pay off my mortgage for me.

Ralph wrote:Write off third world debt....

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/201 ... x-affairs/

...with other people’s money.

I seem to recall the same a good few years back, but it didn't happen because most people thought it would just encourage those countries to ramp up huge debts again in the expectation of those debts being wiped off again and it woldn't encourage them to try to live within their means. Now, where have I hear that before.?

Vespa wrote:

birdie wrote:Now, I may be getting mixed up with something else, but I seem to remember my husband telling me about a shipload of goods being insured through the Corp[oration he worked for, on looking at the manifest it became clear that instead of food aid the shipment consisted of Whisky from Scotland, it later became know in the press that the president had ordered this vast amount of whisky as part of his celebrations for some anniversary of his becoming president, this was about the time Saint Bob was telling us to 'give us yer fucking money' to feed the starving of Ethiopia.

It has been known for decades that aid funds, wherever they come from, I remember a news item about a school in India paid for by some of the huge amount the UK sends out in foreign aid, there is no school, just a shell of a building, no windows, no toilets, no running water or leccy let alone books, when a local bod was asked where all the money went there was just one word,'bribes', seems that no one factored in that you have to bribe everyone to get anything done, even the driver who delivers the cement, so why don't they send some bod from the foreign aid budget to supervise the building works and make sure the work is carried , or is that that too much to ask for?

One of the issues is that much of the aid is delivered into countries with civil wars or corrupt regimes. The judgement has to be made if a little help is better than no help.

When it comes to saving lives I'll side with a little help.

The issue of humanitarian aid to conflict zones is just a little different from funding schools and other projects where no conflict exists only to find that the money has been siphoned off, I see no problem with giving the funds to build a school, but send someone there to make sure the bloody thing IS being built.

birdie wrote:

Vespa wrote:

birdie wrote:Now, I may be getting mixed up with something else, but I seem to remember my husband telling me about a shipload of goods being insured through the Corp[oration he worked for, on looking at the manifest it became clear that instead of food aid the shipment consisted of Whisky from Scotland, it later became know in the press that the president had ordered this vast amount of whisky as part of his celebrations for some anniversary of his becoming president, this was about the time Saint Bob was telling us to 'give us yer fucking money' to feed the starving of Ethiopia.

It has been known for decades that aid funds, wherever they come from, I remember a news item about a school in India paid for by some of the huge amount the UK sends out in foreign aid, there is no school, just a shell of a building, no windows, no toilets, no running water or leccy let alone books, when a local bod was asked where all the money went there was just one word,'bribes', seems that no one factored in that you have to bribe everyone to get anything done, even the driver who delivers the cement, so why don't they send some bod from the foreign aid budget to supervise the building works and make sure the work is carried , or is that that too much to ask for?

One of the issues is that much of the aid is delivered into countries with civil wars or corrupt regimes. The judgement has to be made if a little help is better than no help.

When it comes to saving lives I'll side with a little help.

The issue of humanitarian aid to conflict zones is just a little different from funding schools and other projects where no conflict exists only to find that the money has been siphoned off, I see no problem with giving the funds to build a school, but send someone there to make sure the bloody thing IS being built.

That article is 30 years old, I'd hope things have changed a little since then.

Vespa wrote:

birdie wrote:

Vespa wrote:

birdie wrote:Now, I may be getting mixed up with something else, but I seem to remember my husband telling me about a shipload of goods being insured through the Corp[oration he worked for, on looking at the manifest it became clear that instead of food aid the shipment consisted of Whisky from Scotland, it later became know in the press that the president had ordered this vast amount of whisky as part of his celebrations for some anniversary of his becoming president, this was about the time Saint Bob was telling us to 'give us yer fucking money' to feed the starving of Ethiopia.

It has been known for decades that aid funds, wherever they come from, I remember a news item about a school in India paid for by some of the huge amount the UK sends out in foreign aid, there is no school, just a shell of a building, no windows, no toilets, no running water or leccy let alone books, when a local bod was asked where all the money went there was just one word,'bribes', seems that no one factored in that you have to bribe everyone to get anything done, even the driver who delivers the cement, so why don't they send some bod from the foreign aid budget to supervise the building works and make sure the work is carried , or is that that too much to ask for?

One of the issues is that much of the aid is delivered into countries with civil wars or corrupt regimes. The judgement has to be made if a little help is better than no help.

When it comes to saving lives I'll side with a little help.

The issue of humanitarian aid to conflict zones is just a little different from funding schools and other projects where no conflict exists only to find that the money has been siphoned off, I see no problem with giving the funds to build a school, but send someone there to make sure the bloody thing IS being built.

That article may be 30 years old but the news item about the school in India certainly wasn't more that 5 years ago, so no, I don't think thing have changed that much.