RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote: All scientists are falsifying their "evidence"? I assume you mean data.

Yeah, sorry. It was a poor choice of words. I thought I'd edited it.

Yes, that makes the generalisation much more credible.

You were suggesting that one ego maniac was the problem. It isn't.
You're defending something you consider sacrosanct .......but it isn't. No more than religion.
Scientists have falsified their data. The higher the profit margin, the higher the deception. That's economics.

I didn't watch Lucan's video,......but I can assure you there are daily reports of slavery in London. Sexual, Domestic servitude, Construction, Agricultural......plenty of slavery in Greater London.

I suggested no such thing. Have a horlicks. Glaxo Smith Kline makes it. You'll love it.

morepork wrote:I suggested no such thing. Have a horlicks. Glaxo Smith Kline makes it. You'll love it.

Hey Jethro, you didn't get back to me yet on the avatar thing, anyhoo seeing as you always have a good moan about my youtube clips, I'll post one just for you, I know you'll like.

Avatar thing?

morepork wrote:Avatar thing?

Yeah maybe you missed it, just wondering who's is the mugshot in your avatar?

Lord Lucan wrote:

morepork wrote:Avatar thing?

Yeah maybe you missed it, just wondering who's is the mugshot in your avatar?

BJ Blazkowicz

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:
Yeah, sorry. It was a poor choice of words. I thought I'd edited it.

Yes, that makes the generalisation much more credible.

You were suggesting that one ego maniac was the problem. It isn't.
You're defending something you consider sacrosanct .......but it isn't. No more than religion.
Scientists have falsified their data. The higher the profit margin, the higher the deception. That's economics.

I didn't watch Lucan's video,......but I can assure you there are daily reports of slavery in London. Sexual, Domestic servitude, Construction, Agricultural......plenty of slavery in Greater London.

There is modern day slavery. Unlike in previous ages, its unlawful. Comparing unlawful slavery where someone is coerced into a certain life with another who just happens to work for a wage is just plain daft.

Sandydragon wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I had an interesting debate in Liberia with my driver (Who was a relatively wealthy Liberian as he earned $300/month) and an American USMC officer. The young officer was of the view that America owed him and his relatives phenomenal reparations in recompense for the kidnapping, enforced transportation and enslavement of his ancestors. I took the view that while slavery was an undeniable wrong, the generations of today and in the future could not be held accountable for the 'crimes' of 200 years ago.

My driver chipped in with a miserably compelling argument. According to him, he would have gladly endured slavery if, 200 years on, his descendants were able to enjoy the opportunities that are available to the African-Americans of today. I suppose you have to be confronted with real hopelessness to see the positive side of slavery?

Totally agree. Plus, given the role the UK took in eradicating slavery I see no reason to feel bad for something that happened several generations before I was born.

Interesting piece on R4 this morning on the way in to work; some gimp banging on about how the UK pays too much in foriegn aid and it should be used instead to give the public sector a pay rise.

I did some digging. The UN encourages nations to give 0.7% of GNI to assist countries that are a little less able to help themselves. Only eight countries manage this and only two of these, the UK and Germany, are members of the G7 (The other countries meeting or exceeding the 0.7% benchmark are Sweden, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Denmark and Norway). The UK made the 0.7% committment a legal requirement in 2015, so it would require legislation rather than a Chancellor's budget to change. (0.7% amounts to about £13 billion, or the price of 130 DUP votes.)

Looking through that list of eight I would say that the UK has perhaps the greatest justification to spend, given its imperial past and the moral obligation to poorer Commonwealth countries (Though only two of the top five bilateral recipients in 2015 were Commonwealth countries - the others being Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Syria); Germany is clearly on an extended and deserved guilt-trip while the Scandinavians are apparently still paying for the excesses of the lads in horny helmets.

I wasn't sure that 0.7% of Luxembourg's GNI would buy much until I remembered that Luxembourg is where Amazon pay their taxes; and clearly everyone in the UAE already owns a Mercedes so what the feck else is there to spend their cash on?

I don't get why the Turks are digging so deep? The place is in dire need of a lick of paint itself. I wonder if they are giving so much as a consequence of being in that miserable space where the whole world thinks you're a bunch of feckers?

Given the crux of the gimp's point this morning, how does cutting foriegn aid make a dent in the public sector pay bill, which makes up about 30% of government spending or 12% of national income?

Short answer, it doesn't make a dent. But the soft power benefits it brings are considerable if targeted properly. I have absolutely no problem with the UK, as one of the world's richest nations, contributing to the development of the poor. I do have an issue with how some of the money is spent; some of the projects seem a bit dubious, but as a principle I'm all for it.

Missed my point. I was suggesting that if you took the whole of the foriegn aid budget and put it into the pot for public sector pay, it would hardly make a ripple of difference.

I agree with you that a paltry £13 billion spent wisely goes a long, long way in developing countries. And given that one of the most immediately credible threat to the UK rises from the unemployed young of the post-Arab Spring and post-conflict Middle East any money that can be spent in developing their ecomonic prospects at home, rather than having to deal with them as destitute, disenfranchised and despised refugees (Our shame, not theirs) on our shores is money well-spent.

You are right that some projects are dubious - the UN being the most obvious. We are a major contributor to the UN and it is the major benefactor from our overseas aid budget, yet it is riddled with incompetence if not corruption. Having served with UN DPKO in Bosnia and the Congo and alongside them in Liberia and Mali I can honestly say that they are the least effective military organisation I have ever encountered (And I've worked with the Iraqis!). If the UK refused to fund the deployment of South African, Ghanaian, Nigerian, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi brigades and instead offered to deploy one of our own it would represent a quantum leap in combat effect. Of course the British public would hardly stomach the killing of a Grenadier Guardsman by Tuareg in the badlands north of the Niger so this is never going to happen - and if we didn't fund those brigades, the defence budgets of those countries would implode.

£100/day wouldn't buy you a single policeman to put on the streets of LLandudno, or another A&E bed in Rotherham, or another 10 primary school places in Camberley - but it will buy 10 Beninoise soldiers deployed in Tombouktou to keep AQIM busy.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I had an interesting debate in Liberia with my driver (Who was a relatively wealthy Liberian as he earned $300/month) and an American USMC officer. The young officer was of the view that America owed him and his relatives phenomenal reparations in recompense for the kidnapping, enforced transportation and enslavement of his ancestors. I took the view that while slavery was an undeniable wrong, the generations of today and in the future could not be held accountable for the 'crimes' of 200 years ago.

My driver chipped in with a miserably compelling argument. According to him, he would have gladly endured slavery if, 200 years on, his descendants were able to enjoy the opportunities that are available to the African-Americans of today. I suppose you have to be confronted with real hopelessness to see the positive side of slavery?

Totally agree. Plus, given the role the UK took in eradicating slavery I see no reason to feel bad for something that happened several generations before I was born.

(0.7% amounts to about £13 billion, or the price of 130 DUP votes.)

I will now never ever use the word 'billion' again, instead replacing it with '10 DUP votes'.
"Mells, Abramovitch has just laid out £125 million in a single transfer window. I know he's loaded but that's a lot of money."
"He's worth 85 DUP votes, mate. He won't even realise it's missing."

The problem with the DUP vote as a unit of currency is that it is liable to extraordinary inflation and to be honest, like the Ducat, it is a little ancient and has long fallen from common exchange.

Mellsblue wrote: I will now never ever use the word 'billion' again, instead replacing it with '10 DUP votes'.
"Mells, Abramovitch has just laid out £125 million in a single transfer window. I know he's loaded but that's a lot of money."
"He's worth 85 DUP votes, mate. He won't even realise it's missing."

Nice work, Fella.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:The problem with the DUP vote as a unit of currency is that it is liable to extraordinary inflation and to be honest, like the Ducat, it is a little ancient and has long fallen from common exchange.

That's what she said.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Missed my point. I was suggesting that if you took the whole of the foriegn aid budget and put it into the pot for public sector pay, it would hardly make a ripple of difference.

I agree with you that a paltry £13 billion spent wisely goes a long, long way in developing countries. And given that one of the most immediately credible threat to the UK rises from the unemployed young of the post-Arab Spring and post-conflict Middle East any money that can be spent in developing their ecomonic prospects at home, rather than having to deal with them as destitute, disenfranchised and despised refugees (Our shame, not theirs) on our shores is money well-spent.

You are right that some projects are dubious - the UN being the most obvious. We are a major contributor to the UN and it is the major benefactor from our overseas aid budget, yet it is riddled with incompetence if not corruption. Having served with UN DPKO in Bosnia and the Congo and alongside them in Liberia and Mali I can honestly say that they are the least effective military organisation I have ever encountered (And I've worked with the Iraqis!). If the UK refused to fund the deployment of South African, Ghanaian, Nigerian, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi brigades and instead offered to deploy one of our own it would represent a quantum leap in combat effect. Of course the British public would hardly stomach the killing of a Grenadier Guardsman by Tuareg in the badlands north of the Niger so this is never going to happen - and if we didn't fund those brigades, the defence budgets of those countries would implode.

£100/day wouldn't buy you a single policeman to put on the streets of LLandudno, or another A&E bed in Rotherham, or another 10 primary school places in Camberley - but it will buy 10 Beninoise soldiers deployed in Tombouktou to keep AQIM busy.

No, I got your point, hence my comment that it wouldn't make a dent. Our foreign aid budget is small change in th big scheme of things.

And totally agree about the un. My time with them with UNOMIG gave me the impression that Pretty much anything would be more competent, although there were a few soldiers I worked with who were superb even though you wouldn't rate their military. I also recall a deputy commander who displayed such spectacular incompetence that I did wonder how he managed to dress himself.