What a hypocrite

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I cannot believe that Hugh is saying on this forum that Cameron is acting on 'his beliefs'.
What a pathetic response, l am furious that my tax money is being sent abroad to help the dying, what about this country, and l am fed up to the back teeth with members that are saying it is ok to sending billions of pounds to other countries.

In this country we are making severe cutbacks, so that we are suffering, unemployment is soaring, no matter what the figures are saying, the banks are paying big bonuses to there chiefs, electircity are being hiked up, we are now having more and more food banks for the poor.

And yet Cameron is quite prepared to spend billions to countries that don't need aid from this country, we have our armed forces being made redundant, the injured being treated like lepers in getting benefits from the MODand being tolds they cannot get it.

Its about time Cameron realised one thing he is the PM of the United Kingdom and was voted by the Britsh public to look after US, not some damn country thousands of miles away - he is a bloody hyprocite.

Originally Posted by Sirius

It so annoyed me that we are throwing money at other countries when our own people are being made to suffer reductions in there standard of living. why is this money not being spent on us. We paid this money to the Government and WE should benefit from it.

I was never asked if my taxes are to be spent on other countries and if i was i would say SOD OFF

Reduction in standard of living vs saving millions of lives from malnutrition and preventable diseases....

Hard choice, I know.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Reduction in standard of living vs saving millions of lives from malnutrition and preventable diseases....

Hard choice, I know.

I see nothing wrong in looking after your own people first or am i in an alternate universe. I want my tax money to be spent on this country not some country that cannot get its act together because its goverment thinks we ae going to fund them..

Here's one, i know they will not be getting any more money off us, WHY were we giving MILLIONS to India and yet they had a nuclear bomb program and a space program. That's the sort of misuse of money that really ****es me off.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Reduction in standard of living vs saving millions of lives from malnutrition and preventable diseases....

Hard choice, I know.

Does it save millions of lives though ? we keep going back to the same countries with money because so many are suffering

Originally Posted by Hugh

Reduction in standard of living vs saving millions of lives from malnutrition and preventable diseases....

Hard choice, I know.

and who do you think gets rich off that corrupt governments and pharmaceuticals who if they cared would give the doses free of charge after all they make enough off the west

[v0id]

We give these poor countrys aid money and the corrupt goverments use it to buy weapons to fuel their stupid civil wars.
Not much of it goes to help the people who really need it

Just one example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8535189.stm

[Taf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Does it save millions of lives though ? we keep going back to the same countries with money because so many are suffering

I have seen several reports on TV over the past few years that basically said that farmers and traders in those countries we send food aid to are basically so undercut that they have stopped farming altogether. Plus they breed because they have full bellies, not because they need income in their old age to come from their offspring.

Are they then to be described as "despicable lifelong career scroungers"

The sort that Camoron is so against in the UK.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Taf

I have seen several reports on TV over the past few years that basically said that farmers and traders in those countries we send food aid to are basically so undercut that they have stopped farming altogether. Plus they breed because they have full bellies, not because they need income in their old age to come from their offspring.

Are they then to be described as "despicable lifelong career scroungers"

The sort that Camoron is so against in the UK.

Originally Posted by Taf

I have seen several reports on TV over the past few years that basically said that farmers and traders in those countries we send food aid to are basically so undercut that they have stopped farming altogether. Plus they breed because they have full bellies, not because they need income in their old age to come from their offspring.

Are they then to be described as "despicable lifelong career scroungers"

The sort that Camoron is so against in the UK.

I suppose that is one way to look at it ,what's good for the goose and all that

Originally Posted by Sirius

I see nothing wrong in looking after your own people first or am i in an alternate universe. I want my tax money to be spent on this country not some country that cannot get its act together because its goverment thinks we ae going to fund them..

Here's one, i know they will not be getting any more money off us, WHY were we giving MILLIONS to India and yet they had a nuclear bomb program and a space program. That's the sort of misuse of money that really ****es me off.

UK welfare spending in 2012: £117 billion.
UK overseas aid spending in 2012: £8.8 billion.

This, I submit, constitutes "looking after your own people first".

Incidentally that welfare figure includes both central and local government benefits, but excludes the NHS, for which you could add another £126 billion to the tab for "looking after [our] own people first".

Our overseas aid budget is ring-fenced so that as other departments' spending comes down, the proportion of spending on overseas aid goes up ... Until it gets so high that we are spending a mahoosive ZERO POINT SEVEN PER CENT of it on aid.

Again, I make the point that there is absolutely no equivalence whatsoever between the furore over the so-called "bedroom tax" and the question of whether children everywhere deserve an education and whether rich nations have an obligation to help poor nations achieve it.

Originally Posted by Chris

UK welfare spending in 2012: £117 billion.
UK overseas aid spending in 2012: £8.8 billion.

This, I submit, constitutes "looking after your own people first".

Incidentally that welfare figure includes both central and local government benefits, but excludes the NHS, for which you could add another £126 billion to the tab for "looking after [our] own people first".

Our overseas aid budget is ring-fenced so that as other departments' spending comes down, the proportion of spending on overseas aid goes up ... Until it gets so high that we are spending a mahoosive ZERO POINT SEVEN PER CENT of it on aid.

Again, I make the point that there is absolutely no equivalence whatsoever between the furore over the so-called "bedroom tax" and the question of whether children everywhere deserve an education and whether rich nations have an obligation to help poor nations achieve it.

that 8.8 billion could still do a lot of good here

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

that 8.8 billion could still do a lot of good here

Yes, it could. But it is doing a lot more good there.

Originally Posted by Chris

Yes, it could. But it is doing a lot more good there.

yeah filling the pockets of corrupt officials

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Here's one, i know they will not be getting any more money off us, WHY were we giving MILLIONS to India and yet they had a nuclear bomb program and a space program. That's the sort of misuse of money that really ****es me off.

Why have we done so? In India's case I think it's because the goverment have hoped that by giving them aid we would have some influence when it comes to India buying things (such as weapons, planes etc)

India aren't particularly bothered whether we do or don't, and we are stopping aid soon

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-dev...stop-aid-india

The Indian finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee, last year said the country no longer wanted or needed the British aid, describing the money as "a peanut in our total development expenditure".

Originally Posted by Chris

Yes, it could. But it is doing a lot more good there.

I dispute that ,We are giving £63m per year to Somalia untill 2015 when new arrangements come into force.The country has received Billions in aid each year from around the world with no end in sight .We just keep on giving with no real progress happening.
I question how much good the aid actually does