La Reunion - tidal waves

[Dick Smith]

Dave and Olive - you stop when they don't need it any more. Put the boot on the other foot and imagine you were in their place.

SB - I agree completely, 90% of something is better than 90% of nothing. No excuses.

[Quillan]

OK Dick perhaps not a penny in the pound but I bet £2.3M made a big dent in 1992's UK income to that organisation and thats the bit I know about and don't think at head office they pay the staff a minimum wage or that they work for nothing either. I see McMillan was advertising for a IT manager in the Sunday Times a few weeks back, £90k, not bad.

But why should we give money when people like Bill Gates (used as an example) who has fallen on hard times and can afford to only pay off all the world debt 3 times over instead of 6 coz his share prices have gone down. What about companies like Uniliver, Adidas and companies that farm tea pour money in, it's in their interest, they have been using the cheap labour there for years to line their own pockets. They all have far more money than I. The airlines, can't they give their aircraft and pilots for free (the Arab muslim states could give the fuel) to get the stuff there? Wouldn't it be great publicity for them, but then the share holders would complain about not getting the divi at the end of the year. Politicians and companies will always find an excuse not to give. As Bob Geldorf said "Butter makes butter milk" when Maggie said what use was butter and refused to send it.

I see on the BBC yesterday that the Red Cross were giving out free tea and sock's (sock's, couldn't work out what that was about) to people arriving back at Gatwick and Heathrow from the region. Why can't McDonalds or one of the other cafe's give free drinks (and Tie Rack the sock's?). How much is this costing?

Then you have governments deciding who gets the money and aid, why is it that the region controlled by the Tamil Tigers has got nothing (BBC News 24). I always thought humanitarian aid goes beyond politics and self interest.

The adverts about giving 3 and 4 pound a month, I can see where you are coming from with this as well. Still you can always give your donation from the money that you borrow from one of the other adverts or the insurance claim yet another group of adverts want to win for you.

Personally I shall leave any money I have to charity when I die. This way I will look after myself and my family first and they can have what's left. Of course I could give 20€ now (perhaps I have already) then I can shout people down who don't 'give' and make them feel really guilty and ashamed which is what a lot of these organisations are trying to do via their TV adverts, well it don't work for me.

Want to do something, take unpaid leave, get on a plane and get out there and start digging out the bodies to bury which will help stop disease, the next greatest fear in the area. You can help drive the lorries to distribute the food. As I said in another post our daughter is out there on holiday and is staying to help, my brother in law, ex fire brigade, has gone to help 'drive' a thermal image camera. Me I just sit and bitch and moan but then with a dodgy leg, heart and asthma would be more of a liability than help, mind you I did drop some food round to the Rouge Croix in Quillan yesterday.

[Dick Smith]

Chris - I am afraid that this all sounds like excuses not to donate. Your fellow countrymen don't seem to agree - they donated £10 million last night. But I don't propose to argue this any further, people will have to live with their own consciences.

[Renaud]

I used to design the Annual Reports (for free) for Charity Projects - the charity behind Red Nose week, so got to read them (mainly searching for my typos, I am a dyslexic Annual report designer).

Charity Projects claimed that every penny donated was spent on their projects. They managed this by funding the administration etc out of the interest on the funds they held.

So when discussing what percentage of a charity's income is spent on good work, the focus should be also on what happens to the interest that the donations earn.

[Russethouse]

If anyone is worried about where their money is going to, how about this

http://www.shelterbox.org/f_intro.html

its on a couple of other French forums, and looks like a good idea to me.

There is some discussion about admin costs as well as a reference to other charities at Money Saving Expert

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?newsid1101478658,63835,

[Pantouflard]

As Bob Geldorf said "Butter makes butter milk" when Maggie said what use was butter and refused to send it.

Not my normal practice to speak up for  Maggie but - - -

on a recent look at the original Band Aid story that little exchange between Bob Geldof and Maggie about the butter fat mountain was shown again.  Geldof said that when they were sitting down to eat afterwoods Thatch tapped him on the shoulder and said she was interested in what he said and perhaps he could contact her office to arrange a meet;  he did and apparently she acted on it (can't remember in what way though).

[Iceni]

Christmas 2003 the city of Baan in Iran was devastated by an earthquake. Much was donated and promised. This Christmas a Brit who was there the year before and experienced the quake went back to see what had happened. Nothing, the money never got to Iran let alone Baan . The countries who promised aid never paid up.

I wonder what the families of the people in Africa who have died of AIDS and starvation and all the other preventable or treatable illnesses in 2004 feel. They number far far more than those who died and will die in Asia. They got little help and now they will get even less.  These countries need their debt burdens reduced and the help they have been promised should be provided. I have lived in Africa. We send wheat, they cannot eat wheat in many places as they have never had it before and their bodies rebel. We send butter milk and powdered milk, I know from person experience what happens to adult or those Africans over 5 who take milk, in most cases it makes them very ill as they no longer have the stomach to digest milk which is not given to children once they are weaned as they don't take animal milk unless they are farmers or rich.

It is time the world got a system together to feed the hungry and support places such as Darfur (remember them, they are still starving but have fallen out of the news...) and Asia. There is enough money in the world, there is enough food. I once read that more aid is eaten by rats than ever gets to the needy.

I watched in disbelief a couple of days ago as a brand new white aid vehicle was driven into a river after the driver was told that the river was impassable due to the bridge being down, he took no notice. The vehicle was swamped and the driver and others had to be rescued. I bet that vehicle had been flown in at great expense, donated at great expense and within days was a useless bit of rusting metal.

I also saw a film that showed emergency bottled water and food being distributed by the Tamil Tigers working with nurses and aid workers who they regarded as being from 'the other side'. Next we hear them complain that they have had nothing. It is all mirrors, politics and outdoing each other - as Annan said, no guarantee that these promises will ever come to anything.

I gave my charity money at Christmas. Living on a small amount of money I have nothing else to give. Lets all hope that other needy charities do not find themselves out of money and out of work because so much has been given to just one cause. A solution must be found to support all the charity work that has to be done to such good effect throughout the world and an emergency fund to support total and absolute disasters such as this.

OK, rant over, you can pick this post to pieces but it is how I feel at the moment, well apart from totally impotent to be of any real help.

[Teamedup]

Iran is an oil rich country. They have huge revenues as the 4th biggest oil producer.

[Russethouse]

I think one part of the reason the current appeal has had such a good response is the fact that it was a natural disaster - no input anywhere by politics. (of course that doesn't matter one jot if you are starving,waiting and hoping for help !)

[Quillan]

[quote]Iran is an oil rich country. They have huge revenues as the 4th biggest oil producer.[/quote]

To be honest thats part of my arguement. The large companies that make sports equipment, jeans and many other things have been using these countries, such as India, for years to produce goods on the cheap then sell them at high prices. Most of your football shirts are made there and people spend £50 or more a time for them and the guy or girl who made them back in Indea gets about 10p. They even use child labour.

All these companies that 'rape' countries like this should be held responcible after having gained so much in cheap labour.

[Iceni]

[quote]Iran is an oil rich country. They have huge revenues as the 4th biggest oil producer.[/quote]

That seems a valid reason for not promising in the first place but hardly an excuse for not delivering when you said you will.  But then, the smug feelings and display of generosity arise from publicly promising aid - there is no "vote appeal" in actually delivering it. Some of you may not understand my cynicial view of politicians etc but very few (if any) do something for nothing.

The rich will always cheat, steal, abuse the poor - that's how they get rich and stay rich. But it does not stop football shirts being bought at £50 so which person should feel more guilty ?

 I feel sorry for the survivors and the dead of the earthquake and tsunami in Asia and Africa but no more or less than the guy swept away to drown in the river at Bradford - there are just more of them.

John

not

[Russethouse]

John, Whats the difference between a company taking advantage of lower market rates and conditions in other countries and people moving to live in countries because they are cheaper ?

Both are making the most of the prevailing conditions, thats life!

[Iceni]

To be honest thats part of my argument. The large companies that make sports equipment, jeans and many other things have been using these countries, such as India, for years to produce goods on the cheap then sell them at high prices. Most of your football shirts are made there and people spend £50 or more a time for them and the guy or girl who made them back in India gets about 10p. They even use child labour.

I am pretty sure India has refused aid as she feels able to cope. So that argument is pointless.

Let us look at a case - you and your family are starving. A sweat shop opens nearby and one of your children can get a job there. There is no chance of schooling for any of your children as there is no school or money to send them. What do you do, all die or take your lives into your own hands by allowing one of yours to work - perhaps, who knows, this could lead to work for others in your family. Taking these factories away will not solve anything, providing alternatives that actually help this family would.

China produces most of the things we don't really need by buy in bulk each and every day. Most of this is made by very very cheap labour. We may deride them, think they are mad for working in these conditions BUT they are one of the fastest growing economies in the world. As they grow the wages will increase, we will no longer be able to afford these things (such as the electrical item I bought yesterday) and the next country will start producing.

Africa, or the bit I am talking about has no sweat shops to produce for the first world, has no real structure (when 15/20/25+% of your working age people have a killer disease you have enough trouble looking after the young and old who are still alive). There is need everywhere, my plea was for a fairer distribution to all.

As I said, I do give to charity, it just should not be given because the country is regarded as 'good' or 'in the right place' or 'at the right time'. Eronuius arguments about companies with shareholders picking up the burden because they make things that people willingly buy at huge profit (knowing full well that they are made by children in sweatshops) is a timewaster as it is never going to happen, nor will people who claim to have a conscience stop buying their goods. Tis the way of the world.

[Quillan]

I am pretty sure India has refused aid as she feels able to cope. So that argument is pointless.

India is but one example but their are other countries like Thailand etc and yes China.

Let us look at a case - you and your family are starving. A sweat shop opens nearby and one of your children can get a job there. There is no chance of schooling for any of your children as there is no school or money to send them. What do you do, all die or take your lives into your own hands by allowing one of yours to work - perhaps, who knows, this could lead to work for others in your family. Taking these factories away will not solve anything, providing alternatives that actually help this family would.

I don't understand this at all, I can't see one child supporting a whole family. However your last sentence is correct, alternatives must be found.

China produces most of the things we don't really need by buy in bulk each and every day. Most of this is made by very very cheap labour. We may deride them, think they are mad for working in these conditions BUT they are one of the fastest growing economies in the world. As they grow the wages will increase, we will no longer be able to afford these things (such as the electrical item I bought yesterday) and the next country will start producing.

China is a communist single party state run by dictators with grand designs on the Eastern hemisphere and desperately wanting to replace Russia as a world power. They have their own reasons for forcing their own to work for small wages and believe me sourcing things from China is not that cheap so they are not a good example. Its the government in China that gets the money as well as the corrupt officials. If you want to know how China plans to do this then you should read some of the reports written by Humphrey Hawksley.

Africa, or the bit I am talking about has no sweat shops to produce for the first world, has no real structure (when 15/20/25+% of your working age people have a killer disease you have enough trouble looking after the young and old who are still alive). There is need everywhere, my plea was for a fairer distribution to all.

I Totally agree yet governments and companies have the way and the means to help these people yet they don't, they leave it to charity.

As I said, I do give to charity, it just should not be given because the country is regarded as 'good' or 'in the right place' or 'at the right time'. Eronuius arguments about companies with shareholders picking up the burden because they make things that people willingly buy at huge profit (knowing full well that they are made by children in sweatshops) is a timewaster as it is never going to happen, nor will people who claim to have a conscience stop buying their goods. Tis the way of the world.

Believe it or not some people do have a real conscience, personally I won't buy particular brands of sports goods. When I buy electronic and electrical goods I look at where they are made, if they are made in a country that my conscious has a problem with I buy an alternative or just forget it. I don't believe I am alone but then I don't think everyone has the same attitude as myself either.

Multi national companies MUST be called to account for their actions and act in responsible ways. Instead of moving their manufacturing to other sweat shops in other countries they should be forced to look after their employees. When the current situation is resolved these companies may well go back to these countries and start up manufacturing again but this will be after charities have rebuilt the basic infrastructure they need to get their products to market so they are in a win win situation really.

The problem with the 'civilised world' is that we are driven by greed, materialism and money without a thought for whom we hurt on the way.

[Teamedup]

The problem with the 'civilised world' is that we are driven by greed, materialism and money without a thought for whom we hurt on the way.

 

I'm not having that.

And yes I want nice things. I want a good life. I also want a good life and prospects for my kids, that is why I limited my family. It isn't my fault how many of the world's population live either. So I really don't want to be classed as 'we' in the civilised world, as if I am bad.

I see lots of bad things that people who are not part of this civilised world do too, and there is no honor in any or it.