RigPig

i do see it son, but as you say it is short term and very limited, 10 millio will make NO differance to the situation what so ever a large portion will go into the backpockets of the corupt , the next portion will go in admin and a very very small amount will filter down to where it is needed.
It should be down to their govement to sort it out chip can you not take off your rose tinted glasses for 5 mins and haver a proper look at it? no iguess not, what chip says must be right.
I however disagree with your bleeding heart views

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

this country IS wealthy. Its all about perception. Just because we westerners think a roof over our head, benefits, healthcare etc is our right doesnt make it so.

some down and out in a shitty bedsit struggling on JSA probably feels pretty poor but compared to the average person in the world he is likely to be pretty wealthy.

stop playing the "ethnic minority victim" card.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Everytime someone has mentioned where will the money go in this thread I have said that some will be missapropriated so you must have me confused with someone else when you talk about the rose tinted spectacles, im well aware it will be only a portion that gets to the truely needy, but its still worth sending for that portion to be useful.
No it wont fix the problem, but SOME people will be helped.

Pardeep

The difference is that this is a country that offers house insurance for these disasters. If you live in a high risk area of flooding and don't take out house insurance, you deserve to drown.

However, if we turn the tables. Now i'm saying this as if we were a country who are less fortunate, we flood and people are dying, Another country gives us money to help. You think they're countries people are going to be happy about it? At the same time, we wouldn't be complaining would we?

RigPig

Chip
please tell me what you think the 10 mill will do ?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I think it will provide some basic medical supplies, some food, and some transportation of that food, and I think some of it will be creamed off by corrupt officials.

RigPig

Alas the vast majority will be creamed off by the corrupt,and most of the rest will go in adminastration of the fun, make no mistake about it a lot of people will get rich from the fund, black market etc.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I doubt it will be the "vast majority" as I believe that its being handled mainly by uk aid agencies, but its a pretty pointless debate to sit here and try and guess the percentage without accurate facts.

RigPig

I agree that facts would help, but having spent a lot of time in that part of the world i have seen first hand the corruption that openly takes place, so i really do believe the money would not end up where it was intended.
The fact that it would be handled by uk agencies does make one ounce of differasnce to the out come im afraid to say, but hey ho never mind eh

Chip

iTrader: (3)

The US are providing a lot of the transportation, boats and helicopters etc, from what I can see most of the western funds are going to end up staying largely in control of western organisations

Escy

You say nobody is saying fuck everyone else? I've made a few quotes. It's pretty obvious that lots of other people have the same sentiments as these idiots but put it in a more eloquent way so i've not included those. Pretty sad how narrow minded people are.

As for me being up Chips arse, I was the 1st one to go agaisnt the general flow of shite on this thread and say my point. I do agree with most of what he's saying also.

RigPig

All the quotes are totally out of order, not called for at all.
But i still dont think we shouldbe sending the money

Escy

What's out of order, me for quoting or the people for saying it?

RigPig

read what i said dummy, i never said you were out of order.

mrjenrst

i cant believe how this has turned into a thred about race!

utterly pointless imo, why cant people accept it's nothing to do with colour of skin.

if i dont agree with sending money to foreign country's then i'm a rasict, sorry but it's ALMOST laughable but it's more pathetic!!!

Kam B

Can you imagine everyone in this thread being in a WWE wrestling ring? What on earth would happen

american

-LOL at this entire thread.

-Not quite, being a recipient of US economic aid, Pakistan will receive approximately $1.3US billion for 2010. 25% of the military is subsidized by the US government.

-That's just THIS year, before the flooding. Another $50US million has been approved for emergency relief. Between 2002-2010, Pakistan received approximately $18US billion in military and economic aid from the United States. In February, the Obama administration requested an additional $3US billion in aid, for a total of $20.7 USbillion.

-"WE" have spent the money and got zero results at winning the hearts and minds....they still hate us. That BILLIONS, with a capital "B" BTW.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Lol @ another one missing the point.

I wasnt saying it will do any good, i was saying it will not do harm, like I said, if it makes NO difference, thats less difference than all the troops make.

0 is a bigger number than -4 is

JjCoDeX75

I must confess that I started writing this yesterday, and then didn't get round to finishing it, so if it is woefully out of date, my apologies!

I wanted to pick up on the point made by some that the feeling was that the favour would not be returned if UK was flooded in a similar way.

Interestingly, I have been involved in the reinstatement works from two significant flood incidents in this country relatively recently, firstly the Thatcham & Gloucester Floods from a couple of years ago, and also the Boscastle floods from further back.

The most significant issue in this country is one of inconvenience (and believe me, the moaning that I heard over the matter of timing was significant, and in fairness in some cases, not unjustified!).

Notwithstanding the fact that neither flood even began to approach the scale of the disaster currently occuring in Pakistan, almost every house in this country was fully insured for the damage that was caused, and as a consequence, each householder had their property returned to the pre-incident condition (or in most cases significantly improved), and their damaged/ lost belongings replaced.

In less rich countries (take Haiti for example), the property owners have no such insurance policy. As such, when they lose their property and belongings - it is gone.

Now in fairness, I dont know the situation in this regard in Pakistan, but I suspect strongly that there will be a significant number of uninsured losses, which will leave many peoples lives wrecked well beyond the incident itself, even disregarding the significant number of people that have lost their lives.

For the above, I feel that there can be no reasonable objection to the frankly very small amount of money that has been offered on our behalf by our government.

american

-I understand and get YOUR point. My point being, no matter how much you give and whomever its given too.....they're just as ungrateful as the next recipient. It to be expected and their hands are always out. IE: Cuba, in 1950? the US stopped providing economic aid to Cuba, to this day we're no longer friends because of it. 90 miles off our coast.... No trade, no financial aid....now look at that country's current economic situation. If sanctions were lifted today....the line would be 90 miles long to the Florida coast.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

It will change the opinion of some individuals, you wont change the opinion of an entire culture overnight, its not a fast food restaurant where you can order a friend from the menu

american

-We have been economically linked since 1947 with Pakistan, still not friends yet.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I think when you kill innocent muslim children in an illegal war one day, and then hand over some cash the next day, both have an effect on how people view you, not just the money.
(a problem for both our countries not just yours)

american

-Again, since 1947....we have provided over $50 BILLION in aid. Economic and Military aid. I guess you could say that without our money, Pakistan would not have nuclear weapons that keep India from invading. YOUR India.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

expensive business attempting to control other countries.

gaz s1

Ho-efully the flood have washed the taliban away as thats the biggest danger to pakistan not the flooding!!!, and their government seem powerless to stop them without our help so we plow money in there which is money well spent because the taliban with nukes is not going to end with a happy ending!!!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

We (uk/us) give them the training via al queada to be effective terrorists, and we equip them with nuclear technology, then we go and kill loads of peopel they care about, then finally it dawns on us that might not be a good combination of things to have done.
Difficult business politics, I wouldnt fancy it!

RANJ

lets splash on our own british youth hey, 10 mill well spent
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10865629

packman

What do you expect we look after every other fooker except our own , get use to it !!!

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

I expect 10 million to go un-noticed in terms of debt to this country. As has already been mentioned it is 20p per person who pays tax who will contribute to this aid. Hardly anything for people to get all upset about really is it This country does look after its own in many ways

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Rich, I assume the state funded support your lovely mrs got during birth recently was up to standard?
Weird, you would think such things didnt exist in this country from reading this thread, its amazing how many things some people take for granted and dont appreciate.

mrjenrst

the N.H.S isnt free
It's set up for everybody to have the same standard of care. That the taxpayer's pay for!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Of course its use is free, its paid for out of a central government budget from tax revenue and there is no charge as you use it.

My god, what a cock you are, the argument in this thread is that taxpayers money goes into nothing for the UK people, the NHS is a perfect example of a massive amount of taxpayer money going to UK people to provide a free to use service of great value.

mrjenrst

How's it free lmfao
Your not charged to get hospital/medical care, tax payer's still pay for it thus making it not free. But if your talking about how it's not like private medical insurance that you pay for but not get charged when you use it.
Then erm well it's the same it was set up so everybody get's the same level of treatment, and saying it's free just doesnt make sense. Why the comment's about been a cock chip? Can you not handle someone having different view's/priority's to you?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Its free to use, because people dont pay when they use it.

Even if you are a non tax payer, you still get to use it, the government pays out of a central budget to set it up for everyone, and then we all use it free of charge, its very simple.

Of course its paid for by tax revenue, EVERYTHING that the government does ultimately comes back to tax revenue as that is where the governments money comes from in the first place, but the NHS is an example of one of the things they pay for from that pot which totally contradicts the point that many idiots on this thread are making that they pay into tax and get nothing back, which simply isnt true at all, one of the things they get back is use of the NHS.



Just to try and simplify the point so that even you can understand it:

Idiot in thread : we pay tax and get nothing back
Chip : one of the things your tax pays for is the nhs that you get use of


Is that simple enough for you to understand now?

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

The best support available my friend. She got to use the new birthing suite at St Heleir Hospital in Carshalton. Our own room with a birthing couch and water birth facilities (she didnt opt for that). 2 midwives, complete after care with helath visitors for her and Harrison. Brilliant support imo. But no it doesnt exist mate, its all in my head

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I hope that as it was just in your head and you were imagining it and it wasnt really an example of tax payer money going to a service for the uk tax payer that while you were imagining the nurses they looked like this:

mrjenrst

i'm glad your family were taken care of

but who said the N.H.S didnt exist?

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

Chippa,

One of the nurses i saw lush she was. well she was lush on the back of my eyelids anyway

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Well you yourself implied for a start, claiming that no uk flood victim was given access to any medical help from the ambulance service or the nhs:

But I was actually referring more to the other people on this thread saying we pay into tax and get nothing back out, I cant be arsed to trawl through 9 pages to quote them though.