€4 million to Uganda?

lightspeed

€700 million is a truly shocking figure. So if all the do gooders can ignore the so called moral issues they may have with calling it quits on foreign aid, am i correct in saying that we would not need a household tax or water rates to be introduced?

From what i read, the household tax was/is supposed to bring in €300 million and that is based on everybody paying it without all the admin costs of chasing those that refuse to pay it.

Id love to see a real honest survey where the people of Ireland were actually given a choice as to whether we should incur these austerity measures at the cost of our economy or scrap foreign aid?

Why has the above never been highlighted in the media?

.jacksparrow.

Didn't sir bob geldof get Britain and America to cancel the debts African countries owed?

Surely he can swing something for us with Europe seems he's one of us?

Maybe a live aid concert and realise a song about Ireland and its poverty?

shedweller

telecaster wrote: »

What is seldom acknowledged in the mainstream media is that the game is hideously rigged against Africa.

The mantra of free-trade as epoused by the EU and the United States is really "free-trade (but on our terms)".

It is cheaper to produce many products and resources within Africa than within EU/US, but the subsidies which are paid - particularly to the agriculture sectors - in these more developed nations effectively prohibits the African export business as they can not compete against subsidised markets. This is not freetrade.

There is also the fact that Africa has been effectively stripped of its resources and then put in the position of necessitating imports of finished goods. For example, raw materials leave Africa at a knockdown rate - often a condition of receiving aid is the privitisation of resources (look up Structural Adjustment Policies), the resources are bought for a song by 'western investors'. Then if an African nation wants to buy an airplane to improve aspects of their infrastructure, they are often (partially) constructed using the natural resources which have initially been exported. Effectively they get shafted both ends of the deal.

Why can't they build their own airplanes?

Pretty much because the talented and educated get the hell out of these dysfunctional nations asap.

Colonialism never ended, it just got better PR.

+1
Would this be why there is such a pro-aid bias here on boards and out on the street? Because it makes the big boys even wealthier? If so then the taxpayer hasn't a hope of cutting back aid or even getting all the figures out in the open for all to see. It's like a dirty shameful thing and it shouldnt be talked about.

Same as it ever was!

shedweller

lightspeed wrote: »

€700 million is a truly shocking figure. So if all the do gooders can ignore the so called moral issues they may have with calling it quits on foreign aid, am i correct in saying that we would not need a household tax or water rates to be introduced?

From what i read, the household tax was/is supposed to bring in €300 million and that is based on everybody paying it without all the admin costs of chasing those that refuse to pay it.

Id love to see a real honest survey where the people of Ireland were actually given a choice as to whether we should incur these austerity measures at the cost of our economy or scrap foreign aid?

Why has the above never been highlighted in the media?

Because it's a dirty subject and to talk about it is only going to highlight, to everybody, just how much it really costs us. While at the same time we are bringing in new taxes.

We are idiots.

Show Time

I find it hilarious because of my views in this thread i am considered a racists by one or two poster who know nothing about me.

Grayson

passarellaie wrote: »

It appears that we are spending 700 million on foreign aid.Imagine with 50,000 a year emigrating,mothers worrying about feeding their kids and these clowns in Dublin are sending 700 MILLION of our money on foreign aid.
Truly we need a taxpayers strike

So, it's bad that mothers are worrying about feeding children, but not if they're in africa and the children are starving to death.

Remember, the point of this money is to save lifes. Not to enable someone on the dole to get a new Tv, or to pay a new teachers 32k a year or a politician a hundred grand a year.

It's to save lives.

There was a famine in Solamia last year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14785304

As many as 750,000 were in danger. The international community rallied and the death toll was nowhere that high. And it's because of international aid.

Are you honestly telling me that you have no problem with 750,000 people dying? You'd be quite happy having the world sit by and do absolutely nothing? Cos what your advocating is pretty close to genocide. And really that would make you the most heartless evil person I've ever heard of.

Capt'n Midnight

K-9 wrote: »

Africa will eventally get Foreign investment like China and the rest of the Far East and Brazil. Economies classed as third world will emerge and become the emerging countries like those did. Once China and Brazil become "too expensive"to manufacture goods corporations will look to more African countries.

Very out of touch.

China is winning hearts and minds with their investments in Africa. Yes there is corruption, but there are no human rights hoops to jump through and at the end of the day the roads get build.

The US has lost the PR battle in Africa, China has been seen as the most important investor by Africans for a long time now. India, another large investor threw in the towel years ago with regards to any competition with China.

There has been a massive land grab in Africa in recent years by the Middle East / Asia. It's cheaper to grow food in Africa and export it than to provide water back home. A few years ago the area involved was the size of Belgium.



It's unlikely for China to become too expensive for manufactured goods. With the exception of the Roman Empire(maybe), Industrial Revolution, the civil war and Japanese invasion of the last centure, China has been out producing the rest of the world for literally thousands of years.

Capt'n Midnight

lightspeed wrote: »

Id love to see a real honest survey where the people of Ireland were actually given a choice as to whether we should incur these austerity measures at the cost of our economy or scrap foreign aid?

Why has the above never been highlighted in the media?

From Yes Minister (The National Education Service First airtime BBC: 21 January 1988)

Jim Hacker: "Math has become politicized: If it costs 5 billion pounds a year to maintain Britain's nuclear defences and 75 pounds a year to feed a starving African child, how many African children can be saved from starvation if the Ministry of Defence abandoned nuclear weapons?"

Sir Humphrey: "That's easy: none. They'd spend it all on conventional weapons."

Anyone who thinks that money not sent to Africa will be spent on health is completely deluded.

The Lotto provides money to health. The government uses this as a way to spend less on health and divert those funds to other stuff.

Look at how much we've pumped in to the managers and paper shufflers of the HSE.

When they've got rid of the waste and pocket lining then they can start considering stuff that affects real peoples lives.

kodoherty93

I cant understand why this money is BS reasons like building a well or a new road.

Why isnt the money spent on education particularly for women. Like there is a proven link between a fall in fertilty rates and economic growth eg China, Brazil, Iran(not the best example but a majority of its university students are women)

Africa will continue to be poor eg Uganda with a fertility rate of 6.15 children per women which has barely declined in 50 years. Like in 1960s Im sure if a women had 6 children, only 2/3 lived would have survived like Ireland in the 1930s. But with western aid all of the children now survive.

Even Melinda Gates who is Bill Gates wife. Believes the priority for these countries is no longer focusing on HIV but reducing the birth rate to allow economic growth.

Like even an Islamic country such as Iran which we are told is homophobic and the society hates women, but has had a family planning programme in the 1980s to increase economic growth. Uganda can with its chrisitian faith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rilAlXjunIE

Grayson

kodoherty93 wrote: »

I cant understand why this money is BS reasons like building a well or a new road.

Why isnt the money spent on education particularly for women. Like there is a proven link between a fall in fertilty rates and economic growth eg China, Brazil, Iran(not the best example but a majority of its university students are women)

Africa will continue to be poor eg Uganda with a fertility rate of 6.15 children per women which has barely declined in 50 years. Like in 1960s Im sure if a women had 6 children, only 2/3 lived would have survived like Ireland in the 1930s. But with western aid all of the children now survive.

Even Melinda Gates who is Bill Gates wife. Believes the priority for these countries is no longer focusing on HIV but reducing the birth rate to allow economic growth.

Like even an Islamic country such as Iran which we are told is homophobic and the society hates women, but has had a family planning programme in the 1980s to increase economic growth. Uganda can with its chrisitian faith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rilAlXjunIE

I read somewhere that the biggest cause of death in women under the age of 20 worldwide was childbirth.

planetX

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Very out of touch.

China is winning hearts and minds with their investments in Africa. Yes there is corruption, but there are no human rights hoops to jump through and at the end of the day the roads get build.

The US has lost the PR battle in Africa, China has been seen as the most important investor by Africans for a long time now. India, another large investor threw in the towel years ago with regards to any competition with China.

There has been a massive land grab in Africa in recent years by the Middle East / Asia. It's cheaper to grow food in Africa and export it than to provide water back home. A few years ago the area involved was the size of Belgium.



It's unlikely for China to become too expensive for manufactured goods. With the exception of the Roman Empire(maybe), Industrial Revolution, the civil war and Japanese invasion of the last centure, China has been out producing the rest of the world for literally thousands of years.

China is not winning hearts from what I've seen - they are investing bigtime because they want Africas mineral resources. It's business, not philanthropy.

aidoh

The likening of Ireland to a third-world African nation in this thread is completely ridiculous.
Yeah things are bad but nobody in this country has to wake up and live the day in fear of starving to death, dying because it hasn't rained in 7 years (I'll say nothing), or getting shot in the face, tortured or mutilated.

It was mentioned earlier that someone would like to see how many Irish people would vote yes if asked if we still want to continue giving aid.
I'd like to think the vast majority of Irish people would say yes, and that the whingers and moaners on here represent and overly-vocal minority.

As if you'd ever get to see any of that 700 million anyway.

smurgen

We need a full study on our entier international aid system. We Need to ensure that the money being spent is being used as effeciently as possible.we should be aiming to help those in immediate danger of starvation and illness.after that we should be encouraging irish companies that operate in africa and generating stronger trade links with african countries.only employment and development will pull these people out of this mess not cash being handed over to their governments

Death and Taxes

Show Time wrote: »

I find it hilarious because of my views in this thread i am considered a racists by one or two poster who know nothing about me.

They know what you chose to tell them about yourself through your posts

Death and Taxes

Show Time wrote: »

I find it hilarious because of my views in this thread i am considered a racists by one or two poster who know nothing about me.

You mean like this racist rant:
Best to let them all either learn how to farm or mine the land and if the natives are to lazy or stupid to even manage that than let them all die off and repopulate the lands with folks who are willing to do some work.

gallag

A lot of the aid money should be spent on condoms, wtf are they breeding like bunny for. If there were less baby's and less aids it would be a start.

Capt'n Midnight

planetX wrote: »

China is not winning hearts from what I've seen - they are investing bigtime because they want Africas mineral resources. It's business, not philanthropy.

It's relative.

EU/US aid for large schemes is usually wasted, same with China except the roads actually get built. And there aren't any human rights loopholes to adhere to. China don't pretend. A lot of Western aid is really subsidies for exporters back home. US corn conglomerates being a prime example.

Megaprojects / nationalisations usually benefit western financial institutions more than anyone else. :mad:

We generally fund small scale stuff so we get more bang for our buck.

Show Time

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You mean like this racist rant:
Best to let them all either learn how to farm or mine the land and if the natives are to lazy or stupid to even manage that than let them all die off and repopulate the lands with folks who are willing to do some work.

So it is now racist to call people lazy or stupid??

Show Time

gallag wrote: »

A lot of the aid money should be spent on condoms, wtf are they breeding like bunny for. If there were less baby's and less aids it would be a start.

Catholic Church needs to breed new followers and if they can bring them into a world full of suffering and despair they can fool the poor sods that they are on for a good thing in the "next" life.

lightspeed

Show Time wrote: »

So it is now racist to call people lazy or stupid??

I dont see how your comments were racist considering race was not mentioned in the your post.

I wonder how many people would make the accusation of racism if the majority of people in Africa were white?

aidoh

Show Time wrote: »

So it is now racist to call people lazy or stupid??

If it isn't racist it's certainly insensitive to suggest that millions of people who are dying needlessly through no fault of their own are doing so because they are lazy or stupid.
I wonder how long any of us would last in a country with no food, the threat of genocidal lunatics coming to kill / rape / kidnap you and your loved ones and constant drought.
Would we be moaning about the governments aid policy then and calling ourselves and our neighbours lazy idiots?

donegal_road

a couple of years ago, this story got lost in the whirlpool of other scandals that were appearing in the media, so this story didn't get much attention.

Some members of the previous government and god knows who else in the Dail, owned shares in an Irish owned oil exploration company called Tullow.

The Irish government announced that they were awarding €166 million in aid money to Uganda, over a 5 year period.

Within days of this announcement, Tullow Oil gets a Ugandan Government Minister's signature on an exploration deal they had been chasing for months.

Tullow's share price increased, happy days for the shareholders.

The whole saga is here



*for anyone that could give a damn*

MaxSteele

Nodin wrote: »

Well done - you've dragged the tone even lower. No mean feat, considering. You're actually so clueless its hard to know where to begin.

I've done f*ck all really though. You just decided to take great offense at a question as to how me or you not funding foreign aid to Uganda is "letting them" starve to death. It isn't. You don't need to get uptight everytime someone doesn't jump to the defence of Africans, immigrants or espouses an opinion which you don't like.

So again, instead of throwing out more of your vague, hysterical accusations, try begin and tell me as to how "clueless" I am.

Show Time

How this Nodin is still posting on here is beyond me.

I was under the impression personal insults were not tolerated on Boards.ie

lightspeed

aidoh wrote: »

If it isn't racist it's certainly insensitive to suggest that millions of people who are dying needlessly through no fault of their own are doing so because they are lazy or stupid.
I wonder how long any of us would last in a country with no food, the threat of genocidal lunatics coming to kill / rape / kidnap you and your loved ones and constant drought.
Would we be moaning about the governments aid policy then and calling ourselves and our neighbours lazy idiots?

Well there is a world of difference between being racist and insensitive because if there isn't then it would be fair to say that people who believe in nazi ideology or the Klu Klux Klan are merely just insensitive.

You make it sound like if the poverty situation got so bad in Ireland the situation would be the same as in Africa when the reality is it wouldn't be.

For one the issue of religion and tolerance is a world of difference in European countries in Ireland and in other countries in Africa and the middle east.

If we had that level of corruption and poverty in Ireland, I would expect the Irish people to rise up and eliminate those responsible. This would probably mean a civil war/ Irish Spring and we would then put in place a proper democracy.
As Irish people are quite tolerant of each others religions and beliefs, we would recover and would no longer need large amounts of aid for decades and for other countries to import our population and provide them with refugee status.

The is not the same as in the case of other countries in Africa. In most African countries, they do not tolerate each others religions and so if you give money to one government, your just propping up a regime until their is more conflict with minority demographic groups. Whether its Sunni Muslims, ****e muslims or Christians and jews, they will not learn to get along and so throwing money at them is not a solution. You maybe able to replace a Sunni Muslim Government with a ****e government but that just means that the boots of oppression have not been eliminated, they have merely changed feet. That means there will always be a demographic group who is persecuted and so there will always be refugees. Decades of money throwing has proved this.

This is why it does not make sense to take in any refugees or throw money at the problem because there will always be corruption and refugees because there will always be demographic serving corrupt politics and conflict.
Same as with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/10/26/debunking-two-myths-about-sub-saharan-africa/

What’s pretty clear is that the trend is a positive one. In 1975, six out of every seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa was a dictatorship. Now, there are only two autocratic countries on the continent, Swaziland and Eritrea.

In 1975, there were only two islands of democracy, literally in the case of Mauritius, 500 miles off the coast of Madagascar (the other being Botswana). Now there are 19 democracies and 11 other countries that could be described as democratic-leaning.

No-one is for a minute arguing that the political system in Africa is perfect – democracies can be just as corrupt as autocracies in certain circumstances – but the idea that there is some sort of warlord class of dictator still ruling over the world’s second most populous continent is ridiculously uninformed.

...
GDP growth in sub-Saharan Africa averaged 2.5% in the twenty years to 2000, barely enough to cover population growth. Since then, population growth has slowed while economic growth has accelerated. The average rate of growth in the period 2000-2017 is expected to be 6% – with the final few years actually slightly slower than the period 2000-2012.

So again, no-one is arguing that Africa is perfect or even that there are no chronic situations in Africa. But those who assert that money put into Africa is money wasted, because ‘clearly the continent is a basket case (possibly under the thumb of the West)’ again make their case devoid of all evidence.

bodhrandude

To me that thread title looked like Channel 4 million to Uganda.

UCDVet

I'm sorry but this seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Ireland has plenty of ways to better use four million Euro than giving it away.

donegal_road

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm sorry but this seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Ireland has plenty of ways to better use four million Euro than giving it away.

it probably has something to do with the legacy of the previous government. See post 173 above

Show Time

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm sorry but this seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Ireland has plenty of ways to better use four million Euro than giving it away.

Careful now or you will be tagged as a racist.

losthorizon

Nobody has pointed out I think that it was the Ugandan authorities who discovered this money had gone missing in the first place and reported it to Eamonn Gilmores Office. In fact I read it was money donated by Ireland to the Auditor Generals office in aid and training that has allowed them to develop and discover things like this.

At least there will be a big march for the in support of the Ugandan PMs office in Cavan Town tonight I understand. Thousands are expected to attend. They hate corruption. Well, when its somewhere else.


This thread reminds me of the book The Help its like 1960s Mississippi.

gallag

To be fair, our environment makes it hard for us to starve, not our work ethic. The starving are not choosing to do so for fear of toiling in a field, they have no rich soil or rain. if the problem is ever going to be solved then they need to address their population increase, how hard is it to wack a condom on? Can anyone point to a negative for condoms use.

EDDIE WATERS

gallag wrote: »

To be fair, our environment makes it hard for us to starve, not our work ethic. The starving are not choosing to do so for fear of toiling in a field, they have no rich soil or rain. if the problem is ever going to be solved then they need to address their population increase, how hard is it to wack a condom on? Can anyone point to a negative for condoms use.

Riding Bareback is better.It is a circle their mother`s and father`s had big famillies.They think by having 15 kids It will ensure that some of them survive and someone has to look after their parents.

gallag

EDDIE WATERS wrote: »

Riding Bareback is better.It is a circle their mother`s and father`s had big famillies.They think by having 15 kids It will ensure that some of them survive and someone has to look after their parents.

Would it be unethical to pay men to have the snip?

EDDIE WATERS

I think after 3 kids they have to something.

gallag

I am not a big fan of religion but the pope is insane. How can he think it is more Christian to spread hiv and bring babies destined to die from hunger than to wear a condom. Proper bat **** Cray.
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids?cat=world&type=article

The Pope today reignited the controversy over the Catholic church's stance on condom use as he made his first trip to Africa.The pontiff said condoms were not the answer to the continent's fight against HIV and Aids and could make the problem worse.Benedict XVI made his comments as he flew to Cameroon for the first leg of a six-day trip that will also see him travelling to Angola.The timing of his remarks outraged health agencies trying to halt the spread of HIV and Aids in sub-Saharan Africa, where an estimated 22 million people are infected.The Roman Catholic church encourages sexual abstinence and fidelity to prevent the disease from spreading, but it is a policy that has divided some clergy working with Aids patients.The pontiff, speaking to journalists on his flight, said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".Rebecca Hodes, of the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, said that if the Pope was serious about preventing new HIV infections he would focus on promoting wider access to condoms and spreading information about how best to use them.Hodes, the director of policy, communication and research for the campaign group, added: "Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans."It is not the first time the Pope has made public remarks on the HIV/Aids outbreak ravaging the continent.Shortly after becoming pontiff in 2005, he told senior Catholic clergy from Africa that, while the disease was a "cruel epidemic", it could not be cured through using condoms.Addressing bishops from South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, Namibia and Lesotho who had travelled to the Vatican for papal audience, he said: "The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids."He also warned them that African life was under threat from a number of factors, including condoms."It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality," he added.More than two-thirds – 67% – of the global total of 32.9 million people with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa.Three-quarters of all Aids deaths in 2007 happened there.Africa is the fastest-growing region for the Roman Catholic church, which competes with Islam and evangelical churches.The Pope also said today that he intended to make an appeal for "international solidarity" for Africa in the face of the global economic downturn.He said that, while the church did not propose specific economic solutions, it could give "spiritual and moral" suggestions.Describing the current crisis as the consequence of "a deficit of ethics in economic structures", he added: "It is here that the church can make a contribution."Benedict dismissed claims that he was facing increasing opposition and isolation within the church, particularly after an outreach to ultra-conservatives led to him lifting the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop."The myth of my solitude makes me laugh," he said, adding that he could count on the network of friends and aides he saw every day.In a letter to Catholic bishops, released last week, he made an unusual public acknowledgment of Vatican mistakes over the rehabilitation of Bishop Richard Williamson.While acknowledging that errors had been made in handling the affair, Benedict said he was saddened that he was criticised "with open hostility" even by those who "should have known better".

lightspeed

Why is that i hear many people in Ireland discussing child welfare and saying that people should no longer have children they cant afford and yet the same attitude does not seem to apply to foreign African countries who we give hundreds of millions to?

zom

lightspeed wrote: »

Why is that i hear many people in Ireland discussing child welfare and saying that people should no longer have children they cant afford and yet the same attitude does not seem to apply to foreign African countries who we give hundreds of millions to?

How do you know? Are you reading Uganda's papers or forums?

lightspeed

zom wrote: »

How do you know? Are you reading Uganda's papers or forums?

I meant why are people here in Ireland not calling for people in Africa to put measures in place to try and reduce their population? If we are putting in over €700 million of irish tax payers money to fund welfare and aid in Africa, why is it not a topic of discussion in Ireland the same way the funding of welfare for children in Ireland is?

So some irish taxpayers believe that people in Ireland should not have children that they cant afford, as it costs the state too much money. However, they do not feel the same about Africa, despite the amount of money we have to give them each year.

The above is completely illogical to me.

Annasopra

zom wrote: »

How do you know? Are you reading Uganda's papers or forums?

Why? are you?

golden lane

as long a countries give other countries aid.........they will never change for their own good.......

as long as people pay people for having children......people will have children......

Nodin

golden lane wrote: »

as long a countries give other countries aid.........they will never change for their own good.......

as long as people pay people for having children......people will have children......

...why were there larger families in the era before child benefit then?

golden lane

Nodin wrote: »

...why were there larger families in the era before child benefit then?

is that a question, or a contradiction.....or both.

was ireland giving money to uganda then...?????

Nodin

golden lane wrote: »

is that a question, or a contradiction.....or both.

was ireland giving money to uganda then...?????

I was unaware Uganda contained a unique species of humanity.
I was also unaware that Irish aid paid child benefit to Ugandans.

You stated "as long as people pay people for having children......people will have children......" yet the era pre-child benefit saw families generally larger here and elsewhere.

phoenix999

Certain parts of Africa are certainly in need of aid, but countries like Uganda can still spend $744million buying Russian made fighter jets.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013604576248094099823846.html

They need to get their priorities right. Just as we should. A bailed out country cannot afford to be giving over 650million in annual foreign aid (essentially more borrowed money).

petersburg2002

The biggest scourge to the African continent besides malaria and AIDS is government corruption. If we think we have it bad just Google the pay and allowances of politicians in Nigeria. And Mugabe and his ilk have the brass neck to harp on about Western Imperialism while they revel in their palace compounds while chaos reigns. Education is the key to Africa's future. Then they can vote out these tyrants.

SEPT 23 1989

send The Viper over to get it back

petersburg2002

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

send The Viper over to get it back

He could probably link up with the Chinese. They seem to be taking over the shop in Africa.

Wibbs

phoenix999 wrote: »

Certain parts of Africa are certainly in need of aid, but countries like Uganda can still spend $744million buying Russian made fighter jets.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013604576248094099823846.html

They need to get their priorities right. Just as we should. A bailed out country cannot afford to be giving over 650million in annual foreign aid (essentially more borrowed money).

This plus a thousand. It's beyond ridiculous, when you consider that 400,000 people in Ireland are on the brink or in food poverty and we're sending over half a billion on foreign aid? If the ugandan government can afford to spend nearly a billion dollars on fighter planes and have been getting some nice payouts from China and have some decent oil revenue and their inflation rate is dropping like a stone, then WT jumping F are we doing giving them money? Money we don't have and all of us are being squeezed to some degree or other with new taxes et al. How much will the household charge bring in compared to this money going out? How much tax needs to flow into the country's coffers to cover this expense? For me GTFO sums it up. Oh and we also pay out more per head in foriegn aid than Germany. How's that sensible? We need to be much more discerning on who we're sending money to, or it'll be more waste to add to our already dodgy books.

Chinasea

We all know that some of the money in ALL charities could be better spent. If you don't want to donate than don't, but lay off trying to tell us we have people starving in this country.

To compare the so called 'poverty' in Ireland with the sheer and utter deprivation in Africa is just quite frankly shameful.