Have I said leave them to it ? No I said open doors and move people to areas that can sustain them. We need to keep as much money as we can in this country to get us out of the mire we are in.
That could prove more difficult as other countries become more powerful and more populated.
China currently are buying up huge tracts of fertile land in Africa, and the locals get tipped off it, the Chinese then intensively farm this land.
Sadly the locals are not the ones working there or the benficiaries of the harvests, that goes directly back to the Chinese.
So even now in 2012, the richer nations are still taking advantage of Africa and her people.
That annoys me, look at the stand up for cancer telething recently, if those celebs wanted to they could pool their money and find a cure themselves, but they tell others to give money?? What also annoys me a lot is the shameless self promotion that comes with it. There is a sense of 'look at me I'm donating look, look at me I'm kind and generous look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee'.
I know a lot of people dislike celebrity involvement in charities, but they are there for a reason: because they do bring in the money. Try imagining red nose day or Children in Need with a bunch of Birmingham schoolteachers doing the mock Strictly Come Dancing instead of celebrities, and see how much money the three remaining viewers donate. Even positively obnoxious things - Jordan getting her granite bosoms out for the paparazzi at a 'benefit' - are business decisions by the charity concerned, who might not have her 'autobiographies' on their office shelves, but value the press attention that follows her, if it generates more giving.
This is where celebrities can't win. (And I do take on board that Bono should pay his taxes). If you get something like red nose day, there are indeed some quite well off people doing reports from Africa. But I am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they probably HAVE given generously. You would, wouldn't you, if you were comfortably off, and actually visiting the site of a desperately needed clinic? If the celebrities started asking us to make a donations and holding up big receipts, saying "look at me, I've already given five hundred quid!" - they would just look like tossers. I think the 'why should I give money because someone richer than me is doing the asking' is a bit of a cheap get-out to be honest. If the project looks good, and worthwhile, what does it matter whether the presenter on the night is Aung San Suu Kyi or Sooty? .
I will still give money I just hate being asked by the rich and famous when I know they could afford to give ALOT more than I ever could but most of them probably don't and are just doing it to raise their profile!
I have given to all kinds of charity throughout my Life so far & still do give to Cancer Research,Scope, I also to say i'm also sick & teired of the same ad's over & over again year after year especially at Christmas..Give to this one, that one,& that one too...If ppl want to give then fair enough& have the spare money all well & good... it's their money after all...But these ads who pay's for them? & How much do they cost per ad? Do these celebs get paid for appearing in these ads?!
I have been saying this for decades. Good to see many others not seeing it for what it is.
How many more years are we going to carry on supporting people who will just not stop dropping out babies they can't afford to feed?
A classic example of someone who really can't be bothered to read any of the facts, as he is so comfortable in his ignorance.
I suppose we as a country will continue 'supporting people' for as long as it seems to be to our advantage. We as individuals will continue 'supporting people' as long as there is kindness in the world. Was that the answer you were looking for?
Its like the whole Kony The Tiger 2012 thing, the amount of trend brain-dead nonsensical celebrity pandering to that "cause" was beyond nauseating.
Especially as non of them really had a clue who Kony was, and didn't stop long enough to realise Invisible Children is an incredibly shady organisation. :rolleyes:
More of the money spent there needs to go on contraception.
Yes, that should be the primary goal all around, eliminating population growth. The major problems of the world could all be lessened if we stopped having so many children. In 25 years we've increased our total by 2 billion. The world wasn't short on people in 1987, there's no need for us to continue reproducing at these rates.
And for countries that worry about not having enough young people, there will be plenty in the rest of the world, that you could invite in.
I will still give money I just hate being asked by the rich and famous when I know they could afford to give ALOT more than I ever could but most of them probably don't and are just doing it to raise their profile!
There you see the whole problem of fund raising via celebrities. It is impossible for a celebrity to generate charitable giving without at the same time 'raising their profile'. Queen and U2, for example, were massive beneficiaries of Live Aid. There is no way for a celebrity to bring in that kind of money while hiding in disguise and under a false name. Perhaps it doesn't matter what the actual motivation of the celebrity is as long as the money is raised; most of them are probably pleased to help suffering people, and also pleased to be invited to be on the telly. I can't honestly see how you can force them only to feel the first.
I..But these ads who pay's for them? & How much do they cost per ad? Do these celebs get paid for appearing in these ads?!
All charities have to submit accounts to the charity commission, where you are free to look through them. If a charity seems to be spending too much on fund-raising and too little on their actual objectives, find one that seems to you to be doing better. Large charities like the ones you name will use specialist financial advisors. They may make an error, eg in trying a fundraising tactic that does not prove worthwhile, but should not make the same error twice.
I know a lot of people dislike celebrity involvement in charities, but they are there for a reason: because they do bring in the money. Try imagining red nose day or Children in Need with a bunch of Birmingham schoolteachers doing the mock Strictly Come Dancing instead of celebrities, and see how much money the three remaining viewers donate. Even positively obnoxious things - Jordan getting her granite bosoms out for the paparazzi at a 'benefit' - are business decisions by the charity concerned, who might not have her 'autobiographies' on their office shelves, but value the press attention that follows her, if it generates more giving.
I think to suggest people only donate because a celebrity is attached is a little unfair. I do think some celebrity influence is good, George Clooney in the Sudan for example, he doesn't make it all about himself and he seems to genuinely care about the issue. Not saying he is perfect, but he is the best example I can think of. However there are so many who see it as a chance to generate some PR without really understanding the issue at hand.
Yes, that should be the primary goal all around, eliminating population growth. The major problems of the world could all be lessened if we stopped having so many children. In 25 years we've increased our total by 2 billion. The world wasn't short on people in 1987, there's no need for us to continue reproducing at these rates.
And for countries that worry about not having enough young people, there will be plenty in the rest of the world, that you could invite in.
An excellent objective, though not one that can be achieved overnight. Birth rates fall dramatically when a countries educational and social care infrastructure improves. There is nothing more likely to make someone have 12 children than living in a country where most children die, and where your surviving children will be the only thing standing between you and a grisly death by starvation in later life.
Here is Joel Cohen, professor of population studies at Rockerfeller University in New York: "putting girls through secondary school could cut the expected growth in the human population by as much as three billion by 2050." Well worth helping to fund some high schools, no?
There you see the whole problem of fund raising via celebrities. It is impossible for a celebrity to generate charitable giving without at the same time 'raising their profile'. Queen and U2, for example, were massive beneficiaries of Live Aid. There is no way for a celebrity to bring in that kind of money while hiding in disguise and under a false name. Perhaps it doesn't matter what the actual motivation of the celebrity is as long as the money is raised; most of them are probably pleased to help suffering people, and also pleased to be invited to be on the telly. I can't honestly see how you can force them only to feel the first.
All charities have to submit accounts to the charity commission, where you are free to look through them. If a charity seems to be spending too much on fund-raising and too little on their actual objectives, find one that seems to you to be doing better. Large charities like the ones you name will use specialist financial advisors. They may make an error, eg in trying a fundraising tactic that does not prove worthwhile, but should not make the same error twice.
Thanks for replying Wonkeydonkey...So all this Money going to Africa, is accounted for by Advisors? Just the same as this country do? & would the Celebs being paid also show up if they're getting a fee for appearing in a tv ad?!
Here is Joel Cohen, professor of population studies at Rockerfeller University in New York: "putting girls through secondary school could cut the expected growth in the human population by as much as three billion by 2050." Well worth helping to fund some high schools, no?
Yes, liberating and educating females is an important part of it. Let them have a life of their own, and it'll be difficult to have them be pregnant over and over.
Thanks for replying Wonkeydonkey...So all this Money going to Africa, is accounted for by Advisors? Just the same as this country do? & would the Celebs being paid also show up if they're getting a fee for appearing in a tv ad?!
Large development charities certainly do use specialist advisors with experience of the country concerned. The standard is pretty high - at least I know some very successful professional people who have applied for charity jobs and not got them.
I'm not quite sure that I understand your second question. There are people who do both paid and unpaid promotional work. Stephen Fry is an example.
What we need to do is give them back control over their own oil and mineral resources, start buying the food they sell us at sensible prices, stop linking government aid to arms deals etc.
Give them the means to trade fairly and stand on their own two feet.
I use to think why didn't we send them condoms over but don't a lot of women over there end up pregnant through rape so I doubt the men raping these women are going to think to themselves "ohhh I better wear a rubber so she doesn't get pregnant"!
Large development charities certainly do use specialist advisors with experience of the country concerned. The standard is pretty high - at least I know some very successful professional people who have applied for charity jobs and not got them.
I'm not quite sure that I understand your second question. There are people who do both paid and unpaid promotional work. Stephen Fry is an example.
Ok thanks for the first reply...So Stephen fry gets paid to appear on the ad? So Basically if thats true, why doesn't he just give his fee back to the charity? So he is asking for ppl to reach into their pockets & getting Paid for it? Kind of ridiculous if you ask me! Why don't all these celebs just give their time freely? I don't get that!
I use to think why didn't we send them condoms over but don't a lot of women over there end up pregnant through rape so I doubt the men raping these women are going to think to themselves "ohhh I better wear a rubber so she doesn't get pregnant"!
I don't think a shortage of condoms is really an issue to be honest. Condoms are quite cheap. In Swaziland, for example, which is a desperately poor country, anyone can help themselves to as many condoms as they want for nothing at any pharmacy. YOu could go over there and fill up a bin bag with them if you wanted. But yes, you are right. In (I think this is right) every African country except South Africa, women have no legal right to deny their husband sex. And the problem of men working away from home is absolutely endemic. Poor African miners and factory workers are in no position to buy a nice family home near to their place or work: they live in squalid conditions, then go home to their families perhaps three or four times a year. While they are working in the towns, they are not always or even usually celibate. You could hardly devise a better system for transmitting Aids. When they go home, their wife cannot refuse them sex or demand that they wear a condom. There are billboards all over southern africa trying to instil in men the idea that wearing a condom is considerate, romantic and loving; but I get the impression that it has some way to go.
Which I realize has strayed some distance from the problem of population control. That really does come with social progress, not just handing out condoms. Few of us have 12 children, not because we have access to condoms, but because we have a very good chance that the children we do have will grow up healthy and independent.
Ok thanks for the first reply...So Stephen fry gets paid to appear on the ad? So Basically if thats true, why doesn't he just give his fee back to the charity? So he is asking for ppl to reach into their pockets & getting Paid for it? Kind of ridiculous if you ask me! Why don't all these celebs just give their time freely? I don't get that!
Stephen Fry gets paid to advertise Twinings tea and Virgin broadband. He also does unpaid promotional work for charities.
Yes, liberating and educating females is an important part of it. Let them have a life of their own, and it'll be difficult to have them be pregnant over and over.
As I mentioned before for me this is the best step forward. Educated women have less children, this is a trend seen throughout the world, just look at western birth rates compared to those in the third world. Also educating them means they will need less aid in the first place, for me foreign aid is all well and good, but the best way forward is to give people the tools to dig themselves out of poverty.
Of course this is not a magic solution. It does not solve the issues raised in the trade not aid debate, but it would mean a massive step forward.
What we need to do is give them back control over their own oil and mineral resources, start buying the food they sell us at sensible prices, stop linking government aid to arms deals etc.
Give them the means to trade fairly and stand on their own two feet.
Fat chance of that happening. As soon as a leader steps out of line, they are quickly eliminated. Either by internal politics influenced by Western corporations or a quick discredit via Fox news followed by a few bombs.
Fat chance of that happening. As soon as a leader steps out of line, they are quickly eliminated. Either by internal politics influenced by Western corporations or a quick discredit via Fox news followed by a few bombs.
I think a lot of people have an invested interest in Africa remaining the way it is, governments don't want any more competition, global corporations want cheap labor and materials. A capitalist model relies on those at the bottom, unless we change a heck of a lot about how the world is run, it will remain the same. Also not sure we should really be lumping it all in together and labeling it 'Africa', it is a continent after all and not all problems are universal.
I think a lot of people have an invested in Africa remaining the way it is, governments don't want any more competition, global corporations want cheap labor and materials. A capitalist model relies on those at the bottom, unless we change a heck of a lot about how the world is run, it will remain the same. Also not sure we should really be lumping it all in together and labeling it 'Africa', it is a continent after all and not all problems are universal.
yes, all true. I do wonder how places like Botswana and Uganda would have fared if it had not been for Aids. It feels horribly as if there may have been a magic window for getting their foot in the door as far as international trade is concerned, and that being all but overwhelmed by Aids has made them miss it.
Comments
China currently are buying up huge tracts of fertile land in Africa, and the locals get tipped off it, the Chinese then intensively farm this land.
Sadly the locals are not the ones working there or the benficiaries of the harvests, that goes directly back to the Chinese.
So even now in 2012, the richer nations are still taking advantage of Africa and her people.
http://http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2012-10-04/land-sold-last-decade-could-grow-enough-food-feed-billion-people
I know a lot of people dislike celebrity involvement in charities, but they are there for a reason: because they do bring in the money. Try imagining red nose day or Children in Need with a bunch of Birmingham schoolteachers doing the mock Strictly Come Dancing instead of celebrities, and see how much money the three remaining viewers donate. Even positively obnoxious things - Jordan getting her granite bosoms out for the paparazzi at a 'benefit' - are business decisions by the charity concerned, who might not have her 'autobiographies' on their office shelves, but value the press attention that follows her, if it generates more giving.
I will still give money I just hate being asked by the rich and famous when I know they could afford to give ALOT more than I ever could but most of them probably don't and are just doing it to raise their profile!
A classic example of someone who really can't be bothered to read any of the facts, as he is so comfortable in his ignorance.
I suppose we as a country will continue 'supporting people' for as long as it seems to be to our advantage. We as individuals will continue 'supporting people' as long as there is kindness in the world. Was that the answer you were looking for?
Especially as non of them really had a clue who Kony was, and didn't stop long enough to realise Invisible Children is an incredibly shady organisation. :rolleyes:
Yes, that should be the primary goal all around, eliminating population growth. The major problems of the world could all be lessened if we stopped having so many children. In 25 years we've increased our total by 2 billion. The world wasn't short on people in 1987, there's no need for us to continue reproducing at these rates.
And for countries that worry about not having enough young people, there will be plenty in the rest of the world, that you could invite in.
All charities have to submit accounts to the charity commission, where you are free to look through them. If a charity seems to be spending too much on fund-raising and too little on their actual objectives, find one that seems to you to be doing better. Large charities like the ones you name will use specialist financial advisors. They may make an error, eg in trying a fundraising tactic that does not prove worthwhile, but should not make the same error twice.
I think to suggest people only donate because a celebrity is attached is a little unfair. I do think some celebrity influence is good, George Clooney in the Sudan for example, he doesn't make it all about himself and he seems to genuinely care about the issue. Not saying he is perfect, but he is the best example I can think of. However there are so many who see it as a chance to generate some PR without really understanding the issue at hand.
An excellent objective, though not one that can be achieved overnight. Birth rates fall dramatically when a countries educational and social care infrastructure improves. There is nothing more likely to make someone have 12 children than living in a country where most children die, and where your surviving children will be the only thing standing between you and a grisly death by starvation in later life.
Here is Joel Cohen, professor of population studies at Rockerfeller University in New York: "putting girls through secondary school could cut the expected growth in the human population by as much as three billion by 2050." Well worth helping to fund some high schools, no?
Thanks for replying Wonkeydonkey...So all this Money going to Africa, is accounted for by Advisors? Just the same as this country do? & would the Celebs being paid also show up if they're getting a fee for appearing in a tv ad?!
Yes, liberating and educating females is an important part of it. Let them have a life of their own, and it'll be difficult to have them be pregnant over and over.
Large development charities certainly do use specialist advisors with experience of the country concerned. The standard is pretty high - at least I know some very successful professional people who have applied for charity jobs and not got them.
I'm not quite sure that I understand your second question. There are people who do both paid and unpaid promotional work. Stephen Fry is an example.
Give them the means to trade fairly and stand on their own two feet.
Ok thanks for the first reply...So Stephen fry gets paid to appear on the ad? So Basically if thats true, why doesn't he just give his fee back to the charity? So he is asking for ppl to reach into their pockets & getting Paid for it? Kind of ridiculous if you ask me! Why don't all these celebs just give their time freely? I don't get that!
I don't think a shortage of condoms is really an issue to be honest. Condoms are quite cheap. In Swaziland, for example, which is a desperately poor country, anyone can help themselves to as many condoms as they want for nothing at any pharmacy. YOu could go over there and fill up a bin bag with them if you wanted. But yes, you are right. In (I think this is right) every African country except South Africa, women have no legal right to deny their husband sex. And the problem of men working away from home is absolutely endemic. Poor African miners and factory workers are in no position to buy a nice family home near to their place or work: they live in squalid conditions, then go home to their families perhaps three or four times a year. While they are working in the towns, they are not always or even usually celibate. You could hardly devise a better system for transmitting Aids. When they go home, their wife cannot refuse them sex or demand that they wear a condom. There are billboards all over southern africa trying to instil in men the idea that wearing a condom is considerate, romantic and loving; but I get the impression that it has some way to go.
Which I realize has strayed some distance from the problem of population control. That really does come with social progress, not just handing out condoms. Few of us have 12 children, not because we have access to condoms, but because we have a very good chance that the children we do have will grow up healthy and independent.
Stephen Fry gets paid to advertise Twinings tea and Virgin broadband. He also does unpaid promotional work for charities.
As I mentioned before for me this is the best step forward. Educated women have less children, this is a trend seen throughout the world, just look at western birth rates compared to those in the third world. Also educating them means they will need less aid in the first place, for me foreign aid is all well and good, but the best way forward is to give people the tools to dig themselves out of poverty.
Of course this is not a magic solution. It does not solve the issues raised in the trade not aid debate, but it would mean a massive step forward.
Fat chance of that happening. As soon as a leader steps out of line, they are quickly eliminated. Either by internal politics influenced by Western corporations or a quick discredit via Fox news followed by a few bombs.
Right lol. So he gives his time free to Charity? Good for him!
I think a lot of people have an invested interest in Africa remaining the way it is, governments don't want any more competition, global corporations want cheap labor and materials. A capitalist model relies on those at the bottom, unless we change a heck of a lot about how the world is run, it will remain the same. Also not sure we should really be lumping it all in together and labeling it 'Africa', it is a continent after all and not all problems are universal.
Leave them to rot? Wow, just wow.
yes, all true. I do wonder how places like Botswana and Uganda would have fared if it had not been for Aids. It feels horribly as if there may have been a magic window for getting their foot in the door as far as international trade is concerned, and that being all but overwhelmed by Aids has made them miss it.