Article

2005-06-04 International-UN-NGOs

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by someone 2005-06-04 01:40|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The power to sieze corrupt current politicians from abroad is a much better idea.

Posted by phil_b 2005-06-04 08:01|| 2005-06-04 08:01|| Front Page Top

#2 Those Brits. I wonder what they'd do with the EU Constitution?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-06-04 08:23|| 2005-06-04 08:23|| Front Page Top

#3 A big f'ing DUH! Africa has already had tons of money poured into it to no effect. Why would anyone think more would be different?

Posted by Spot">Spot 2005-06-04 08:45|| 2005-06-04 08:45|| Front Page Top

#4 Note that this was another YouGov internet poll. IMO this is exactly the sort of subject people will be more willing to honestly answer questions about online than they would to a door-to-door, street or phone pollster. However, the poll shares the fundamental flaws of YouGov polls - the respondents are pretty much self-selected and a distinct subset of the popoulation - internet savvy, and better educated and probably somewhat more intelligent than Joe Average. Also, just because people are dismissive of the benefits of aid doesn't mean they won't criticise the aid industry in public or give as individuals when the occasion arises dues to the effects of peer pressure and years of continual brow-beating by the worthy.

"It will give the Government power to seize the assets of corrupt former politicians from overseas..."

So people like Bob and Chirac will be immune unless and until they have fallen. Well done, UN - you've added another incentive for the kleptocrats never to yield power.

Posted by Bulldog ">Bulldog 2005-06-04 08:47|| 2005-06-04 08:47|| Front Page Top

#5 Oops. Shoud read:

"...just because people are dismissive of the benefits of aid doesn't mean they will criticise the aid industry in public and/or won't give as individuals..."

Posted by Bulldog ">Bulldog 2005-06-04 08:49|| 2005-06-04 08:49|| Front Page Top

#6 Answer is Accountability

Question is what Brown overlooks and what Bush requires.

Posted by Captain America 2005-06-04 09:43|| 2005-06-04 09:43|| Front Page Top

#7 Hey, Mr. Bush! I have one question:

Show me anywhere in the constitution where our Government is authorized to make donations to charity.

When I give out of the goodness of my heart, willingly, happily, or even guiltily, there is a certain amount of nobility attached to it. It's called generosity, philanthropy, etc.

When the government takes my money, and without my approval or consent, "donates" it to some fucked up foreign country where it promptly disappears down a rat hole, that is not charity. That is THEFT.

Posted by Unose Whavitle7547 2005-06-04 10:18|| 2005-06-04 10:18|| Front Page Top

#8 A majority of Brits are pretty smart. Africa's other problems are dwarfed by problems with bad governments. Pumping billions of pounds into Africa will just increase the Swiss bank accounts of the local thugocracy.

Posted by DMFD 2005-06-04 10:24|| 2005-06-04 10:24|| Front Page Top

#9 "According to Treasury sources, a new law, ratifying the UN convention against corruption, will be implemented under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in the autumn. It will give the Government power to seize the assets of corrupt former politicians from overseas in a similar manner to the power that already exists when dealing with suspected terrorists and organised crime." Other than being a trendy 'catch phrase', what the heck does "corrupt" mean? Why am I inherently suspicious of giving *any* such power to an international treaty? I apply the "Kissinger" standard: if the law *could* be used by some twit in an effort to prosecute or harass Kissinger, then it is a bad idea, and most likely solely an effort to undermine US sovereignty. N.B.: there are as many "international" efforts to do so as their are "international" tax plans proposed by Chirac.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-06-04 11:00|| 2005-06-04 11:00|| Front Page Top

#10 Aternate Headline:
JIMMY THINK AFRICAN AID A GINORMOUS HUGANTIC
WASTE

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-06-04 11:59|| 2005-06-04 11:59|| Front Page Top

#11 A huge majority of Britons believes that pumping billions of pounds into Africa would be a waste of money, a verdict that is a major blow to Tony Blair's crusade to rescue the continent.

Add one (at the very least) American to this group.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-04 12:40|| 2005-06-04 12:40|| Front Page Top

#12 They are, unfortunately, correct. It's too late to save nost of Africa. The people who don't starve from the "enlightened" policies of their leaders will most likely die of AIDS. I predict a 70% die-off within a century.

Posted by Whomort Threase2857 2005-06-04 12:56|| 2005-06-04 12:56|| Front Page Top

#13 A century's a long time, Whomort ...

Posted by too true 2005-06-04 13:03|| 2005-06-04 13:03|| Front Page Top

#14 Since most corruption money goes to Swiss or Carribean banks,this is a PR feel good bit. If Bob fled to London tommorrow,so long as he rented a house and leased his cars and kept his bank accounts out if the UK,there'd be nothing to seize. But the Act sure sounds like the Government is doing something-sound and fury,signifying nothing.

Posted by Stephen 2005-06-04 18:45|| 2005-06-04 18:45|| Front Page Top

00:05 Unose Whavitle7547
23:50 Whese Flomolet8735
23:44 Dave D.
23:43 Pappy
23:28 Barbara Skolaut
23:25 Barbara Skolaut
23:19 bigjim-ky
23:16 bigjim-ky
23:07 bigjim-ky
23:04 bigjim-ky
23:01 bigjim-ky
22:52 bigjim-ky
22:52 thibaud (aka lex)
22:45 Captain America
22:41 Captain America
22:36 Frank G
22:22 Bodyguard
22:16 Super Hose
22:03 Super Hose
21:59 Alaska Paul
21:56 Super Hose
21:49 Super Hose
21:45 Super Hose
21:37 Frank G