Motoring0 min ago
Is It Now Time That This Foreign Aid Madness Was Ended?
204 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
'In the future, the proportion of Asia will come down and that of Africa will increase. Africa was populated by some 230 million people around 1950, or 9% of the world population. In 2010 there were already more than 1 billion Africans or 15% of the world population. According to UN projections, Africa will continue to grow at a spectacular rate up to 2.2 billion inhabitants in 2050 or 24% of the world population. The proportion of Europe, on the other hand, is evolving in the opposite direction: from 22% of the world population in 1950, over 11% in 2010 to an expected mere 8% in 2050.'
-- answer removed --
Bigbad
When I narrowed down the thread to Africa, you stated that you hadn't specified a region.
In order to best understand which people breed/leech/starve/die (I really think that's the correct order - people don't have time to leech after starving and before dying) - we need to identify who you're talking about...surely?
When I narrowed down the thread to Africa, you stated that you hadn't specified a region.
In order to best understand which people breed/leech/starve/die (I really think that's the correct order - people don't have time to leech after starving and before dying) - we need to identify who you're talking about...surely?
I am talking about the Third World in general. Any country that needs countless millions throwing at it, so that the people can continue to breed and die.
You continue to straw clutch, sp, but it doesn’t seem to be working as far as detracting from all the criticism that has been levelled at you.
So, as I said before, I won’t be elongating this thread, but will be happy to reply to any comments about remarks that I have already made.
Unfortunately, this may be later rather than sooner, as I do have a life away from AB, and it’s about time I got on with my day!
You continue to straw clutch, sp, but it doesn’t seem to be working as far as detracting from all the criticism that has been levelled at you.
So, as I said before, I won’t be elongating this thread, but will be happy to reply to any comments about remarks that I have already made.
Unfortunately, this may be later rather than sooner, as I do have a life away from AB, and it’s about time I got on with my day!
divebuddy
Have a look at the answer I was giving to Hypnogsis.
We were talking about someone walking out of their job.
You then started talking about voluntary redundancy.
Okay...I think I know why you got mixed up now. When you jumped in, we were talking about someone quitting.
You were thinking about someone taking voluntary redundancy.
It's an importance difference, so yes - with VR, you get JSA.
But regarding what Hypnogsis and I were talking about, you wouldn't.
Have a look at the answer I was giving to Hypnogsis.
We were talking about someone walking out of their job.
You then started talking about voluntary redundancy.
Okay...I think I know why you got mixed up now. When you jumped in, we were talking about someone quitting.
You were thinking about someone taking voluntary redundancy.
It's an importance difference, so yes - with VR, you get JSA.
But regarding what Hypnogsis and I were talking about, you wouldn't.
Bigbad
What you see as straw clutching might actually be known as 'a different point of view.'
I completely disagree with you, but cannot argue against your regarding specifics of economic growth, health, religion and disease - because you're being a bit vague.
I suspect that you don't really know much about the subject (none of us are experts), and are basing your views on...well, who knows?
Your comment about countless millions, with the the summary that recipients simply breed and die, tells me everything that I need to know about your understanding of the subject.
It's been very interesting talking to you.
I've just read what I've written here, and it sounds very patronising...however, on this thread, that's been a two way street.
Like you I have to get off now.
Been nice conversing.
What you see as straw clutching might actually be known as 'a different point of view.'
I completely disagree with you, but cannot argue against your regarding specifics of economic growth, health, religion and disease - because you're being a bit vague.
I suspect that you don't really know much about the subject (none of us are experts), and are basing your views on...well, who knows?
Your comment about countless millions, with the the summary that recipients simply breed and die, tells me everything that I need to know about your understanding of the subject.
It's been very interesting talking to you.
I've just read what I've written here, and it sounds very patronising...however, on this thread, that's been a two way street.
Like you I have to get off now.
Been nice conversing.
-- answer removed --
sp.
To address your post at 9.49.
I still see it as “straw clutching.” It’s glaringly obvious that you and I have different points of view. In fact, my guess would be that there isn’t too much that we would agree on!
I made absolutely NO specifics about economic growth or religion, so please don’t suggest that I did. As far as health goes - if these people were healthy, we wouldn’t even be debating this!
I never claimed to “know much about the subject”, and my views are based on just that - my views, as most of your posts seem to have been too. (Apart from the ones where you stated “facts” but still had them challenged by other people).
My comments regarding “countless millions” are unlikely to be incorrect.
Since the inception of Band Aid/Live Aid over 30 years ago countless millions have been raised and sent to these people. Then, of course, you have the overseas aid budget (which is precisely what this thread is about).
And how much difference has it made? None that I can see.
So maybe that comment told you everything that you needed to know about my understanding of the subject, I simply didn’t realise that your understanding of the subject was soooo superior to mine.
This was a debate. AOG posted a question, and opinions differ.
I have attempted to reply to your comments to me in a polite and courteous manner even though you became a little huffy and sarky at times. And yes, you certainly were patronising in your last post directed at me!
So I will now bow out of this thread. If you feel the need to come back to “get the last word in,” then feel free, but as I have no more time to spend on AB today, I will not be replying further.
Although I don’t post very often, I do still read the posts on a daily basis, and I look forward to ‘locking horns’ with you again in the future!!
And douglas, regarding your post at 8.54. What I don’t get is this:
A person is starving.
They are weak.
They are covered in flies.
They (probably) smell like an open sewer on a hot day.
Yet they still have the desire to play hide the sausage! Ewwwww!!
To address your post at 9.49.
I still see it as “straw clutching.” It’s glaringly obvious that you and I have different points of view. In fact, my guess would be that there isn’t too much that we would agree on!
I made absolutely NO specifics about economic growth or religion, so please don’t suggest that I did. As far as health goes - if these people were healthy, we wouldn’t even be debating this!
I never claimed to “know much about the subject”, and my views are based on just that - my views, as most of your posts seem to have been too. (Apart from the ones where you stated “facts” but still had them challenged by other people).
My comments regarding “countless millions” are unlikely to be incorrect.
Since the inception of Band Aid/Live Aid over 30 years ago countless millions have been raised and sent to these people. Then, of course, you have the overseas aid budget (which is precisely what this thread is about).
And how much difference has it made? None that I can see.
So maybe that comment told you everything that you needed to know about my understanding of the subject, I simply didn’t realise that your understanding of the subject was soooo superior to mine.
This was a debate. AOG posted a question, and opinions differ.
I have attempted to reply to your comments to me in a polite and courteous manner even though you became a little huffy and sarky at times. And yes, you certainly were patronising in your last post directed at me!
So I will now bow out of this thread. If you feel the need to come back to “get the last word in,” then feel free, but as I have no more time to spend on AB today, I will not be replying further.
Although I don’t post very often, I do still read the posts on a daily basis, and I look forward to ‘locking horns’ with you again in the future!!
And douglas, regarding your post at 8.54. What I don’t get is this:
A person is starving.
They are weak.
They are covered in flies.
They (probably) smell like an open sewer on a hot day.
Yet they still have the desire to play hide the sausage! Ewwwww!!
Just for the record:
sp suggested a *hypothetical* scheme whereby unemployment insurance was privately run. You pay premiums, just like car or house insurance and you claim for a allowance to sustain you, after job loss *which wasn't your fault* (topical, given Tata Steel story).
So I threw a spanner in the works by asking "what if someone had paid premiums for years and their workplace becomes so hostile, they have to leave?"
sp responded that it would be down to the (hypothetical) insurer to decide.
For a yardstick, we looked at current JSA rules, which you will find here:
http://
Bottom line: sp was right: 26 weeks' sanction if you walk out (made yourself "voluntarily unemployed")
divebuddy was also right: JSA immediate, if it is voluntary redundancy but this was besides the point under discussion, my "what if".
Basically, anyone "bullied out of their job" is already losing 6 month's benefits, on top of the loss of salary. Any insurance company would, based on historical behaviour, quibble over "evidence" of what made the person quit and, of course it would be predominantly "subjective" or "hearsay" or "no independent witnesses". So, likely, no payout. Not even in week 27.
So I was basically knocking the whole privatised benefits system idea.
sp suggested a *hypothetical* scheme whereby unemployment insurance was privately run. You pay premiums, just like car or house insurance and you claim for a allowance to sustain you, after job loss *which wasn't your fault* (topical, given Tata Steel story).
So I threw a spanner in the works by asking "what if someone had paid premiums for years and their workplace becomes so hostile, they have to leave?"
sp responded that it would be down to the (hypothetical) insurer to decide.
For a yardstick, we looked at current JSA rules, which you will find here:
http://
Bottom line: sp was right: 26 weeks' sanction if you walk out (made yourself "voluntarily unemployed")
divebuddy was also right: JSA immediate, if it is voluntary redundancy but this was besides the point under discussion, my "what if".
Basically, anyone "bullied out of their job" is already losing 6 month's benefits, on top of the loss of salary. Any insurance company would, based on historical behaviour, quibble over "evidence" of what made the person quit and, of course it would be predominantly "subjective" or "hearsay" or "no independent witnesses". So, likely, no payout. Not even in week 27.
So I was basically knocking the whole privatised benefits system idea.
quoting urban75.com (link above)
------
LEAVING WORK
People leaving work are treated as having made themselves voluntarily unemployed. This applies if you resign, walk out or are sacked for misconduct. It doesn't apply to redundancy, end of contracts or on medical grounds (which can include workplace stress), or where you can show good cause (e.g. unfair dismissal).
Otherwise you are automatically classed as voluntarily unemployed. Unless you can disprove it, you face a sanction of up to 26 weeks without any benefit at all. Your case is referred to an Adjudication Officer who decides if it's fair and, if so, how long the sanction applies for. They will write to your employers for their side of the story. During this period you will be on no benefit, or reduced benefit in cases of hardship (see PENALTIES). Stinks doesn't it?
---------
end of quote
------
LEAVING WORK
People leaving work are treated as having made themselves voluntarily unemployed. This applies if you resign, walk out or are sacked for misconduct. It doesn't apply to redundancy, end of contracts or on medical grounds (which can include workplace stress), or where you can show good cause (e.g. unfair dismissal).
Otherwise you are automatically classed as voluntarily unemployed. Unless you can disprove it, you face a sanction of up to 26 weeks without any benefit at all. Your case is referred to an Adjudication Officer who decides if it's fair and, if so, how long the sanction applies for. They will write to your employers for their side of the story. During this period you will be on no benefit, or reduced benefit in cases of hardship (see PENALTIES). Stinks doesn't it?
---------
end of quote
Actual figures!
Birth rates, per thousand (United Kingdom 160th place at 12.22/1000*)
http://
* Jersey, Isle of Man listed separately.
Birth rates, per thousand (United Kingdom 160th place at 12.22/1000*)
http://
* Jersey, Isle of Man listed separately.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.