Why are we "Ring Fencing" Foreign Aid?

[Digga]

Unknown_User said:

Digga said:

For a kick off, it would be nice if the nations we were giving aid to would do something about the rampant trade in UK and (Eastern) US stolen cars they are party to.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/stolen-...

Do you think that if we helped poor nations stand on their own two feet, helped to improve the lives of their people, helped to increase wealth and employment of those folk, there might be less temptation to enter a life of crime?

Or do you think that folk stuck in a desperate circle of poverty and lack of opportunities should just suck it up?

I think, and it has been proven, that funneling capital into a struggling, developing nation, very seldom sees all of it go to desirable ends.

Unfortunately, this is precisely what we see here - there are people in very poor nations, with enough disposable cash to buy knocked-off luxury motors. It's not at all easy nicking and shipping cars. Far cheaper to sell in the place stolen. So it means there's some significant liquidity going awry.

in the same way as we can no longer be the world's police, in current times, we have to question quite how much of the world's charitable benefactor we can be.

However, in broader terms, the sensible limit for overseas aid is not zero, as much as many like to believe and, yes, there is aid that we can provide to help.

[Evanivitch]

Digga said:

I think, and it has been proven, that funneling capital into a struggling, developing nation, very seldom sees all of it go to desirable ends.

Unfortunately, this is precisely what we see here - there are people in very poor nations, with enough disposable cash to buy knocked-off luxury motors. It's not at all easy nicking and shipping cars. Far cheaper to sell in the place stolen. So it means there's some significant liquidity going awry.

in the same way as we can no longer be the world's police, in current times, we have to question quite how much of the world's charitable benefactor we can be.

However, in broader terms, the sensible limit for overseas aid is not zero, as much as many like to believe and, yes, there is aid that we can provide to help.

And overseas aid can include things like funding improved customs police at ports to ensure illegal goods (like drugs and people trafficking) are not leaving, and illicit goods are not entering.(vehicles, weapons).

[anonymous-user]

JmatthewB said:

Unknown_User said:

Wowsers...!!!!

You still have time to delete your (sensible) post before the PH Ultra's see it and descend upon you and your post like a swarm of vampires seeing their first feed for a century.......

Sorry. I'm used to having unpopular opinions. Where are the EU and HS2 theads?

I don't think there's much doubt foreign aid is a good thing and a benefit to the UK. The questions are, is it (to use the spend since the financial crisis) a 150bn pound good thing? I don't think that's even remotely demonstrable. Should we as a country be borrowing money to spend it on foreign aid? That would depend on the scale of the benefits, after all interest is 'just' more money; again without any published cost benefit analysis it's difficult to justify such colossal spending. A lose notion of something being a ''good'' thing is not good enough to justify a 14bn pound line item in the budget.

[ATG]

Evanivitch said:

ATG said:

An impartial source? Not really.

And you are? Seems like your family has profited quite nicely from the donations of poorer folk to deal with the churches legal issues.

ATG said:

My Dad used to do a fair bit of the Diocese of Worcester's legal work as his firm had a tradition of having one of the partners act as the Diosecan Registrar. And one of his old university friends went into the clergy and served variously as Archdeacon of Canterbury and Dean of Winchester. And indeed my mother has been on her church's PCC for years.

ATG said:

The asset base is largely a load of historic buildings. Those assets funnily enough can't be turned into cash.

Not true though, is it? The Church has an incredibly diverse property port folio that includes commercial, residential and light-industrial units. As well as large parts of land in London and elsewhere. So quite disingenuous to suggest it mostly owns historic buildings.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/apr/28/reli...

And it doesn't fund all the work itself. It still goes cap-in-hand to bodies like the national lottery to ask for more money to repair those buildings.

ATG said:

The idea that the CofE is awash with cash is completely divorced from reality....Their constant preoccupation was always fund raising. Fund raising to repair the roof. Fund raising to support the stipends and pensions of their parish and arch/diocese. Fundraising to support many charitable activities combatting UK poverty and providing overseas aid. It's also through these personal contacts that I became aware just how many times the clergy themselves dipped into their pretty meagre incomes to help close funding gaps.

You don't have to be a Christian (I'm not and neither was my father) to recognise and admire what these people do and the service they provide to our community as a whole. I have to say I find some people's obvious wish to think badly of them (see accusations of hypocrisy above for example) saddening and infuriating in nearly equal measure. Just because they believe in a "sky fairy" that you don't believe in doesn't have to blind you to the fact that they are out there quietly doing a hell of a lot of good. And if someone else is doing more good out there than you are, rather than trying to shoot them down or dream up some reason why their actions can be dismissed, maybe just be grateful?

Is that the whole purpose of the church though, to extract money from the poor in an act of spiritual blackmail? What else can they do to stay occupied at a time when congregations are dwindling and the church is an ever smaller part of our governance and guidance.

The British are a very charitable bunch, but the idea it needs grand buildings and fairy tales to encourage us to donate is somewhat outdated now.

The modern churches of charity are little better, with some organisations spending huge amounts on executive pay. But at least those people are professionally qualified to manage a multi million, maybe billion pound organisation.

My family has profited? The Diosecan Registrar work was done for free. My mother will have given thousands of hours of her time and several hundred thousand pounds of cash over the year to the church. You really need to stop being such a cynical fking tt. There's a big difference between rational scepticism and mindless cynicism.

Do you need to believe in a god in order to get organised and collectively try to help other people? No, of course not and no one ever claimed you did. But if you look at secular society it is pretty bleeding obvious that we haven't produced any non-state organisations that do anything like as much charitable and social support work as religious groups do, an by virtue of its size, obviously the CofE contributes a large percentage of that activity in England.

And if you want to understand the CofE's financial position, stop reading silly inflammatory articles and go look at their accounts for yourself. It'll take you a few seconds to find them on-line.

[ATG]

fblm said:

ATG said:

China's levels of domestic poverty are out of all proportion to ours so suggesting that China should "make up the shortfall" in the UK's reduction in foreign aid spending doesn't make much sense.

You asked who was best placed to give foreign aid and implied that was the UK based on GDP per capita. I simply said China was based on debt to GDP. I couldn't care less if they make up any shortfall or not. I was simply pointing out how stupid it was to use GDP/GNI as a gauge of how much you can afford to give away. To use your example of gdp per capita; that's fallen 20% since the financial crisis yet the UK has anchored their spending to gni and spanked 150 bn quid up the wall.. for what? Soft power? Don't make me laugh. Our top spending has been in Pakistan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria.... What exactly has our 150bn bought? Absolutely fvck all! Your imagined soft power is fleeting; you're one change of despot or warlord to being g out in the cold again. The Chinese play the game far far better; sure we'll build you a hospital... in exchange for mineral rights, trade deal, etc... 150bn!!! It's nothing short of fiscal vandalism. Thank god Cameron is out.

Edited by fblm on Thursday 26th November 01:25

Funnily enough the people I know at the Foreign Office profoundly disagree with your view on soft power, and that's from the time when DFID existed and when the people I know were active in Africa where they were in "competition" with the Chinese, The Chinese were indeed investing heavily, but they were not attempting to exert political influence. Their assets are also one revolution away from being appropriated by the state. The degree of soft power exerted was in some cases was counterproductively high. In some areas the FCO guys on the ground were actively trying to disengage and get their counterparts to stand on their own feet politically and in policy terms rather than running every decision past the British. In some of these areas a Guardian journalist would have been complaining that we were quietly reintroducing colonialism. If you want a non-British example, look how effectively the French do soft power.

You can certainly look at it in terms of "what did we get back for 150bn", but the point of aid is not first and foremost for us to get anything back; it's about helping people on the ground with such mundane things as water supplies and education.

[ATG]

CambsBill said:

ATG said:

Evanivitch said:

ATG said:

The Church of England is not a wealthy institution as you would know if you bothered to fact check your prejudices. You would also be amazed how much money the clergy personally give away from their stipends which are pretty bloody meagre by most people's standards.

Fact checked. Seems the Church of England is very wealthy. But likes to pretend it's not so it can maintain it's charitable status. Funny that.

https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2016/02/for-...

An impartial source? Not really.

The asset base is largely a load of historic buildings. Those assets funnily enough can't be turned into cash. Worse still they tend to fall apart and are horrendously expensive to maintain. They don't even charge access to most of them as other not-for-profit orgs that own and maintain historic properties do.

The idea that the CofE is awash with cash is completely divorced from reality. My Dad used to do a fair bit of the Diocese of Worcester's legal work as his firm had a tradition of having one of the partners act as the Diosecan Registrar. And one of his old university friends went into the clergy and served variously as Archdeacon of Canterbury and Dean of Winchester. And indeed my mother has been on her church's PCC for years. Their constant preoccupation was always fund raising. Fund raising to repair the roof. Fund raising to support the stipends and pensions of their parish and arch/diocese. Fundraising to support many charitable activities combatting UK poverty and providing overseas aid. It's also through these personal contacts that I became aware just how many times the clergy themselves dipped into their pretty meagre incomes to help close funding gaps.

You don't have to be a Christian (I'm not and neither was my father) to recognise and admire what these people do and the service they provide to our community as a whole. I have to say I find some people's obvious wish to think badly of them (see accusations of hypocrisy above for example) saddening and infuriating in nearly equal measure. Just because they believe in a "sky fairy" that you don't believe in doesn't have to blind you to the fact that they are out there quietly doing a hell of a lot of good. And if someone else is doing more good out there than you are, rather than trying to shoot them down or dream up some reason why their actions can be dismissed, maybe just be grateful?

Edited by ATG on Wednesday 25th November 23:21

That sounds like a soundbite comment with no actual checking of facts.

The Church Commission's latest accounts show that, of its £7.8billion of investments only £1.8bn is property. The large majority is a securities portfolio valued at £5.4bn , plus timber land at £350m. The securities portfolio generated an income of £652million in the last year, way more than the CC spent so this charity (net movement of funds was £549million positive!) for one is not short of the readies and actually in a much better position than the Government to fund an aid programme.

Lambeth Palace is not included in the above - it's valued at £1. Yes, one quid.
The library contents at the palace are not valued at all in the accounts because of "difficulties" in valuing them.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.go...

Engage you brain. What would you expect the CofE to do with Lambeth Palace?? Sell it? How can they make money out of it? It's just a big old building that needs repairing. It provides some accommodational and office space, but there are far cheaper ways of achieving that than owning and maintaining historic buildings.

So how should they value that on the balance sheet? At disposal value, even thought they can't dispose of it? If they did write it down as being worth, s ay, £100mn would that make their balance sheet more accurate? Would it make it easier to understand their financial position?

[Derek Smith]

ATG said:

My family has profited? The Diosecan Registrar work was done for free. My mother will have given thousands of hours of her time and several hundred thousand pounds of cash over the year to the church. You really need to stop being such a cynical fking tt. There's a big difference between rational scepticism and mindless cynicism.

Do you need to believe in a god in order to get organised and collectively try to help other people? No, of course not and no one ever claimed you did. But if you look at secular society it is pretty bleeding obvious that we haven't produced any non-state organisations that do anything like as much charitable and social support work as religious groups do, an by virtue of its size, obviously the CofE contributes a large percentage of that activity in England.

And if you want to understand the CofE's financial position, stop reading silly inflammatory articles and go look at their accounts for yourself. It'll take you a few seconds to find them on-line.

There was a report in one of the weekend thicky papers that compared donations to charities, which included churches, on a country by country basis. Some years ago now, maybe 8 or so. The UK came out well ahead of most and ahead of all.

It then went on to show that the charity status of the CoE, and the Roman imitation, meant that donations used for infrastructure were normally classed as charity contributions.

It didn't particularly bother me at the time, so I've got no details, but the conclusion was that secular charity donations in this country far exceed those of the religious. The Red Cross does one or two good things I think and has, in the past, been particularly critical of the Roman dogma in their efforts in the third world which hindered the work of uncommitted charities.

I contribute regularly to two charities. The Red Cross sends information via email and what it does is impressive.

The other is the Salvation Army. I used to work in and around the East End and what they do for the invisible, whom few seem to care about, is reaffirming. Their religious dogma is nonsensical, and a little offensive, but, on the plus side, if you talk to their members, most of them pay it no mind. They are members for the same reason I contribute; the SA does a great job.

A small point. When a police officer I picked up a woman suffering from a mental disorder. We couldn't deal as doctors had refused to section. We took her out in a patrol car to a vicar who reckoned there was nothing he could do. We saw to Sally Ann members in uniform walking along the road and we put out problem to them. They asked the woman if she'd go with them, and off the three of them went, chatting away.

The UK is awash with secular charities, most of which don't send 10% to a rich foreign state. I know someone who volunteered for the Leonard Cheshire Homes (as was) and more or less forced his colleagues to contribute towards it. I went to a talk, a fascinating revelation of the dichotomy of Africa, in a church, by a lorry driver who volunteered to drive a lorry to a refugee camp in sub-Saharan Africa for a secular charity. He went from the beauty of the continent, both during the day and sleeping under African skies, to the horror of the camp, all with slides to compare the beauty and the beast. The chap was modest, pushed aside praise, and wasn't expecting any reward from a mythical being.

There are thousands of people like that chap. No religion as such, no guilt, no promise of joy eternal, but still willing to risk disease, injury and death for something they regard as necessary.

I used to contribute to Medecins Sans Frontiers when it was sponsored by a club I belonged to; secular yet again. Helping everyone who required their expertise, and all without dogma and brainwashing.

A secretary used to spend a year out every now and again with the VSO. I learned that the way to restart a misbehaving camping fridge, like you get in caravans, is to turn it upside down for 20 mins or so.

There was a recovering drug addict who used to spend evenings in the cell block - voluntarily - offering advice and help to prisoners who had the same problem. All he got was an occasional cup of tea.

I'm sure the big churches do some excellent charity work. I know the secular charities do.

[ATG]

Derek, the example you give, the salvation army, is the biggest religious charity in the UK and the single biggest charity in the UK who's remit is to provide social care. All the other big ones are either propping up buildings or doing medical research. The Sally A are amongst the most evangelical bible-bashing religious loons you're likely to find too.

[Evanivitch]

ATG said:

You really need to stop being such a cynical fking tt. There's a big difference between rational scepticism and mindless cynicism.

How do you approach the topic of profiteering from a irrational belief systems with rational scepticism? Yes, I bet your father didn't profit a penny from being in bed with the church

ATG said:

Do you need to believe in a god in order to get organised and collectively try to help other people? No, of course not and no one ever claimed you did. But if you look at secular society it is pretty bleeding obvious that we haven't produced any non-state organisations that do anything like as much charitable and social support work as religious groups do, an by virtue of its size, obviously the CofE contributes a large percentage of that activity in England.

Do you want to back that up with facts? Because I'm pretty sure you're about a mile off in all directions.

ATG said:

And if you want to understand the CofE's financial position, stop reading silly inflammatory articles and go look at their accounts for yourself. It'll take you a few seconds to find them on-line.

What's inflammatory about it? Do you dispute the numbers? I could have a look at the COE accounts, but then I'd also have to look at thousands of seperate accounts for the religious franchise. It's quite a nice way to keep the pyramid scheme looking a little less top-heavy.

[IanH755]

Stopping for a just single year would net us around £13 Billion and I don't think the world at large could begrudge us that one year "off" but it's still a drop in the ocean compared to the estimated £280 Billion COVID bill.

[anonymous-user]

ATG said:

Funnily enough the people I know at the Foreign Office profoundly disagree with your view on soft power, and that's from the time when DFID existed and when the people I know were active in Africa where they were in "competition" with the Chinese, The Chinese were indeed investing heavily, but they were not attempting to exert political influence. Their assets are also one revolution away from being appropriated by the state. The degree of soft power exerted was in some cases was counterproductively high. In some areas the FCO guys on the ground were actively trying to disengage and get their counterparts to stand on their own feet politically and in policy terms rather than running every decision past the British. In some of these areas a Guardian journalist would have been complaining that we were quietly reintroducing colonialism. If you want a non-British example, look how effectively the French do soft power.

You can certainly look at it in terms of "what did we get back for 150bn", but the point of aid is not first and foremost for us to get anything back; it's about helping people on the ground with such mundane things as water supplies and education.

Foreign office officials think the foreign office does such a great job it's almost too good, shocker! Seriously though yes let's look at the French. I have a sneaky admiration for the weight the French throw around on the world stage, especially when you look at the utter shambles they seem to have left most places in from Haiti to Chad and their foreign aid budget is only 0.44% of GNI compared to our new miserly 0.5%... as for not getting much back for our money; it's sold to the tax payer as opening doorways for British exporters, increasing our global influence, making life better for people at home so they don't all jump in rubber dinghies and come to the UK. I'm sure it does all those things but when pressed on details or numbers the answer seems to revert back to it's not about that it's about helping people on the ground....

[Pan Pan Pan]

Unknown_User said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

According to some of the news outlets this morning, most people in the UK back Rishi Sunacks intention to get the UKs own house in (as much) order as possible first, before handing out foreign aid.
It would seem to be the logical thing to do,. you cannot build a boat, whilst you are treading water.

And populism is a good thing?

Just because 'According to some of the news outlets this morning, most people in the UK back Rishi Sunack's...." doesn't make it a good thing or the correct thing to do long term.

Some would prefer to call it pragmatism, or if the matter had been put to a democratic vote, an example of democracy in action..
However, as we have seen, there are some out there who don't like democracy, especially if it does not give the (minority ) result that they would prefer, so those people just call it populism.

[Unknown_User]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Unknown_User said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

According to some of the news outlets this morning, most people in the UK back Rishi Sunacks intention to get the UKs own house in (as much) order as possible first, before handing out foreign aid.
It would seem to be the logical thing to do,. you cannot build a boat, whilst you are treading water.

And populism is a good thing?

Just because 'According to some of the news outlets this morning, most people in the UK back Rishi Sunack's...." doesn't make it a good thing or the correct thing to do long term.

Some would prefer to call it pragmatism, or if the matter had been put to a democratic vote, an example of democracy in action..
However, as we have seen, there are some out there who don't like democracy, especially if it does not give the (minority ) result that they would prefer, so those people just call it populism.

Interesting.

Is there any recent examples you can provide where the majority of the population decided upon something, that the “(minority)” then shouted “populism”?

Do you think that Trumps recent presidency was a pragmatic success?

[anonymous-user]

Unknown_User said:

Interesting.

Is there any recent examples you can provide where the majority of the population decided upon something, that the “(minority)” then shouted “populism”?
...

Is this a wah... a majority of those who voted isn't a majority of the population post?

[Carl_Manchester]

I agree there should be a sizeable foreign aid budget.

I do also agree that giving the money to countries with sizeable space, nuclear and military budgets was a mistake of large proportions and it’s the tin ear from government on those concerns that has led us to this place.

We have also increased corruption in places like the WHO by not being tactical enough with our external spending reviews and pushing for continual reform.

[CambsBill]

ATG said:

CambsBill said:

ATG said:

Evanivitch said:

ATG said:

The Church of England is not a wealthy institution as you would know if you bothered to fact check your prejudices. You would also be amazed how much money the clergy personally give away from their stipends which are pretty bloody meagre by most people's standards.

Fact checked. Seems the Church of England is very wealthy. But likes to pretend it's not so it can maintain it's charitable status. Funny that.

https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2016/02/for-...

An impartial source? Not really.

The asset base is largely a load of historic buildings. Those assets funnily enough can't be turned into cash. Worse still they tend to fall apart and are horrendously expensive to maintain. They don't even charge access to most of them as other not-for-profit orgs that own and maintain historic properties do.

The idea that the CofE is awash with cash is completely divorced from reality. My Dad used to do a fair bit of the Diocese of Worcester's legal work as his firm had a tradition of having one of the partners act as the Diosecan Registrar. And one of his old university friends went into the clergy and served variously as Archdeacon of Canterbury and Dean of Winchester. And indeed my mother has been on her church's PCC for years. Their constant preoccupation was always fund raising. Fund raising to repair the roof. Fund raising to support the stipends and pensions of their parish and arch/diocese. Fundraising to support many charitable activities combatting UK poverty and providing overseas aid. It's also through these personal contacts that I became aware just how many times the clergy themselves dipped into their pretty meagre incomes to help close funding gaps.

You don't have to be a Christian (I'm not and neither was my father) to recognise and admire what these people do and the service they provide to our community as a whole. I have to say I find some people's obvious wish to think badly of them (see accusations of hypocrisy above for example) saddening and infuriating in nearly equal measure. Just because they believe in a "sky fairy" that you don't believe in doesn't have to blind you to the fact that they are out there quietly doing a hell of a lot of good. And if someone else is doing more good out there than you are, rather than trying to shoot them down or dream up some reason why their actions can be dismissed, maybe just be grateful?

Edited by ATG on Wednesday 25th November 23:21

That sounds like a soundbite comment with no actual checking of facts.

The Church Commission's latest accounts show that, of its £7.8billion of investments only £1.8bn is property. The large majority is a securities portfolio valued at £5.4bn , plus timber land at £350m. The securities portfolio generated an income of £652million in the last year, way more than the CC spent so this charity (net movement of funds was £549million positive!) for one is not short of the readies and actually in a much better position than the Government to fund an aid programme.

Lambeth Palace is not included in the above - it's valued at £1. Yes, one quid.
The library contents at the palace are not valued at all in the accounts because of "difficulties" in valuing them.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.go...

Engage you brain. What would you expect the CofE to do with Lambeth Palace?? Sell it? How can they make money out of it? It's just a big old building that needs repairing. It provides some accommodational and office space, but there are far cheaper ways of achieving that than owning and maintaining historic buildings.

So how should they value that on the balance sheet? At disposal value, even thought they can't dispose of it? If they did write it down as being worth, s ay, £100mn would that make their balance sheet more accurate? Would it make it easier to understand their financial position?

Nice try at deflection - you were the one who claimed "the asset base is largely a load of historic buildings", I merely looked at the published accounts and pointed out that this is baloney as the asset base is in fact a very large, very profitable investment portfolio, leaving the Church Commission with half a billion quid net profit in just one year.

[Murph7355]

Carl_Manchester said:

I agree there should be a sizeable foreign aid budget. ...

There still will be even after these cuts. Info posted in my last post.

Lots of "aren't we awful"...well actually no, we're not when you look at the numbers.

We aren't a world superpower any more. We should stop trying to act like one across the board.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Unknown_User said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Unknown_User said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

According to some of the news outlets this morning, most people in the UK back Rishi Sunacks intention to get the UKs own house in (as much) order as possible first, before handing out foreign aid.
It would seem to be the logical thing to do,. you cannot build a boat, whilst you are treading water.

And populism is a good thing?

Just because 'According to some of the news outlets this morning, most people in the UK back Rishi Sunack's...." doesn't make it a good thing or the correct thing to do long term.

Some would prefer to call it pragmatism, or if the matter had been put to a democratic vote, an example of democracy in action..
However, as we have seen, there are some out there who don't like democracy, especially if it does not give the (minority ) result that they would prefer, so those people just call it populism.

Interesting.

Is there any recent examples you can provide where the majority of the population decided upon something, that the “(minority)” then shouted “populism”?

Do you think that Trumps recent presidency was a pragmatic success?

What else would you call a situation, where the majority got the result they preferred, is that populism, or is that democracy?

[Unknown_User]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Unknown_User said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Unknown_User said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

According to some of the news outlets this morning, most people in the UK back Rishi Sunacks intention to get the UKs own house in (as much) order as possible first, before handing out foreign aid.
It would seem to be the logical thing to do,. you cannot build a boat, whilst you are treading water.

And populism is a good thing?

Just because 'According to some of the news outlets this morning, most people in the UK back Rishi Sunack's...." doesn't make it a good thing or the correct thing to do long term.

Some would prefer to call it pragmatism, or if the matter had been put to a democratic vote, an example of democracy in action..
However, as we have seen, there are some out there who don't like democracy, especially if it does not give the (minority ) result that they would prefer, so those people just call it populism.

Interesting.

Is there any recent examples you can provide where the majority of the population decided upon something, that the “(minority)” then shouted “populism”?

Do you think that Trumps recent presidency was a pragmatic success?

What else would you call a situation, where the majority got the result they preferred, is that populism, or is that democracy?

1920/30's Germany voted for a populist leader, that leader didn't represent democracy. This example can be used as a very negative result of populism, wouldn't you agree?

[Castrol for a knave]

DFID seems to be pretty active in places we recruit NHS staff from.


A pal who worked in Overseas Aid (he said he did but I think he was more a spook) once told me it's about leverage, in areas such as CITES and FGM as well as the more obvious economic and commercial areas. It's also handy for getting reach into money launderers and generally naughty boys and girls.