Only 5% of Aid money went to feed Ethiopia's starving
Discussion
Heard on R4 this morning that only 5% of aid money raised by Geldof and the like actually went to feeding the hungry. I am personally not suprised, we have had discussions on this before on the forum but this now actually confirms it all. Hopefully this 'revelation' will go a little way to change the way aid is distributed if it should be at all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8546677.st...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8546677.st...
I still don't understand why in those circumstances the Aid agencies don't just buy food and airdrop it to those who need it.
But it does not surprise me that the majority of the money raised does not get used for that which it was intended. It disgusts me how much is swallowed up by admin etc.
But it does not surprise me that the majority of the money raised does not get used for that which it was intended. It disgusts me how much is swallowed up by admin etc.
t.Dr.Doofenshmirtz said:
The story is only an opinion though. I dare say a lot of the money was squandered, but shirley more than 5% went to 'help' [read:make the problem worse in the long run].
Seeing how much aid money gets taken out of the equation at every level certainly doesn't surprise me.I am surprised the World Bank don't just pay GE and Siemens for not doing the work...no wait they do on a few occasions.
Are you surprised? I am was amazed that the guy said the BBC report was the first he had heared of it, or that this is the 'first time' the story has come up, Go to Ethiopia ( I have) it is/was common talk in any coffee shop. If you go to Ethipio any one can would have told you this story.
andymadmak said:
Dr.Doofenshmirtz said:
The story is only an opinion though. I dare say a lot of the money was squandered, but shirley more than 5% went to 'help' [read:make the problem worse in the long run].
I know I'm being a pedant, but it's SURELY... Shirley is a womans nameJasandjules said:
I still don't understand why in those circumstances the Aid agencies don't just buy food and airdrop it to those who need it.
But it does not surprise me that the majority of the money raised does not get used for that which it was intended. It disgusts me how much is swallowed up by admin etc.
Have you watched Black Hawk Down?But it does not surprise me that the majority of the money raised does not get used for that which it was intended. It disgusts me how much is swallowed up by admin etc.
It was always on the cards that not all the money made it through to where it was needed. But where does this guy get his 5% figure from?
Dr.Doofenshmirtz said:
shirley
Why this constant mispelling of "surely"? And yes, I am aware of the "Airplane" refernce but I am convinced now that most people on the Internet now think that this is the ciorrect spelling of this word because I NEVER see it spelled correctly anymore.Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 3rd March 10:00
Eric Mc said:
It was always on the cards that not all the money made it through to where it was needed. But where does this guy get his 5% figure from?
No, its constantly because of the film Dr.Doofenshmirtz said:
shirley
Why this constant mispelling of "surely"? And yes, I am aware of the "Airplane" refernce but I am convinced now that most people on the Internet now think that this is the ciorrect spelling of this word because I NEVER see it spelled correctly anymore.Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 3rd March 10:00
Jonny671 said:
Eric Mc said:
It was always on the cards that not all the money made it through to where it was needed. But where does this guy get his 5% figure from?
No, its constantly because of the film Dr.Doofenshmirtz said:
shirley
Why this constant mispelling of "surely"? And yes, I am aware of the "Airplane" refernce but I am convinced now that most people on the Internet now think that this is the ciorrect spelling of this word because I NEVER see it spelled correctly anymore.Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 3rd March 10:00
TonyHetherington said:
Give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day etc. etc....
Teach a man to fish and....He'll catch more than he needs and sell the surplus to his neighbours.
The enables him to buy a bigger net and increase his yield.
Now he owns two nets and employs his neighbour.
When he's making enough profit he hires another neighbour to take his place while he gets on with running SuperHyperMegaGlobalFishCo.
Which now exports all the fish to the west
cazzer said:
TonyHetherington said:
Give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day etc. etc....
Teach a man to fish and....He'll catch more than he needs and sell the surplus to his neighbours.
The enables him to buy a bigger net and increase his yield.
Now he owns two nets and employs his neighbour.
When he's making enough profit he hires another neighbour to take his place while he gets on with running SuperHyperMegaGlobalFishCo.
Which now exports all the fish to the west
enabling the man to retire a millionaire so he can relax spending his remaining days fishing with one line.
But there are no fish left in his bay
Hedders said:
andymadmak said:
Dr.Doofenshmirtz said:
The story is only an opinion though. I dare say a lot of the money was squandered, but shirley more than 5% went to 'help' [read:make the problem worse in the long run].
I know I'm being a pedant, but it's SURELY... Shirley is a womans nameCarry on.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff