What would Jesus do?

gloswhite wrote:I have to say T.R.O.Y., you've done a magnificent job here. From a small item about foreign aid, you have managed to create an argument where its you against the rest of us, (again), You have expertly manipulated our comments to cause annoyance on the forum, and completely distorted the argument and valid views, even those that are in agreement with you. 
I much preferred it when you were keeping a low profile.

Sadly, I am agreeing with what Glos has said and this is why I generally try to avoid you on here.

A true shame, but you certainly can’t please everyone!

I resent the accusation that I’ve manipulated comments, anyone can see through that lie by simply reading the thread. 

It’s an interesting topic though, particularly if Rees-Mogg goes on to become pm, his record on a host of social issues makes interesting reading. It would certainly please some on here, while alienating others.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Leeds_Trotter wrote:Personally, I do not believe this country is in a position anymore to be giving away such money. There are vital services in this country that could do with the money. We should sort them out before sending money abroad. However in cases where we've caused destruction of other countries, we should assist in helping rebuilding the country. But in the future, we should not get involved in such conflicts.

My only point on this is that we’re the 6th largest economy in the world. Do not make the mistake of thinking the lack of funding of public services is due to the pot being empty. It’s a political choice to underfund.

Let’s make sure the money is spent wisely rather than cutting it out.

Just because we are the 6th largest economy in the world, doesn't mean we should be throwing money around that we haven't got helping others out. There are people in our country struggling, what about them? It's ok saying it's a political choice that the services are underfunded, but the money has to come from somewhere, and the foreign aid budget should be the 1st thing to cut. Though it isn't just down to how much money we are pumping into services, it's how the services are run and the NHS is very poorly run.

I’d say there are responsibilities that come with being so wealthy, I’d like to see them upheld. A different viewpoint I guess.

T.R.O.Y wrote:A true shame, but you certainly can’t please everyone!

I resent the accusation that I’ve manipulated comments, anyone can see through that lie by simply reading the thread. 

It’s an interesting topic though, particularly if Rees-Mogg goes on to become pm, his record on a host of social issues makes interesting reading. It would certainly please some on here, while alienating others.

It is an interesting topic, and should he become PM, it will add a whole new dimension to any political argument. 
I for one, think we have enough of those just now 

As Jesus was,quite obviously,a Socialist,I'm sure he'd have a lot to say about this matter.

The present Oxfam scandal isn't helping.

gloswhite wrote:I believe it was Cameron who wanted the practice of giving away billions enshrined in our law, (0.7% of GDP ?), even though there was, and is, solid proof that much of the funds are siphoned off to either people or projects theat do not necessarily help the poor and starving. Read somewhere that he thought the benefit in doing this was that the UK would be held in high esteem by the developing nations. To this argument, I would ask just one question, why, after all these years, and billions of pounds, dollars, etc., are we still paying for their development? surely, after all this investment, somebody must be able to stand on their own two feet by now. The truth is that we, amongst others, have allowed a dependency culture to develop, and by pouring more money into it, we are actually making it worse, in the longer term.
I think that we should stop the index linked rise in foreign aid, and target those who actually need it. I'm sure we all know of the time, a couple of years ago, when India said they didn't need the money, but were told that they would need to take it, as it had already been allocated. 
I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed, and where, and I agree with him that its needed at home, at least for the next few years. I think the Jesus angle is spurious in this case.

I was going to go on a rant but no need to as these are exactly my thoughts.

Angry Dad wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I believe it was Cameron who wanted the practice of giving away billions enshrined in our law, (0.7% of GDP ?), even though there was, and is, solid proof that much of the funds are siphoned off to either people or projects theat do not necessarily help the poor and starving. Read somewhere that he thought the benefit in doing this was that the UK would be held in high esteem by the developing nations. To this argument, I would ask just one question, why, after all these years, and billions of pounds, dollars, etc., are we still paying for their development? surely, after all this investment, somebody must be able to stand on their own two feet by now. The truth is that we, amongst others, have allowed a dependency culture to develop, and by pouring more money into it, we are actually making it worse, in the longer term.
I think that we should stop the index linked rise in foreign aid, and target those who actually need it. I'm sure we all know of the time, a couple of years ago, when India said they didn't need the money, but were told that they would need to take it, as it had already been allocated. 
I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed, and where, and I agree with him that its needed at home, at least for the next few years. I think the Jesus angle is spurious in this case.

I was going to go on a rant but no need to as these are exactly my thoughts.

I also agree with Glos however I'd add that a few years ago I saw an expose of how "foreign aid" was spent and in essence it said that the British Government use "foreign aid" as a slush fund to grease the palms of officials in countries we want to trade with or influence politically, hence donating to e.g. India and China - huge economies that don't actually need the money. 
That has always been the British way when it comes to international relations and it could be argued that it works as we have done very well out of it.
The idea that our "foreign aid" budget is used to help the poor and needy - and thereby salve our collective conscience - is one that I think is a bit naive.
Can't locate the expose at the moment but there is a Telegraph article online which complained that whilst British aid was being used to cut the smoking rate of workers in China, British territories in the caribbean damaged by hurricane Irma weren't eligible. Pakistan is by far the biggest recipient and 37% of the entire budget goes to unilateral organisations such as the UN with only 16% being spent on crisis/disaster relief.
I would assume JRM has knowledge of how it's spent and maybe, just maybe he is actually proposing a change in the way we conduct trade and diplomacy rather cutting money for people who really need it. 
Perhaps his comments may stimulate a public debate on how the budget is spent?

Mogg is about as much a Christian as Pontius Pilate!
Some of his comments beside this subject beg belief!
Twat of the highest order and a top flag bearer for the blue nose nasty bastards!

wanderlust wrote:

Angry Dad wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I believe it was Cameron who wanted the practice of giving away billions enshrined in our law, (0.7% of GDP ?), even though there was, and is, solid proof that much of the funds are siphoned off to either people or projects theat do not necessarily help the poor and starving. Read somewhere that he thought the benefit in doing this was that the UK would be held in high esteem by the developing nations. To this argument, I would ask just one question, why, after all these years, and billions of pounds, dollars, etc., are we still paying for their development? surely, after all this investment, somebody must be able to stand on their own two feet by now. The truth is that we, amongst others, have allowed a dependency culture to develop, and by pouring more money into it, we are actually making it worse, in the longer term.
I think that we should stop the index linked rise in foreign aid, and target those who actually need it. I'm sure we all know of the time, a couple of years ago, when India said they didn't need the money, but were told that they would need to take it, as it had already been allocated. 
I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed, and where, and I agree with him that its needed at home, at least for the next few years. I think the Jesus angle is spurious in this case.

I was going to go on a rant but no need to as these are exactly my thoughts.

I also agree with Glos however I'd add that a few years ago I saw an expose of how "foreign aid" was spent and in essence it said that the British Government use "foreign aid" as a slush fund to grease the palms of officials in countries we want to trade with or influence politically, hence donating to e.g. India and China - huge economies that don't actually need the money. 
That has always been the British way when it comes to international relations and it could be argued that it works as we have done very well out of it.
The idea that our "foreign aid" budget is used to help the poor and needy - and thereby salve our collective conscience - is one that I think is a bit naive.
Can't locate the expose at the moment but there is a Telegraph article online which complained that whilst British aid was being used to cut the smoking rate of workers in China, British territories in the caribbean damaged by hurricane Irma weren't eligible. Pakistan is by far the biggest recipient and 37% of the entire budget goes to unilateral organisations such as the UN with only 16% being spent on crisis/disaster relief.
I would assume JRM has knowledge of how it's spent and maybe, just maybe he is actually proposing a change in the way we conduct trade and diplomacy rather cutting money for people who really need it. 
Perhaps his comments may stimulate a public debate on how the budget is spent?

Good post Wander.

wanderlust wrote:

Angry Dad wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I believe it was Cameron who wanted the practice of giving away billions enshrined in our law, (0.7% of GDP ?), even though there was, and is, solid proof that much of the funds are siphoned off to either people or projects theat do not necessarily help the poor and starving. Read somewhere that he thought the benefit in doing this was that the UK would be held in high esteem by the developing nations. To this argument, I would ask just one question, why, after all these years, and billions of pounds, dollars, etc., are we still paying for their development? surely, after all this investment, somebody must be able to stand on their own two feet by now. The truth is that we, amongst others, have allowed a dependency culture to develop, and by pouring more money into it, we are actually making it worse, in the longer term.
I think that we should stop the index linked rise in foreign aid, and target those who actually need it. I'm sure we all know of the time, a couple of years ago, when India said they didn't need the money, but were told that they would need to take it, as it had already been allocated. 
I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed, and where, and I agree with him that its needed at home, at least for the next few years. I think the Jesus angle is spurious in this case.

I was going to go on a rant but no need to as these are exactly my thoughts.

I also agree with Glos however I'd add that a few years ago I saw an expose of how "foreign aid" was spent and in essence it said that the British Government use "foreign aid" as a slush fund to grease the palms of officials in countries we want to trade with or influence politically, hence donating to e.g. India and China - huge economies that don't actually need the money. 
That has always been the British way when it comes to international relations and it could be argued that it works as we have done very well out of it.
The idea that our "foreign aid" budget is used to help the poor and needy - and thereby salve our collective conscience - is one that I think is a bit naive.
Can't locate the expose at the moment but there is a Telegraph article online which complained that whilst British aid was being used to cut the smoking rate of workers in China, British territories in the caribbean damaged by hurricane Irma weren't eligible. Pakistan is by far the biggest recipient and 37% of the entire budget goes to unilateral organisations such as the UN with only 16% being spent on crisis/disaster relief.
I would assume JRM has knowledge of how it's spent and maybe, just maybe he is actually proposing a change in the way we conduct trade and diplomacy rather cutting money for people who really need it. 
Perhaps his comments may stimulate a public debate on how the budget is spent?

Agree with most of this, however you say Mogg maybe proposing a change in spending rather than cutting money, which is the opposite of what he’s supporting. I think we’re all in agreement money is being misspent (although we may disagree with the scale), I would favour more scrutiny over where it’s going rather than cutting though. Cutting money to the poor would be at odds with Moggs ‘Christian beliefs in my opinion - hence the threads question.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Angry Dad wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I believe it was Cameron who wanted the practice of giving away billions enshrined in our law, (0.7% of GDP ?), even though there was, and is, solid proof that much of the funds are siphoned off to either people or projects theat do not necessarily help the poor and starving. Read somewhere that he thought the benefit in doing this was that the UK would be held in high esteem by the developing nations. To this argument, I would ask just one question, why, after all these years, and billions of pounds, dollars, etc., are we still paying for their development? surely, after all this investment, somebody must be able to stand on their own two feet by now. The truth is that we, amongst others, have allowed a dependency culture to develop, and by pouring more money into it, we are actually making it worse, in the longer term.
I think that we should stop the index linked rise in foreign aid, and target those who actually need it. I'm sure we all know of the time, a couple of years ago, when India said they didn't need the money, but were told that they would need to take it, as it had already been allocated. 
I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed, and where, and I agree with him that its needed at home, at least for the next few years. I think the Jesus angle is spurious in this case.

I was going to go on a rant but no need to as these are exactly my thoughts.

I also agree with Glos however I'd add that a few years ago I saw an expose of how "foreign aid" was spent and in essence it said that the British Government use "foreign aid" as a slush fund to grease the palms of officials in countries we want to trade with or influence politically, hence donating to e.g. India and China - huge economies that don't actually need the money. 
That has always been the British way when it comes to international relations and it could be argued that it works as we have done very well out of it.
The idea that our "foreign aid" budget is used to help the poor and needy - and thereby salve our collective conscience - is one that I think is a bit naive.
Can't locate the expose at the moment but there is a Telegraph article online which complained that whilst British aid was being used to cut the smoking rate of workers in China, British territories in the caribbean damaged by hurricane Irma weren't eligible. Pakistan is by far the biggest recipient and 37% of the entire budget goes to unilateral organisations such as the UN with only 16% being spent on crisis/disaster relief.
I would assume JRM has knowledge of how it's spent and maybe, just maybe he is actually proposing a change in the way we conduct trade and diplomacy rather cutting money for people who really need it. 
Perhaps his comments may stimulate a public debate on how the budget is spent?

Agree with most of this, however you say Mogg maybe proposing a change in spending rather than cutting money, which is the opposite of what he’s supporting. I think we’re all in agreement money is being misspent (although we may disagree with the scale), I would favour more scrutiny over where it’s going rather than cutting though. Cutting money to the poor would be at odds with Moggs ‘Christian beliefs in my opinion - hence the threads question.

Of course, there is the thought that if we retain some of the money for the UK, it will focus the government's decision makers on who would really benefit from the remainder of the allocated monies.

Penny Mordaunt told Andrew Marr this morning that foreign aid helps the NHS and our troops financially.

okocha wrote:Penny Mordaunt told Andrew Marr this morning that foreign aid helps the NHS and our troops financially.

But she is an idiot who insisted that Turkey was going to join the EU and we had no veto.

Leeds_Trotter wrote:Personally, I do not believe this country is in a position anymore to be giving away such money. There are vital services in this country that could do with the money. We should sort them out before sending money abroad. However in cases where we've caused destruction of other countries, we should assist in helping rebuilding the country. But in the future, we should not get involved in such conflicts.

This.

Soul Kitchen wrote:Mogg is about as much a Christian as Pontius Pilate!
Some of his comments beside this subject beg belief!
Twat of the highest order and a top flag bearer for the blue nose nasty bastards!

I notice all his offspring have been given some strange names. 

• Peter Theodore Alphege Rees-Mogg (b. 2007)
  
  
• Mary Anne Charlotte Emma Rees-Mogg (b. 2008)
  
  
• Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan Rees-Mogg (b. 2010)
  
  
• Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam Rees-Mogg (b. 2012)
  
  
• Alfred Wulfric Leyson Pius Rees-Mogg (b. 22 February 2016)
  
  
• Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher Rees-Mogg (b. July 2017)
  
  

Sixtus and Anselm are bound to get the piss taken out of them.

All named after saints, religious characters and pope types. And six of the buggers. I'm surprised he has time away from parliamentary duties. I wonder if he quotes passages from the bible while going forth and multiplying, or does he get help from a committee?

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote:Mogg is about as much a Christian as Pontius Pilate!
Some of his comments beside this subject beg belief!
Twat of the highest order and a top flag bearer for the blue nose nasty bastards!

I notice all his offspring have been given some strange names. 

• Peter Theodore Alphege Rees-Mogg (b. 2007)
  
  
• Mary Anne Charlotte Emma Rees-Mogg (b. 2008)
  
  
• Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan Rees-Mogg (b. 2010)
  
  
• Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam Rees-Mogg (b. 2012)
  
  
• Alfred Wulfric Leyson Pius Rees-Mogg (b. 22 February 2016)
  
  
• Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher Rees-Mogg (b. July 2017)
  
  

Sixtus and Anselm are bound to get the piss taken out of them.

Cracking names! Far better than Kylie or Wayne

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Leeds_Trotter wrote:Personally, I do not believe this country is in a position anymore to be giving away such money. There are vital services in this country that could do with the money. We should sort them out before sending money abroad. However in cases where we've caused destruction of other countries, we should assist in helping rebuilding the country. But in the future, we should not get involved in such conflicts.

This.

Great minds RT.