Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Nick Griffin on Haiti Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should UK give aid to Haiti or not?
    Yes
    308
    79.38%
    No
    80
    20.62%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unidentified_object)
    I'm not sure that the government should be giving away tax payers money. But I think it should be up to the individuals to give donations!I just gave a donation on dec.org.uk after seeing the devastation Haiti population is experience and they literally at the moment can't do anything about it, they rely on other human beings for help!Where as people in the UK have the opportunity to solve their problems, people in Haiti, at the moment, don't have that chance.
    If the British government wasted less money than they do then they could afford to tax people less. That would give people more money in their pockets that they could, if they chose, give to causes like Haiti.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Again, our treasury is NOT some massive insurance pot for the natural disasters that occur elsewhere.

    We are not obligated to deal with it. It's sad, but that's life. We live on a planet that is not immune to natural disasters. No amount of money and aid will control our planet's natural tendencies. If it was somehow a consequence of our actions that earthquakes occur elsewhere, then yes, I can see how we should feel responsible and give, give, give. But we're not.

    The fact is that the UK simply cannot sustainable pay out for every natural disaster that happens elsewhere. In fact, there are natural disasters every week, and the UK does nothing about them, because it's an unsustainable practice. The only reason we give foreign aid in cases like this is because the media gets a hold of it, and the government feels obligated. When the media ignore a natural disaster, so do the government, and that's the right way to do it when your country has more 0s at the end of its debt than it has ever had.
    International security works both ways. By giving aid to country in dire need of it, we are improving our international relations and thus, our own national security in case something disastrous ever happens here.

    As I said before, without international aid, we would never have made it through World War II.

    Do you really want to live in a wealthy country (yes, we are most definitely a wealthy country) that just sits by and watches many thousands of people die, when we can more than afford to offer just a little bit of aid (which is what £6 million quite frankly is)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maturity)
    Nice sig.
    Yep he is an idiot.
    Lol cheers bro
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Again, our treasury is NOT some massive insurance pot for the natural disasters that occur elsewhere.

    We are not obligated to deal with it. It's sad, but that's life. We live on a planet that is not immune to natural disasters. No amount of money and aid will control our planet's natural tendencies. If it was somehow a consequence of our actions that earthquakes occur elsewhere, then yes, I can see how we should feel responsible and give, give, give. But we're not.

    The fact is that the UK simply cannot sustainable pay out for every natural disaster that happens elsewhere. In fact, there are natural disasters every week, and the UK does nothing about them, because it's an unsustainable practice. The only reason we give foreign aid in cases like this is because the media gets a hold of it, and the government feels obligated. When the media ignore a natural disaster, so do the government, and that's the right way to do it when your country has more 0s at the end of its debt than it has ever had.
    Yes, we are certainly not obligated to provide aid. However, I certainly do believe that empathy and compassion are fundamental aspect of humanity, and as I would help someone if I saw them fall over, I feel similarly obligated to help those who find themselves in utter poverty throughout the world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i disagreee. human beings are a race, every life means the same, we should help each other. the state that the haitains are in at the moment is a lot worse than anything we have had here for a long time. they need the help of the world, and i think we should give it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undiscovery)
    He seems to be deeply emotionally damaged, in some way. He constantly craves attention and seeks to create an impact. Can he truly believe his original ramblings; that we should save elderly people that can easily be saved by simply having neighbours keeping them in check and *not* donate money to the relief effort where over 50 000 people have perished, and will continue to perish?
    Part of me would seriously like to hope that Nick Griffin in fact conducting some hidden ploy to sabotage and prevent the BNP from ever getting any real power, and has done so by working his way up to party leader and then deliberately blurting out ridiculous and idiotic things that will deter people from voting for the BNP. Wouldn't that be great?! It would ould certainly be a good explanation for how a Cambridge graduate can be so fundamentally stupid

    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    International security works both ways. By giving aid to country in dire need of it, we are improving our international relations and thus, our own national security in case something disastrous ever happens here.
    Yeah, nail on the head with "improving international relations". If we didn't give any aid to Haiti, that would severely damage Britain's international imagine. You are incorrect though by saying that by giving aid we could expect to receive it- a billionaire who gave lots of money to charity would not be considered a charitable cause even if he lost his job or something. Britain is still loaded.

    But yeah, some of the people on this thread astound me. I can't believe anyone would honestly think the British government could get away with refusing to give aid in light of such a disaster, simply because we have our own problems. It would just make Britain as a whole seem horrifically cruel that we couldn't spare a relatively small amount (£6million IS NOT VERY MUCH!!!) in light of such a disaster. I'm not saying homelessness and other problems in the UK aren't bad and don't need to be dealt with- there's just no reason to hoard every last little bit of cash we have and put them towards these things. Inefficiencies in public sector spending, which amount to billions, would be a far better thing to deal with. I'm just glad none of you are in any position of power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    You usually talk a lot of sense, so I'm quite perplexed by this logic.

    As a country, we are hardly struggling. The effects of the recession are barely noticeable; especially in contrast to, say, the devastation of an 8.5 magnitude earthquake to a small, densely populated country.
    The effects of the recession are barely noticeable? I don't know what lifestyle you lead, but it would seem to me that you are ignorant to the struggles of the working class at the best of times, let along at the back end of the worst economic collapse for who knows how long.

    I would quite honestly be unsurprised if the amount of people who have had their house repossessed, committed suicide, or died in the cold as a result of their poverty in the recession matches the number of dead in Haiti.

    £6 million is almost nothing in comparison to our GDP. Had that money not been spent on Haiti, I can guarantee you, we still wouldn't see an immediate improvement to these "essential services" we are apparently lacking. Giving £6 million in aid has hardly put us in a position where we cannot afford to sustain our own country.
    I never said that the loss of £6mill would put us in an unsustainable position. But if we gave a proportional amount in aid to EVERY natural disaster that occurred (and they occur weekly to varying magnitudes), then that WOULD be an unsustainable practice.

    The best practice is to give when the going is good, and save when the going is bad. Otherwise you're faced with the decision of 'which disaster should I give aid to?'.

    Now what about firstly addressing the £50 or so billion pounds we spend on defence each year, so we can invade Muslim countries and kill brown people who are no immediate threat to us? Surely we could use that money to improve these services?
    I completely agree, and I don't know why you thought I wouldn't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    Part of me would seriously like to hope that Nick Griffin in fact conducting some hidden ploy to sabotage and prevent the BNP from ever getting any real power, and has done so by working his way up to party leader and then deliberately blurting out ridiculous and idiotic things that will deter people from voting for the BNP. Wouldn't that be great?!
    So, he's following Gordon Brown's strategy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    Part of me would seriously like to hope that Nick Griffin in fact conducting some hidden ploy to sabotage and prevent the BNP from ever getting any real power, and has done so by working his way up to party leader and then deliberately blurting out ridiculous and idiotic things that will deter people from voting for the BNP. Wouldn't that be great?! It would ould certainly be a good explanation for how a Cambridge graduate can be so fundamentally stupid
    I'm fairly sure there are plenty of outrageous, offensive and downright stupid people that get into and graduate from Cambridge every year.

    That said, Griffin does enter realms that defy belief. However, he is entirely free to comment on governmental action, such as the Haiti earthquake.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    I neither said nor implied we were 'on the verge of bankruptcy' so moot point for you there.

    And take homeless people out of the equation because I cba with your assertions about it (srsly if it was so easy to get out of do you think people would be on the streets for years?) and I didn't even bring homeless people up. Take our troops where they're dying because they don't have the correct equipment, inner city slump schools where the GCSE pass rate is ****, or hospitals where people contract MRSA and the nurses are highly overworked and underpaid. What about them?
    Our troops are dying to protect British business interests.

    Why exactly is someones life worth more if they are located geographically closer to you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoshyEls)
    Our troops are dying to protect British business interests.

    Why exactly is someones life worth more if they are located geographically closer to you?
    Because the government is giving money that comes from the people of a country which has its own problems.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undiscovery)
    I'm fairly sure there are plenty of outrageous, offensive and downright stupid people that get into and graduate from Cambridge every year.

    That said, Griffin does enter realms that defy belief. However, he is entirely free to comment on governmental action, such as the Haiti earthquake.
    I know. My thing on Nick Griffin was just me trying to inject some light-heartedness into this thread.

    (Original post by Howard)
    So, he's following Gordon Brown's strategy?
    Exactly!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Devel)
    Because the government is giving money that comes from the people of a country which has its own problems.
    The only reason those people have that money to pay in tax in the first place is because our country has become wealthy from the exploitation of other nations.

    It doesn't matter who it "belongs" to, hoarding wealth and resources when people are dying isn't morally justifiable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The UK, and other countries sent aid to the US when Hurricane Katrina happened. If a similar occurrence happened here, I'm certain that the US and many other countries would give aid to the UK too, not necessarily in the form of money but in the form of doctors, helicopters, medical supplies, etc.
    When a natural disaster like this occurs, the world has to come together and help one another. The "it's not in our country, so isn't our problem" view is a medieval one. We should think globally, not nationally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    We give 120mil to india for its country which is building a space program yet we can only give £80 over a number of years to people in our own?
    I don't think that amount of money should go on a space program either, but that's the government not distributing the money properly. That has nothing to do with whether britain should/shouldn't give aid to Haiti. If the government didn't pay for those kinds of things, more money could go on aid and more money could go on homelessness. But i do think as we live in a country where we pay MP's wages at 60k each, we can afford to send some money Haiti's way.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    I've only read every second page of this thread (too long to read all 17 pages of this), but still I haven't seen anyone pointing out that we need to keep giving aid to maintain a good image of Britain. If we gave NOTHING to support Haiti in light of such a huge disaster, what would the rest of the world think of us? Our international image is a huge factor.

    £6 milion is barely anything anyway- we spend over £200 BILLION a year on our society security system, so I don't think anyone can complain about the British government throwing everything away on other countries. If you think Britain has problems, try comparing it to other countries in the world, rather than comparing it whatever utopia you're envisioning. No matter what happens, Britain will ALWAYS have problems of some kind. It will always fall short of the paradise-status that some people think that restricting foreign aid will achieve. No sum of money could every make this country nor any other country perfect, and yet many people here are suggesting that we try and achieve that goal before even considering other countries.

    Tax money would have a far greater impact here than in Haiti at the moment. Therefore, I support giving a sum of aid which isn't even that large.
    THANK YOU! some people in this thread are heartless morons!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoshyEls)
    The only reason those people have that money to pay in tax in the first place is because our country has become wealthy from the exploitation of other nations.

    It doesn't matter who it "belongs" to, hoarding wealth and resources when people are dying isn't morally justifiable.
    Hoarding what? Have you seen the mess this country is in right now? It is nothing compared to what has happened in Haiti that is a given but you can't act as if right now we are perfect.

    Also how can you dictate what is justifiable or not. You are part of the system so everything you take from the government is partly due to the exploitation of other nations right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    No I wasn't, I was merely saying that in Palestine Britain had a role in history, something which largely contributes to how they are now. Haiti doesn't even have this. If anything it should be the French paying for them.

    Haiti have had loads of chances to fix up and failed - the US provided billions to help improve its judicial system, look how that failed. Their idea of justice is burning you on the street. They still believe in Voodoo, look at that journalist who was murdered a few years ago. This is all irrelevant though.
    Palestine has had plenty of chances to fix and its failed. I mean, what the ****? In the last ten years or so there have been over a thousand murders of independent reporters and investigators, why should this even be mentioned? Should charitable donations only come from those countries respective former colonial masters? In that case should Palestine kiss goodbye to the good will it receives from a plethora countries. To say the complexities of Palestine are entirely a British creation is ******* rich, I would say some of its prominent citizens have done little to help its diplomatic efforts.

    Judicial reform is rather hard to come by when your country is still in social and political turmoil. Your comment on Haitians believing in Voodoo simply suggests to me how ******* primitive you are, what the hell does their religion have to do with anything.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Devel)
    Hoarding what? Have you seen the mess this country is in right now? It is nothing compared to what has happened in Haiti that is a given but you can't act as if right now we are perfect.

    Also how can you dictate what is justifiable or not. You are part of the system so everything you take from the government is partly due to the exploitation of other nations right?
    This country isn't perfect, but right now Haiti is in immediate need. Saving lives comes above even basic things like education in my opinion.

    Correct. It is totally unfair that I'm sitting here in relative luxury compared to most of the world. I try not to be a complete ******* by at least supporting charities and doing volunteer work. The right call that "liberal guilt" don't they?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timdot)
    The UK, and other countries sent aid to the US when Hurricane Katrina happened. If a similar occurrence happened here, I'm certain that the US and many other countries would give aid to the UK too, not necessarily in the form of money but in the form of doctors, helicopters, medical supplies, etc.
    When a natural disaster like this occurs, the world has to come together and help one another. The "it's not in our country, so isn't our problem" view is a medieval one. We should think globally, not nationally.
    It's scientifically proven that others will assist if you have a trackrecord for assisting (reciprocal altruism):

    Wedekind and Milinski (1996) pitted students against each other in a game where they could give one franc to a player, or give two francs, which the experimenter would double to give four total francs, to the player. However, the player would not be aware who he was giving to, or whether they had given to him in the past, but be aware of their past record. They found that individuals who were generous were more likely to receive money from other members.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.