International Aid

seeing as we are broke (UKPLC) should this also be looked at..?

im not suggesting ditiching it totally..but surely we can look to trim a bit off here and there..?

I would rather trim it back from wasteful expenditure that does no good at all, like the navy.

Zing.

FWIW, I don't think we should cut international aid.

There are other things that could be cut beforehand, and our aid helps to save lives around the world.

What would be better would be to cancel the world debt that riddles most third world countries and stops them developing (for every £1 that we give in aid such as Comic Relief, your average third world country pays back £4 in debt repayments), then we wouldn't have to fork out so much money in aid when things go wrong and the country in question can't stabilise itself. If we have more developing third world countries we'd also have more trade and business opportunities, which suits everybody and would create jobs in a lot of countries where they're desperately needed.

do we give aid to india and pakistan..?

if so, that should be stopped

Why should we stop it then TDD?

We do give aid to India but why when the Indians are launching rockets to send men into space. If they can afford to do that then they clearly don't need our aid.

The Indian government haven't quite got their priorities sorted. They still have a large amount of the population living in abject poverty in rural areas and slums in large cities such as Mumbai, yet they're spending billions on a space programme. Most of our aid will go on government spending, but there will be some people that will benefit from it, and i'm not sure how well protected they'd be if we stopped giving them aid.

seeing as we are broke (UKPLC) should this also be looked at..?

 

im not suggesting ditiching it totally..but surely we can look to trim a bit off here and there..?

Have you got clean drinking water and electricity DD?

International aid should be scrapped. You only have to look at countries such as Zimbabwe to see that such countrys are only poor because of poor governance. When Ian Smith was PM in Rhodesia the country was a model African state and no-body went hungry.

The Indian government haven't quite got their priorities sorted. They still have a large amount of the population living in abject poverty in rural areas and slums in large cities such as Mumbai, yet they're spending billions on a space programme. Most of our aid will go on government spending, but there will be some people that will benefit from it, and i'm not sure how well protected they'd be if we stopped giving them aid.

we should stop giving india money..have you ever been there..?

I have, they have the money just dont use it properly...

nuclear weapons, space prgramme..

hmmm

I agree with TDD. We could eradicate poverty completely in this country, have a better education and health service and compete better with other EU countries if we just stopped wasting money on things like Trident. I don't see why India or any other country should have nuclear weapons or a space programme. Good shout TDD!

International aid should be scrapped. You only have to look at countries such as Zimbabwe to see that such countrys are only poor because of poor governance. When Ian Smith was PM in Rhodesia the country was a model African state and no-body went hungry.

Model by who's perspective?

Under Smith there was a Senate and a House of Assembly which reserved 95% of the seats for whites only.

The population consisted of 96% Black and 4% White. Not surprisingly, in the late 60s and early 70s black awareness created extreme levels of disaffection with the government and the perceived injustices.

In fact the current "difficulties" stem directly from Smith and UDI. If he hadn't declared independence then the so-called Bush War by ZANU and ZAPU would not have occurred as Britain and South Africa would have agreed to send military aid.

After Smith's declaration and the refusal by Britain and SA to recognise the country's status when Smith came begging for help against the nasty blacks they told him in no uncertain terms that, as he had made his bed he could lie in it. In effect - Sod Off.

I agree with TDD. We could eradicate poverty completely in this country, have a better education and health service and compete better with other EU countries if we just stopped wasting money on things like Trident. I don't see why India or any other country should have nuclear weapons or a space programme. Good shout TDD!

Why is everything you write completely pointless, stupid, sarcastic and a waste of typing energy?

Why is everything you write completely pointless, stupid, sarcastic and a waste of typing energy?

But he makes a great point, dont you think?

Model by who's perspective?

 

Under Smith there was a Senate and a House of Assembly which reserved 95% of the seats for whites only.

 

The population consisted of 96% Black and 4% White. Not surprisingly, in the late 60s and early 70s black awareness created extreme levels of disaffection with the government and the perceived injustices.

 

 

In fact the current "difficulties" stem directly from Smith and UDI. If he hadn't declared independence then the so-called Bush War by ZANU and ZAPU would not have occurred as Britain and South Africa would have agreed to send military aid.

 

After Smith's declaration and the refusal by Britain and SA to recognise the country's status when Smith came begging for help against the nasty blacks they told him in no uncertain terms that, as he had made his bed he could lie in it. In effect - Sod Off.

Rhodesia wasn't ready for black rule. The Wilson government wanted to rush things through, but Ian Smith knew that because of the tribal differences between the Matebele and the Shona the country wasn't ready for majority black rule, a gradual transfer of power was needed.

Anyway, anyone who believes that international aid (of the bi-lateral nature) has anything to do with who actually needs assistance is sadly mistaken. One of the biggest recipients of USA aid is Israel, a country which would be well down the list of countries in need of assistance (9th highest amount of aid fromn USA in 2003-2004). In that same period, America gave Russia $737million of aid, the 4th largest recipient. What happened to all those countries in poverty, with millions starving, with poor water supplies and sanitation? Aid is a tool that is used to forge and cement relationships that benefit the donor country. It is a sweetner, a way of manipulating countries. It's all about getting others, who have something to offer you, on side.......sub Saharan Africa offers the world sod all - there is no point building relations through aid with them. Aid is nothing to do with poverty or helping others.

Pakistan have recieved aid from America in return for use of their airspace and allowing American military to land planes on their soil during the first gulf war.

Strategic locations of country's is more important than poverty. Alliances against nasty and naughty country's is more important than poverty. Securing energy supplies is more important than poverty. Defeating communism, socialism and anyone not towing the Western viewpoint is more important than poverty.

Not only is aid not given to appropriate country's it is also often tied to conditions. Anyone in doubt of that should look at the disgrace that was the Pergau Dam. A truely shameful moment in British history, showing not only the lack of scruples that Thatcher had but also the complete waste of aid that occurs.

Aid is important, but only if it is used effectively. Bi-lateral aid should be abolished and multi-lateral aid used exclusively. In the 1970's the UN set OECD countries a target of 0.7% of their GDP to be used as aid..........have a gues how many countries have ever achieved that.

5?

Sweden

Norway

Denmark

Netherlands

Luxembourg

In no particular order..

we should stop giving india money..have you ever been there..?

 

I have, they have the money just dont use it properly...

 

nuclear weapons, space prgramme..

 

hmmm

India is a rather poor country, although there are some wealth people that live there, as a whole nearly 40% of their population would be considered in poverty. Just because their government chooses to spend their money on nuclear and space programs does not mean everyone has food and shelter and lives a reasonable lifestyle.

International aid should be cut and cut heavily, it is the new "immigration" debate , with nobody allowed to discuss it and the money we waste.

In the last five years for which data are available, Britain has given £8.7 million in development aid to Singapore, whose gross domestic product per capita is the fourth highest in the world, and 46 per cent higher than our own.

Over the same period, we have given aid to Slovenia, Malta, the Czech Republic and Hungary, all First World countries, fellow members of the EU, and two of whom are even in the euro. In the last year for which figures are available, Britain also gave £380,000 in aid to the enormously wealthy Saudi Arabia. Paid £40.2 million last year to the economic superpower that is China, now officially classified by the World Bank as a "middle-income country".

In 2007/8, we gave India £312 million – Making it the largest single recipient of British aid. Can it be right that the British taxpayer gives such sums to a nation which can afford its own nuclear weapons? India even has a a significant overseas aid programme of its own.

It's complete and utter madness that nobody has the balls in Govt (of any colour) and say, "we just can't afford it".

Simple answer: hold a referendum to see what countries the tax payer is happy to send aid to?

Just a thought.

International aid should be cut and cut heavily, it is the new "immigration" debate , with nobody allowed to discuss it and the money we waste.

 

In the last five years for which data are available, Britain has given £8.7 million in development aid to Singapore, whose gross domestic product per capita is the fourth highest in the world, and 46 per cent higher than our own.

 

Over the same period, we have given aid to Slovenia, Malta, the Czech Republic and Hungary, all First World countries, fellow members of the EU, and two of whom are even in the euro. In the last year for which figures are available, Britain also gave £380,000 in aid to the enormously wealthy Saudi Arabia. Paid £40.2 million last year to the economic superpower that is China, now officially classified by the World Bank as a "middle-income country".

 

In 2007/8, we gave India £312 million – Making it the largest single recipient of British aid. Can it be right that the British taxpayer gives such sums to a nation which can afford its own nuclear weapons? India even has a a significant overseas aid programme of its own.

 

It's complete and utter madness that nobody has the balls in Govt (of any colour) and say, "we just can't afford it".

I wonder whether there's a link between international aid and contracts awarded to UK companies...

India is a rather poor country, although there are some wealth people that live there, as a whole nearly 40% of their population would be considered in poverty. Just because their government chooses to spend their money on nuclear and space programs does not mean everyone has food and shelter and lives a reasonable lifestyle.

OK, should we be handing dosh over to india for the reason their government cant help themselves..

the money is there

OK, should we be handing dosh over to india for the reason their government cant help themselves..

 

the money is there

The Indian government aren't putting all of our aid into their space programme and other such nik naks, it's specified that some of it has to go towards helping the people living in abject poverty, which, as AndyNorthernSaints and I have both said, is unfeasibly high for a country which is on the verge of becoming a really big player in world politics with population, industry and economy growth. Stopping the aid completely would lead to the poorest becoming even poorer. We just need to make sure that what we give is used properly.

And Lord Duckhunter, you can look at the gross GDP of a country and make vast generalisations on whether they're worthy of the aid that we give them, but figures can often lie. China may be regarded as a middle-earning country now, but that mainly applies to city workers. People living in rural areas often don't have two coins to rub together, there are still so many people living in poverty in China which people seem to skirt over, and these are the people who need the aid the most. Saudi Arabia is rich from it's oil exports, but don't think that every Saudi Arabian gets a slice of the profits. There are some exceedingly rich people in SA and some exceedingly poor people, often the ones doing the groundwork for the oil companies for a low wage. Unfortunately, it often comes down to the governmental handling of the aid again, which means that most of it is squandered.

The Indian government aren't putting all of our aid into their space programme and other such nik naks, it's specified that some of it has to go towards helping the people living in abject poverty, which, as AndyNorthernSaints and I have both said, is unfeasibly high for a country which is on the verge of becoming a really big player in world politics with population, industry and economy growth. Stopping the aid completely would lead to the poorest becoming even poorer. We just need to make sure that what we give is used properly.

 

And Lord Duckhunter, you can look at the gross GDP of a country and make vast generalisations on whether they're worthy of the aid that we give them, but figures can often lie. China may be regarded as a middle-earning country now, but that mainly applies to city workers. People living in rural areas often don't have two coins to rub together, there are still so many people living in poverty in China which people seem to skirt over, and these are the people who need the aid the most. Saudi Arabia is rich from it's oil exports, but don't think that every Saudi Arabian gets a slice of the profits. There are some exceedingly rich people in SA and some exceedingly poor people, often the ones doing the groundwork for the oil companies for a low wage. Unfortunately, it often comes down to the governmental handling of the aid again, which means that most of it is squandered.

im not suggesting they are putting our money into their space programme.

have you ever been to india..?

I have and the wealth some parts of that country show will blow you away...yes there is abject poverty too in large areas..

but, if their government chose to plough money into nuclear missiles and massive weapons programmes and space exploration..then i am sorry, I think they can do without our hand outs to do their home work for them

if one country has MASSIVE wealth and decides to spend it on nice shiney things, then that is up to them...it really is...the fact they have that wealth means we dont need to give them any

would you object to giving the USA handouts then..?

International aid should be scrapped. You only have to look at countries such as Zimbabwe to see that such countrys are only poor because of poor governance. When Ian Smith was PM in Rhodesia the country was a model African state and no-body went hungry.

Bit of a generalisation! Besides, it's hardly the fault of the people of the country that their leader/dictator is a w*nker.

im not suggesting they are putting our money into their space programme.

 

have you ever been to india..?

 

I have and the wealth some parts of that country show will blow you away...yes there is abject poverty too in large areas..

 

but, if their government chose to plough money into nuclear missiles and massive weapons programmes and space exploration..then i am sorry, I think they can do without our hand outs to do their home work for them

 

would you object to giving the USA handouts then..?

I've not been to India, but I do know enough about it having studied the country as a case study at college. While there is wealth in the country, some of it massive, there are also absolutely massive levels of poverty. Take that Dharavi slum in Mumbai for instance, seen below:

It's absolutely massive, it's estimated that there are over 1m people living there. You could then say therefore that it's about 1/6 of the size of London. The people living there have no money, no access to clean water, diseases run riot and on last count there was 1 toilet per 1440 people in the entire slum. These are the people that need the aid most.

Now, while I agree that the Indian governemental policy is wrong and they should be focusing on helping these people before starting space exploration, the temptation to strive to emulate first world countries such as the US is too much for developing countries such as India. Instead of cutting the aid to India because they're apparently not spending it in the right places, we should focus on setting up some kind of influence inside the governmental sector in order to make sure that it's spent properly. It can't be that hard for the UK government to give the aid money to the British Embassy in India to dispense rather than giving it straight to the Indian government, and that way it will lead to fairer dispersal.

And also, I wouldn't object against giving the USA handouts, although they don't really need it and have good governance.

I'm sure we receive aid from other countries too, albeit not in the same form as a cash handout that is given to poorer countries.

International aid should be scrapped. You only have to look at countries such as Zimbabwe to see that such countrys are only poor because of poor governance. When Ian Smith was PM in Rhodesia the country was a model African state and no-body went hungry.

1. You are wrong.

2. Who do you think caused most of the problems in Africa - got have a look at a map of africa and see how countries are divided by straight lines drawn on a map with a ruler and with no regard for tribal boundaries?

3. You are unempathetic gimp-troll.

4. How can you possibly say that a capitalist country like the UK that has made so much money from exploiting the rest of the world to get where it is today, and where you can go to the FREE NHS when you've stubbed your wee toe kicking a muslim person for not having the same views as you, shouldn't give some money to help out countries where civil war ravages society and people die because they can't afford basic drugs? I'm not saying you just pour money into these places because government is clearly key but you are (IMHO) a despicable human-being for not wanting to try and help places in perilous conditions financially.

5. Would you just be happy to sit here and wait for everyone to contract HIV and die whilst you live your outrageously lavish life-style and have the right to go to BNP rallies in our democratic country?

6. I would like to re-iterate point 3.

1. You are wrong.

2. Who do you think caused most of the problems in Africa - got have a look at a map of africa and see how countries are divided by straight lines drawn on a map with a ruler and with no regard for tribal boundaries?

3. You are unempathetic gimp-troll.

4. How can you possibly say that a capitalist country like the UK that has made so much money from exploiting the rest of the world to get where it is today, and where you can go to the FREE NHS when you've stubbed your wee toe kicking a muslim person for not having the same views as you, shouldn't give some money to help out countries where civil war ravages society and people die because they can't afford basic drugs? I'm not saying you just pour money into these places because government is clearly key but you are (IMHO) a despicable human-being for not wanting to try and help places in perilous conditions financially.

5. Would you just be happy to sit here and wait for everyone to contract HIV and die whilst you live your outrageously lavish life-style and have the right to go to BNP rallies in our democratic country?

6. I would like to re-iterate point 3.

2. The problems in Africa are not caused by the previous colonial powers. The Empires of the past did a lot of good in raising living standards and building infrastructure - basically we superceded the tribes and proved that Africa could work. The problems in sub saharan Africa would exist today whether we had been there or not due to the nature of the tribal culture. I agree with you about the map of Africa, and it's a sad fact that stability is still tenuous, but in the modern world tribal enclaves cannot exist alongside prosperity so in effect there is no map that could fit and sadly therefore no solution.

4. Since when has the NHS been "free" unless you are on benefits or a newly arrived immigrant? I pay my taxes so I can assure you it is not free and I also pay for private health care although this policy is only applicable for jumping the queue for operations and such like, not bog standard treatments, so the money I pay into the NHS is more of a gift anyway.

5. The AIDs epidemic is not my problem. Don't get me wrong I feel for those with the disease (particularly children born with it) but America should be held to account for this disease because I believe it was the American millitary that developed the disease and distributed it through WHO vacinations when communism was on the rise.

I've not been to India, but I do know enough about it having studied the country as a case study at college. While there is wealth in the country, some of it massive, there are also absolutely massive levels of poverty. Take that Dharavi slum in Mumbai for instance, seen below:

 

 

It's absolutely massive, it's estimated that there are over 1m people living there. You could then say therefore that it's about 1/6 of the size of London. The people living there have no money, no access to clean water, diseases run riot and on last count there was 1 toilet per 1440 people in the entire slum. These are the people that need the aid most.

 

Now, while I agree that the Indian governemental policy is wrong and they should be focusing on helping these people before starting space exploration, the temptation to strive to emulate first world countries such as the US is too much for developing countries such as India. Instead of cutting the aid to India because they're apparently not spending it in the right places, we should focus on setting up some kind of influence inside the governmental sector in order to make sure that it's spent properly. It can't be that hard for the UK government to give the aid money to the British Embassy in India to dispense rather than giving it straight to the Indian government, and that way it will lead to fairer dispersal.

yep and there level of sky high wealth in that country is huge, thay are a massive economy

if the powers at be or the worlds 4th largest economy (higher than us now) wish to distribute the wealth the way they want to, then why should we give out money to them like we do..

why not go the whole hog and dish out hundreds of millions to the USA, Japan etc..?

2. The problems in Africa are not caused by the previous colonial powers. The Empires of the past did a lot of good in raising living standards and building infrastructure - basically we superceded the tribes and proved that Africa could work. The problems in sub saharan Africa would exist today whether we had been there or not due to the nature of the tribal culture. I agree with you about the map of Africa, and it's a sad fact that stability is still tenuous, but in the modern world tribal enclaves cannot exist alongside prosperity so in effect there is no map that could fit and sadly therefore no solution.

 

4. Since when has the NHS been "free" unless you are on benefits or a newly arrived immigrant? I pay my taxes so I can assure you it is not free and I also pay for private health care although this policy is only applicable for jumping the queue for operations and such like, not bog standard treatments, so the money I pay into the NHS is more of a gift anyway.

 

5. The AIDs epidemic is not my problem. Don't get me wrong I feel for those with the disease (particularly children born with it) but America should be held to account for this disease because I believe it was the American millitary that developed the disease and distributed it through WHO vacinations when communism was on the rise.

You really are a cretin of the highest order.

BTW, your Tory government are increasing international aid not dropping it.

You really are a cretin of the highest order.

 

BTW, your Tory government are increasing international aid not dropping it.

You have no counter argument I see. I say it how it is and you don't like it.

You really are a cretin of the highest order.

 

Please remember that Stanley believes Darwin proves the white races are superior to the black or brown races and that the Nazis were misunderstood.

2. The problems in Africa are not caused by the previous colonial powers. The Empires of the past did a lot of good in raising living standards and building infrastructure - basically we superceded the tribes and proved that Africa could work. The problems in sub saharan Africa would exist today whether we had been there or not due to the nature of the tribal culture. I agree with you about the map of Africa, and it's a sad fact that stability is still tenuous, but in the modern world tribal enclaves cannot exist alongside prosperity so in effect there is no map that could fit and sadly therefore no solution.

The problem here is that I will never convince you that you're wrong and you will never convince any right minded person that Africa's colonial past has not caused many of the problems seen today.

The building of Empires created more problems than solutions, you are just choosing to ignore the problems (which is bizarre because they vastly outnumber the benefits). The dividing up of land by the Europeans is a fundemental cause of the political instability that is seen in many African countries today and can be directly linked to the rise of Military dictatorships. In countries where war and in-fighting is constant, because of tribal conflict caused by the Europeans (not just in boundary terms, but because the British, for example, set tribes up against each other and played each other off......often setting one tribe up as the administrative assistants and the other as the labourers in order to cause conflict and not allow those groups to try and work together to overthrow the Empire) development will never take place. No companies will ever wish to invest in areas where conflict takes place and the conflicts that are taking place can often be traced back to power vacuums left after independence.

5. The AIDs epidemic is not my problem. Don't get me wrong I feel for those with the disease (particularly children born with it) but America should be held to account for this disease because I believe it was the American millitary that developed the disease and distributed it through WHO vacinations when communism was on the rise.

It doesn't really sound like you do feel for those with the disease after your opening line of "The AIDs epidemic is not my problem". Maybe you should think about the way you express yourself so people don't think you're a bigoted, heartless cretin. The issue with AIDs is that it is a disease that not only kills many, but removes the ability for a country to develop and therefore aid is needed. The loss of Doctors, teachers, nurses and other key workers would be tragic in any country, but in the poorest

places on earth it is disastrous. Those affected by illness cannot work, fail to earn money and because of the lack of a welfare system, they and their family slip further into poverty. The flippant point you make about the NHS in this country is irrelevant to those in poorer places, as the health care costs are not free and if patients can't pay, they won't get treated.

If this isn't a strong argument for giving aid, then I don't know what is. Maybe being a massive racist stops you from seeing things clearly.

You have no counter argument I see. I say it how it is and you don't like it.

You choose to ignore most sensible arguments and therefore it is pointless presenting them to you. I am suddenly filled with a slightly empty feeling knowing that I have wasted 10 minutes of my time presenting arguements to you that you will ignore because you're so blinkered by your racism.

While I'm here:

Dear TheDellDays,

I have addressed your point about why we are giving aid to India, but you don't seem to have understood and keep asking the same question. Please don't start threads on issues that you are incapable of understanding once these things have been explained to you, it is pointless.

I'll sum up the situation in some short sentences for you.....

1. Aid is not to do with helping country's that are in poverty, it is about creating links with countries who we have a wish to deal with (whether that is for military alliances, future trade relations, government contracts)

2. India may well have many wealthy people, but it has FAR more people in absolute poverty. Stop asking people if they've been to India. You may have been but you haven't seen the whole country have you? You may have gone to some cities, where wealthier people live, but did you go to the rural areas? I doubt it very much.

3. This country has poor people in it (according to people like you, SRS and Dune, normally white, English people) but in March we launched the UK Space Agency.....why are we doing this when we still have people in poverty? According to many of the right wingers on here we're completed screwed as a country, so lets cut any frivilous expenditure and only spend on healthcare and education.

Please remember that Stanley believes Darwin proves the white races are superior to the black or brown races and that the Nazis were misunderstood.

Please remember that VFTT is a stuck record and that i've already explained that I do not subscribe to Social Darwinisn but do believe in Darwinism. Also I have never said the NAZI's were misunderstood, only stated their actions were no different to the British Empires actions. We even had concentration camps - but it's not something that is widely realised and the said concentration camps we ran were post 1945!

The problem here is that I will never convince you that you're wrong.

Of course you won't, because I am right.

Of course you won't, because I am right.

You have no counter argument I see. I say it how it is and you don't like it.

You have no counter argument I see. I say it how it is and you don't like it.

Your argument countered my argument so there was no need to recounter what you had said, suffice to say that I am right and you are wrong.

Christ alive, the phrase "head in the sands with fingers in ears" comes to mine.

Christ alive, the phrase "head in the sands with fingers in ears" comes to mine.

Mind not mine, but I agree Wilts needs to think outside his politically correct box.

suffice to say that I am right and you are wrong.

On balance, reading back through the 'discussion', I think you are probably not !

wrt Africa, the initial colonial conquests of the European powers imposed artificial boundaries, and alien social concepts, on the established cultures. They were no more violent to each others' 'tribes' than their new masters had been to each other during the preceding centuries of European history, whether in the name of geographical, political, or religious causes.

Once the imperial powers became established, they started eyeing up each others foreign territories, and so we exported European wars and prejudices to the continent, and as these conflicts, particularly WWI, progressed, the political map was realigned to match the prevalent European balance of power.

It is a quite reasonable assertion, for instance, that the problems of the Hutus and Tutsis are directly linked to European, particularly Belgian, meddling. Similarly, the tensions in RSA, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, are inextricably linked to the concept of white ( European ) racial supremacy.

Of course you won't, because I am right.

Replace the word right with racist.

Please remember that VFTT is a stuck record and that i've already explained that I do not subscribe to Social Darwinisn but do believe in Darwinism. Also I have never said the NAZI's were misunderstood, only stated their actions were no different to the British Empires actions. We even had concentration camps - but it's not something that is widely realised and the said concentration camps we ran were post 1945!

Do you still think we would have been better off if the Nazi's had won WW2 Stanley?

Mind not mine, but I agree Wilts needs to think outside his politically correct box.

It's not politically correct Stanley, it's compassion. Look it up in the dictionary one day. You are a typical biggoted, non compassioniate, homophobic, anti European, Xenophobic, I'm alright Jack **** the rest of the world old style Tory.

Guess what, the party has moved on and come to the centre. Hard Luck. That's why they're increasing the international aid not cutting it!

Re Diane Abbott, I wonder if your dislike of the woman is based on other characteristics apart from her being "thick". Colour of skin perhaps? I bet Ellen Semple and the other environmental determinists are your heroes. Fortunately for the world and the Geographic community we've moved on and it's no longer considered viable.

We even had concentration camps - but it's not something that is widely realised and the said concentration camps we ran were post 1945!

There's a big difference between interment camps in UK post war and those in Germany/Poland Dune and you know it. Yes thousands of people were kept in the UK post war, I think the last were freed about '49/50. They were used a free labour to help rebuild Britain.

I've never seen any evidence that we were performing mass murder to provide "the final solution". I've yet to see a Belsen type establishment outside Southampton, London, Leeds or Manchester.

There's a big difference between interment camps in UK post war and those in Germany/Poland Dune and you know it. Yes thousands of people were kept in the UK post war, I think the last were freed about '49/50. They were used a free labour to help rebuild Britain.

 

I've never seen any evidence that we were performing mass murder to provide "the final solution". I've yet to see a Belsen type establishment outside Southampton, London, Leeds or Manchester.

Try again. I'm not talking about internment camps such as the Isle of Man.

You are a typical biggoted, non compassioniate, homophobic, anti European, Xenophobic, I'm alright Jack **** the rest of the world old style Tory.

:yawinkle:

Stanley may want us to forget his previous postings regarding race & his admiration for Nazi Germany but some of us have long memories.

Do you still believe that Europe would have been a better place if Nazi Germany had won Stanley and if we had taken the deal on offer in 1940 or is that another of your views that you've changed and hope we don't notice?

Stanley may want us to forget his previous postings regarding race & his admiration for Nazi Germany but some of us have long memories.

 

Do you still believe that Europe would have been a better place if Nazi Germany had won Stanley and if we had taken the deal on offer in 1940 or is that another of your views that you've changed and hope we don't notice?

Perhaps you memory is clouded. You did say I believed in Social Darwinism and you were wrong about that. Deal in facts VFTT, not lies.

There's a big difference between interment camps in UK post war and those in Germany/Poland Dune and you know it. Yes thousands of people were kept in the UK post war, I think the last were freed about '49/50. They were used a free labour to help rebuild Britain.

 

I've never seen any evidence that we were performing mass murder to provide "the final solution". I've yet to see a Belsen type establishment outside Southampton, London, Leeds or Manchester.

An old man with a walking stick trudges while being guided by an aide. ‘Mzee, have you been blind since childhood?,’ I curiously ask. “No,” says M’njau Ndei. “My eyes were gouged out for being a Mau Mau supporter.’

And Patrick wa Njogu, a Mau Mau general who already had one leg shot off by British troops, says after his arrest, “they would drag me around the camp by my remaining leg”.

Jane Muthoni Mara, while aged 15 at the time, used to supply food to the freedom fighters. Her brother had joined the Mau Mau and when she refused to divulge information on his whereabouts, she was tortured.

“He (a white man) filled a bottle with hot water and then pushed it into my private parts with his foot. I screamed and screamed,” she said.

And that was not all. She and other women were made to sit with their legs stretched apart in front of white men as African guards marched over them in their army boots. After release, Jane never found her brother and had visions of torture whenever her husband approached her.

Beatings and floggings were both common and constant features of camp routine, as were forced and hard labour. Hewing rocks under the burning sun, carrying buckets on the head filled with stones or overflowing with urine and faeces; or being forcibly pushed into a cattle dip full of pesticides — all were enforced with kicks and blows from truncheons and rifle butts.

[..]

Wambugu wa Nyingi relates how Gavaghan ordered inmates to walk on gravel on their knees with their hands up for long distances. New detainees were tied upside down from their feet and beaten whilst cold water was poured on them.

Some of the detainees would start the “Mau Mau moan”, a cry of symbolic defiance which would be taken up by the rest of the camp. The leader who started it would be put on the ground, a foot placed on his throat and mud stuffed in his mouth and finally knocked unconscious. Many who survived the beatings died from diarrhoea and typhoid. Others went mad.

The concerned British voices largely went unheard. Labour MP Barbara Castle complained about the cover-ups and was kept informed by Kenya’s assistant police commissioner Duncan McPherson. The latter said conditions in the camps were far worse than anything he had experienced as a prisoner of war for four-and-a-half years under the Japanese.

A Kenyan judge, Arthur Cram, compared them to the “infamous Nazi labour camps”.