Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jereboam]

Seems to me that they are collecting a bigger and bigger bag of money as time goes by, but still haven't cracked the problem of actually getting aid to the people who need it.  There are rescuers queueing up to get there, but no organisational structure in place locally to deploy resources. 

I would have thought that parachuting in some crack troops might have been appropriate response, but I suppose that it's politically too sensitive to do that.  They'd have to be Yanks, so it would would be presented as an invasion rather than a humanitarian act by the anti-American factions around the world.

What a way to run a planet.

[Nickbat]

Seems to me that they are collecting a bigger and bigger bag of money as time goes by, but still haven't cracked the problem of actually getting aid to the people who need it.  There are rescuers queueing up to get there, but no organisational structure in place locally to deploy resources. 

I would have thought that parachuting in some crack troops might have been appropriate response, but I suppose that it's politically too sensitive to do that.  They'd have to be Yanks, so it would would be presented as an invasion rather than a humanitarian act by the anti-American factions around the world.

What a way to run a planet.

Yes, and of course, it must be remembered that all countries need armed forces..not because of any war threat per se, but because there are times when you need professionals who are ready, trained and equipped to carry out emergency rescue work anywhere in the world. That's not to say the day-to-day emergency services do not do a fantastic job, but there are occasions when,for humanitarian purposes, the military are a blessing we should not be without.

A point to bear in mind when the anticipated 25% cut in the forces' budget gets announced. 

[eddie]

Its always the ordinary joe that suffers in these situations.

What concerns me is Obama's 'commitment', considering the US's track record in South America and the Caribbean since the year Dot I'd be in the water and swimming by now.

eddie

[Banjax]

I would certainly hope that all this money raised by way of appeal can be fully accounted for, that it is indeed used for the purposes of relief and is not subsumed by the ever demanding charity infrastructure.

i hope so too zulu, but if you have to give a tenner to make sure £1 gets to those that need it, then, scuse my french, fk it - a tenner it is - people are dying

Would it not be preferable for the majority of the contribution to go to those in need bj?

yes it would, but right now they need cash - theres no time to stop and analyse the rights and wrongs - in any disaster cash is king - i really don't think we have the right to play god here....yes the system is imperfect but while that should be addressed the immediate need is far greater - just accept some money will be lost we really can afford not to be too precious, governments waste billions every year yet people start penny pinching now??? please.

I am not being unsympathetic to the plight of those injured or made homeless by this disaster, but I have to take issue with the comment that "right now they need cash". No, they don't. Right now they need physical, logisitical help to locate survivors, treat the injured, erect temporary shelter and distribute food. Much of that help is being provided by the US armed forces and, if we were nearer and/or had the capablity, there is no doubt that our own Reme would be of great value.

At a donor's conference in April 2009, some $760m was pledged to Haiti. By September 2009, only $21m had been disbursed.
http://quixote.org/blog/donors-urged-fulfill-pledges-haiti 

In all honesty, money is not the problem, I feel. Of course, for many, the ability to donate does provide some comfort to the donors who feel so helpless watching the suffering. In itself, that's fine. I do wonder, however, how much will actually ever reach its intended target. Indeed, if one gives money to Oxfam, how can one be sure that the money will go to an Haitian or be spent on climate change advertising?

Yes, I'm cynical. Not heartless, though, and I really do feel sad that so many have suffered in this natural tragedy. Let us hope, though, that the Haitians are able to be assisted in rebuilding their lives by the many offers of physical help and that, in the medium term, financial aid  actually reaches those who need it most.
    

have a look at this Nick,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8465702.stm

interesting the common misconceptions and well intended mistakes that are commonly made

[Chris_H]

I would certainly hope that all this money raised by way of appeal can be fully accounted for, that it is indeed used for the purposes of relief and is not subsumed by the ever demanding charity infrastructure.

i hope so too zulu, but if you have to give a tenner to make sure £1 gets to those that need it, then, scuse my french, fk it - a tenner it is - people are dying

Would it not be preferable for the majority of the contribution to go to those in need bj?

yes it would, but right now they need cash - theres no time to stop and analyse the rights and wrongs - in any disaster cash is king - i really don't think we have the right to play god here....yes the system is imperfect but while that should be addressed the immediate need is far greater - just accept some money will be lost we really can afford not to be too precious, governments waste billions every year yet people start penny pinching now??? please.

I am not being unsympathetic to the plight of those injured or made homeless by this disaster, but I have to take issue with the comment that "right now they need cash". No, they don't. Right now they need physical, logisitical help to locate survivors, treat the injured, erect temporary shelter and distribute food. Much of that help is being provided by the US armed forces and, if we were nearer and/or had the capablity, there is no doubt that our own Reme would be of great value.

At a donor's conference in April 2009, some $760m was pledged to Haiti. By September 2009, only $21m had been disbursed.
http://quixote.org/blog/donors-urged-fulfill-pledges-haiti 

In all honesty, money is not the problem, I feel. Of course, for many, the ability to donate does provide some comfort to the donors who feel so helpless watching the suffering. In itself, that's fine. I do wonder, however, how much will actually ever reach its intended target. Indeed, if one gives money to Oxfam, how can one be sure that the money will go to an Haitian or be spent on climate change advertising?

Yes, I'm cynical. Not heartless, though, and I really do feel sad that so many have suffered in this natural tragedy. Let us hope, though, that the Haitians are able to be assisted in rebuilding their lives by the many offers of physical help and that, in the medium term, financial aid  actually reaches those who need it most.
    

have a look at this Nick,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8465702.stm

interesting the common misconceptions and well intended mistakes that are commonly made

Ah!  The BBC after doing some research.  Much better.

Thanks for that Banjax 

[STMO999]

Sarcasm, Chris? Surely not.

[Chris_H]

Sarcasm, Chris? Surely not.

I think I forgot it this time Steve!  Sorry to catch you off-guard.

[Nickbat]

have a look at this Nick,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8465702.stm

interesting the common misconceptions and well intended mistakes that are commonly made

Thanks for that, bj. As you say, it was an interesting interview, but nevertheless based on one viewpoint, albeit claiming much authority. I still tend to stand by what I said earlier: that being that recovery, temporary shelter, repair of utilities, distribution of rations would appear to be the No. 1 priority.

Cash to purchase locally produced items may be useful in some cases but, clearly, where widespread devastation has occurred, such market infrastructure still intact may not necessarily meet the demands of the survivors.

One particular thing interests me, though. The aid agencies receive vast amounts of cash. Is that cash actually handed out to the local people in hard currency? If so, how are the hand-outs determined?
 :-?

[Dishevelled Den]

have a look at this Nick,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8465702.stm

interesting the common misconceptions and well intended mistakes that are commonly made

This is an interesting link bj thank you - nice to see a BBC report that seems to be based on the actual experiences of others.

Concerning lesson 0ne in the report, I would suggest that there can be no successful recovery without there firstly having been an effective relief effort - so the importance of that first element can't be over emphasised.

Successful recovery depends on local conditions especially the integrity of the infrastructure and the capability and willingness of the regional administrators of the country concerned to facilitate that recovery.

In lesson Two it was suggested that ‘cash was king’ but surely this again depends on the ability of those who receive it having an infrastructure that allows for its use in the normally accepted fashion.  Where cash is available the possibility for abuse is always present.

The availability of ready cash can cause as many problems as it hopes to solve and again depends on the conditions found locally.  The benefits are obvious - providing the local bureaucracy does not interfere in the expectation of receiving some form of ‘facilitating tax’ and that the intended target for the money is appropriate to the needs of those taking receipt.

This all comes back to accountability - of those assuming responsibility for handling donations to those charged with distributing the money in the disaster area.

Cash may be considered by some as being king but it is generally found to be a capricious and corrupting sovereign.

[Banjax]

I would certainly hope that all this money raised by way of appeal can be fully accounted for, that it is indeed used for the purposes of relief and is not subsumed by the ever demanding charity infrastructure.

i hope so too zulu, but if you have to give a tenner to make sure £1 gets to those that need it, then, scuse my french, fk it - a tenner it is - people are dying

Would it not be preferable for the majority of the contribution to go to those in need bj?

yes it would, but right now they need cash - theres no time to stop and analyse the rights and wrongs - in any disaster cash is king - i really don't think we have the right to play god here....yes the system is imperfect but while that should be addressed the immediate need is far greater - just accept some money will be lost we really can afford not to be too precious, governments waste billions every year yet people start penny pinching now??? please.

I am not being unsympathetic to the plight of those injured or made homeless by this disaster, but I have to take issue with the comment that "right now they need cash". No, they don't. Right now they need physical, logisitical help to locate survivors, treat the injured, erect temporary shelter and distribute food. Much of that help is being provided by the US armed forces and, if we were nearer and/or had the capablity, there is no doubt that our own Reme would be of great value.

At a donor's conference in April 2009, some $760m was pledged to Haiti. By September 2009, only $21m had been disbursed.
http://quixote.org/blog/donors-urged-fulfill-pledges-haiti 

In all honesty, money is not the problem, I feel. Of course, for many, the ability to donate does provide some comfort to the donors who feel so helpless watching the suffering. In itself, that's fine. I do wonder, however, how much will actually ever reach its intended target. Indeed, if one gives money to Oxfam, how can one be sure that the money will go to an Haitian or be spent on climate change advertising?

Yes, I'm cynical. Not heartless, though, and I really do feel sad that so many have suffered in this natural tragedy. Let us hope, though, that the Haitians are able to be assisted in rebuilding their lives by the many offers of physical help and that, in the medium term, financial aid  actually reaches those who need it most.
    

have a look at this Nick,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8465702.stm

interesting the common misconceptions and well intended mistakes that are commonly made

Ah!  The BBC after doing some research.  Much better.

Thanks for that Banjax 

not following your cynical line there Chris - do you think I make this stuff up and then trawl thru the net to prove my point? actually as a regular viewer to Newsnight I saw this report last week and used that information, as it appeared valid and I have no reason to suspect Oxfam,Save The Children, Red Cross or World Health Organisation have an agenda other than saving and improving lives.

[Chris_H]

I would certainly hope that all this money raised by way of appeal can be fully accounted for, that it is indeed used for the purposes of relief and is not subsumed by the ever demanding charity infrastructure.

i hope so too zulu, but if you have to give a tenner to make sure £1 gets to those that need it, then, scuse my french, fk it - a tenner it is - people are dying

Would it not be preferable for the majority of the contribution to go to those in need bj?

yes it would, but right now they need cash - theres no time to stop and analyse the rights and wrongs - in any disaster cash is king - i really don't think we have the right to play god here....yes the system is imperfect but while that should be addressed the immediate need is far greater - just accept some money will be lost we really can afford not to be too precious, governments waste billions every year yet people start penny pinching now??? please.

I am not being unsympathetic to the plight of those injured or made homeless by this disaster, but I have to take issue with the comment that "right now they need cash". No, they don't. Right now they need physical, logisitical help to locate survivors, treat the injured, erect temporary shelter and distribute food. Much of that help is being provided by the US armed forces and, if we were nearer and/or had the capablity, there is no doubt that our own Reme would be of great value.

At a donor's conference in April 2009, some $760m was pledged to Haiti. By September 2009, only $21m had been disbursed.
http://quixote.org/blog/donors-urged-fulfill-pledges-haiti 

In all honesty, money is not the problem, I feel. Of course, for many, the ability to donate does provide some comfort to the donors who feel so helpless watching the suffering. In itself, that's fine. I do wonder, however, how much will actually ever reach its intended target. Indeed, if one gives money to Oxfam, how can one be sure that the money will go to an Haitian or be spent on climate change advertising?

Yes, I'm cynical. Not heartless, though, and I really do feel sad that so many have suffered in this natural tragedy. Let us hope, though, that the Haitians are able to be assisted in rebuilding their lives by the many offers of physical help and that, in the medium term, financial aid  actually reaches those who need it most.
    

have a look at this Nick,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8465702.stm

interesting the common misconceptions and well intended mistakes that are commonly made

Ah!  The BBC after doing some research.  Much better.

Thanks for that Banjax 

not following your cynical line there Chris - do you think I make this stuff up and then trawl thru the net to prove my point? actually as a regular viewer to Newsnight I saw this report last week and used that information, as it appeared valid and I have no reason to suspect Oxfam,Save The Children, Red Cross or World Health Organisation have an agenda other than saving and improving lives.
 

No cynicism present Banjax.  Read it as it is.  I criticised the BBC earlier in the thread for taking a bad line, and praised them in your quoted item as they had looked-into the problem much better there.

Rest easy. 

[Banjax]

I would certainly hope that all this money raised by way of appeal can be fully accounted for, that it is indeed used for the purposes of relief and is not subsumed by the ever demanding charity infrastructure.

i hope so too zulu, but if you have to give a tenner to make sure £1 gets to those that need it, then, scuse my french, fk it - a tenner it is - people are dying

Would it not be preferable for the majority of the contribution to go to those in need bj?

yes it would, but right now they need cash - theres no time to stop and analyse the rights and wrongs - in any disaster cash is king - i really don't think we have the right to play god here....yes the system is imperfect but while that should be addressed the immediate need is far greater - just accept some money will be lost we really can afford not to be too precious, governments waste billions every year yet people start penny pinching now??? please.

I am not being unsympathetic to the plight of those injured or made homeless by this disaster, but I have to take issue with the comment that "right now they need cash". No, they don't. Right now they need physical, logisitical help to locate survivors, treat the injured, erect temporary shelter and distribute food. Much of that help is being provided by the US armed forces and, if we were nearer and/or had the capablity, there is no doubt that our own Reme would be of great value.

At a donor's conference in April 2009, some $760m was pledged to Haiti. By September 2009, only $21m had been disbursed.
http://quixote.org/blog/donors-urged-fulfill-pledges-haiti 

In all honesty, money is not the problem, I feel. Of course, for many, the ability to donate does provide some comfort to the donors who feel so helpless watching the suffering. In itself, that's fine. I do wonder, however, how much will actually ever reach its intended target. Indeed, if one gives money to Oxfam, how can one be sure that the money will go to an Haitian or be spent on climate change advertising?

Yes, I'm cynical. Not heartless, though, and I really do feel sad that so many have suffered in this natural tragedy. Let us hope, though, that the Haitians are able to be assisted in rebuilding their lives by the many offers of physical help and that, in the medium term, financial aid  actually reaches those who need it most.
    

have a look at this Nick,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8465702.stm

interesting the common misconceptions and well intended mistakes that are commonly made

Ah!  The BBC after doing some research.  Much better.

Thanks for that Banjax 

not following your cynical line there Chris - do you think I make this stuff up and then trawl thru the net to prove my point? actually as a regular viewer to Newsnight I saw this report last week and used that information, as it appeared valid and I have no reason to suspect Oxfam,Save The Children, Red Cross or World Health Organisation have an agenda other than saving and improving lives.
 

No cynicism present Banjax.  Read it as it is.  I criticised the BBC earlier in the thread for taking a bad line, and praised them in your quoted item as they had looked-into the problem much better there.

Rest easy. 

sorry - i thought you were being sarcastic and i dived on it like an idiot 

apologies 

[Chris_H]

I would certainly hope that all this money raised by way of appeal can be fully accounted for, that it is indeed used for the purposes of relief and is not subsumed by the ever demanding charity infrastructure.

i hope so too zulu, but if you have to give a tenner to make sure £1 gets to those that need it, then, scuse my french, fk it - a tenner it is - people are dying

Would it not be preferable for the majority of the contribution to go to those in need bj?

yes it would, but right now they need cash - theres no time to stop and analyse the rights and wrongs - in any disaster cash is king - i really don't think we have the right to play god here....yes the system is imperfect but while that should be addressed the immediate need is far greater - just accept some money will be lost we really can afford not to be too precious, governments waste billions every year yet people start penny pinching now??? please.

I am not being unsympathetic to the plight of those injured or made homeless by this disaster, but I have to take issue with the comment that "right now they need cash". No, they don't. Right now they need physical, logisitical help to locate survivors, treat the injured, erect temporary shelter and distribute food. Much of that help is being provided by the US armed forces and, if we were nearer and/or had the capablity, there is no doubt that our own Reme would be of great value.

At a donor's conference in April 2009, some $760m was pledged to Haiti. By September 2009, only $21m had been disbursed.
http://quixote.org/blog/donors-urged-fulfill-pledges-haiti 

In all honesty, money is not the problem, I feel. Of course, for many, the ability to donate does provide some comfort to the donors who feel so helpless watching the suffering. In itself, that's fine. I do wonder, however, how much will actually ever reach its intended target. Indeed, if one gives money to Oxfam, how can one be sure that the money will go to an Haitian or be spent on climate change advertising?

Yes, I'm cynical. Not heartless, though, and I really do feel sad that so many have suffered in this natural tragedy. Let us hope, though, that the Haitians are able to be assisted in rebuilding their lives by the many offers of physical help and that, in the medium term, financial aid  actually reaches those who need it most.
    

have a look at this Nick,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8465702.stm

interesting the common misconceptions and well intended mistakes that are commonly made

Ah!  The BBC after doing some research.  Much better.

Thanks for that Banjax 

not following your cynical line there Chris - do you think I make this stuff up and then trawl thru the net to prove my point? actually as a regular viewer to Newsnight I saw this report last week and used that information, as it appeared valid and I have no reason to suspect Oxfam,Save The Children, Red Cross or World Health Organisation have an agenda other than saving and improving lives.
 

No cynicism present Banjax.  Read it as it is.  I criticised the BBC earlier in the thread for taking a bad line, and praised them in your quoted item as they had looked-into the problem much better there.

Rest easy. 

sorry - i thought you were being sarcastic and i dived on it like an idiot 

apologies 

I appear to have a reputation.  You are forgiven....  seriously!

[Banjax]

chill pill taken - never could get the hang of Tuesdays.......

[STMO999]

I would certainly hope that all this money raised by way of appeal can be fully accounted for, that it is indeed used for the purposes of relief and is not subsumed by the ever demanding charity infrastructure.

i hope so too zulu, but if you have to give a tenner to make sure £1 gets to those that need it, then, scuse my french, fk it - a tenner it is - people are dying

Would it not be preferable for the majority of the contribution to go to those in need bj?

yes it would, but right now they need cash - theres no time to stop and analyse the rights and wrongs - in any disaster cash is king - i really don't think we have the right to play god here....yes the system is imperfect but while that should be addressed the immediate need is far greater - just accept some money will be lost we really can afford not to be too precious, governments waste billions every year yet people start penny pinching now??? please.

I am not being unsympathetic to the plight of those injured or made homeless by this disaster, but I have to take issue with the comment that "right now they need cash". No, they don't. Right now they need physical, logisitical help to locate survivors, treat the injured, erect temporary shelter and distribute food. Much of that help is being provided by the US armed forces and, if we were nearer and/or had the capablity, there is no doubt that our own Reme would be of great value.

At a donor's conference in April 2009, some $760m was pledged to Haiti. By September 2009, only $21m had been disbursed.
http://quixote.org/blog/donors-urged-fulfill-pledges-haiti 

In all honesty, money is not the problem, I feel. Of course, for many, the ability to donate does provide some comfort to the donors who feel so helpless watching the suffering. In itself, that's fine. I do wonder, however, how much will actually ever reach its intended target. Indeed, if one gives money to Oxfam, how can one be sure that the money will go to an Haitian or be spent on climate change advertising?

Yes, I'm cynical. Not heartless, though, and I really do feel sad that so many have suffered in this natural tragedy. Let us hope, though, that the Haitians are able to be assisted in rebuilding their lives by the many offers of physical help and that, in the medium term, financial aid  actually reaches those who need it most.
    

have a look at this Nick,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8465702.stm

interesting the common misconceptions and well intended mistakes that are commonly made

Ah!  The BBC after doing some research.  Much better.

Thanks for that Banjax 

not following your cynical line there Chris - do you think I make this stuff up and then trawl thru the net to prove my point? actually as a regular viewer to Newsnight I saw this report last week and used that information, as it appeared valid and I have no reason to suspect Oxfam,Save The Children, Red Cross or World Health Organisation have an agenda other than saving and improving lives.
 

No cynicism present Banjax.  Read it as it is.  I criticised the BBC earlier in the thread for taking a bad line, and praised them in your quoted item as they had looked-into the problem much better there.

Rest easy. 

sorry - i thought you were being sarcastic and i dived on it like an idiot 

apologies 

See the influence I have, Chris