Bob Geldof is a Spoilt Wanker

shouting through a loud speaker at Nigel Farage on the Thames today in the Euro In Out Campaign.
He is a multi millionaire tw*t who has forgotten his roots. First class c@nt in my book. Discuss

Feed The World

Band Aid donations - After 'admin' %£ (x) ammount was spent on guns to african warlords - a fact

Attention seeker.

He doesn't like Mondays

Brexit is a to be decided by British Voters, what the f**k has it got to do with Irish Citizen Geldorf. He is a publicity seeing media whore.

Geldof overated as a singer and so was his shit aweful band.

Geldof is a much better singer than Farrage....................in fact I believe he is a much better politician.......................and he is certainly a much better human being than such a self serving right wing bully boy.

Geldof is a much better singer than Farrage....................in fact I believe he is a much better politician.......................and he is certainly a much better human being than such a self serving right wing bully boy.

what kind of society do we live in where those fisherman are not within their rights to sink there f*kin boat and drown every one of them c*nts on board?

Geldof is a much better singer than Farrage....................in fact I believe he is a much better politician.......................and he is certainly a much better human being than such a self serving right wing bully boy.

this

Band Aid donations - After 'admin' %£ (x) ammount was spent on guns to african warlords - a fact

Links/proof? I'm not doubting you I'm just interested

He met the Sex Pistols, and has been trying to be a punk ever since.

Did write a couple of decent toons tho..

I absolutely dislike that man with a passion where did he get all his money from told the world he was skint for years total wanker

Wish he would f**k off to Africa,and take Bono with him!

Another prick who thinks everybody loves him

Band Aid donations - After 'admin' %£ (x) ammount was spent on guns to african warlords - a fact

Links/proof? I'm not doubting you I'm just interested

'strong probability' that five to ten per cent of funds was diverted for arms by the TPLF, and a further five to ten per cent used by them to finance their political 'hearts and minds' campaign - totalling up to 20 per cent.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -guns.html

Another prick who thinks everybody loves him

Can't fault his work with the live aid project....but he is such an obnoxious tw*t at times

give that this was a protest about the common fisheries policy, what specific points did geldof make as to why the fishermen were wrong about wanting to leave the EU?

Geldof and Bono, self-proclaimed saviours of the world, are both non-domiciled..

A more hypocritical pair of shysters would be difficult to find, even at the Labour Party Conference.

Like farage said hes a millionaire having the cheek to try cut off working class fishermens only lifeline. Wish the toffee nosed scuffy skaghead lookalike would f**k off to Africa or maybe give a few million of his own money for once

Band Aid donations - After 'admin' %£ (x) ammount was spent on guns to african warlords - a fact

Links/proof? I'm not doubting you I'm just interested

'strong probability' that five to ten per cent of funds was diverted for arms by the TPLF, and a further five to ten per cent used by them to finance their political 'hearts and minds' campaign - totalling up to 20 per cent.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -guns.html

So not a "fact" at all then.

The article is a reference to a possibility[u][/u] that a very small percentage of the total money raised may have been diverted to non-aid funds such as buying arms , based on similar incidences in other war torn countries where full control over where the money ends up can never be guaranteed.
Even if the "worst case scenario" is accepted , isn`t it still a very good thing that 80% or more of the funds raised went directly on aid to those who needed it?

Band Aid donations - After 'admin' %£ (x) ammount was spent on guns to african warlords - a fact

Links/proof? I'm not doubting you I'm just interested

'strong probability' that five to ten per cent of funds was diverted for arms by the TPLF, and a further five to ten per cent used by them to finance their political 'hearts and minds' campaign - totalling up to 20 per cent.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -guns.html

So not a "fact" at all then.

The article is a reference to a possibility[u][/u] that a very small percentage of the total money raised may have been diverted to non-aid funds such as buying arms , based on similar incidences in other war torn countries where full control over where the money ends up can never be guaranteed.
Even if the "worst case scenario" is accepted , isn`t it still a very good thing that 80% or more of the funds raised went directly on aid to those who needed it?

These African governments don't need to tax the population/make sure the people have employment if they are getting a steady flow of cash from foreign charities/foreign aid. If the elite doesn't need its people then they have no need to build roads, schools or hospitals for them.

Keith, to answer your question directly, No I don;t think Band Aid donations made a difference whatsoever. Africans still live in abject poverty, Even if the money has got through, it just fed some people for a little longer and staved off starvation for a while, but not actually made them more capable of self sufficiency.

Britain leads the way in foreign aid - unfortunately

HOW appropriate that on the day Britain won plaudits for being the only G8 country to increase its international aid budget EU auditors reported that £500million of European taxpayers’ money paid out to Egypt to fight corruption has, er, disappeared without trace.



The fate of the money, handed out by the EU’s External Action Service over the past five years, is a salutary lesson for David Cameron’s government, which in spite of cuts to public services at home has boosted Britain’s aid budget to £8.3billion a year and is still committed to increasing it from 0.56 per cent of GDP this year to 0.7 per cent.

Little effort was made to ensure that the EU money was spent on the things it was supposed to be spent on, nor to assess whether the spending had actually done any good.

It is, sadly, an all too familiar story with international aid.

The public perception of Britain’s aid budget is of famine victims fed and earthquake victims pulled from the rubble of collapsed buildings.

Certainly some of the money does go on these things and we can be proud of the help we have given on emergency relief.

I hope, too, that we will always contribute enthusiastically to international efforts to eradicate diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. This is far from the whole story of international aid. Much of it goes on development projects which have failed to deliver lasting good or, worse, where the money has disappeared into the pockets of kleptomaniac regimes.

Over the past 40 years Africa has received $400billion of aid from the developed world.

If it had achieved what it was supposed to achieve Africa would now be the richest continent outside Western Europe and North America. Instead, it is the poorest.

A generation ago sub-Saharan African countries were on a level of development with much of Asia. Yet after mountains of aid they have fallen badly behind. Between 1990 and 2010 World Bank figures reveal Kenya and Ghana were lavished with aid which, at its peak, accounted for 16.8 and 16.3 per cent of GDP respectively.

During that period their economies grew by an average of 3.1 per cent and 4 per cent.

China and Malaysia by contrast received minimal foreign aid, never accounting for more than 0.7 per cent of GDP in China’s case or 1.2 per cent in Malaysia’s case. Yet their economies outperformed those of Kenya and Ghana spectacularly, growing by an average of 11.6 per cent and 6.1 per cent a year respectively.

Long-term development aid fails because it damages the efforts of locals to grow their industries. To take a non-African example Haiti has been smothered with “kindness” over the years through donations of rice and clothing.

While this may have helped in the short term to feed and clothe people who might otherwise have gone hungry or cold, in the longer term it has undermined what should be two of Haiti’s main industries: agriculture and textiles.

While we imagine our money being used to save the poor, many British aid projects have the ring of the ground nut scheme, the farcical Forties attempt to establish peanut farms in what is now Tanzania.

Just why are we shelling out £27million towards improvements to the docks in Mombasa or £437,500 for the planting of biofuels in Mozambique?

Some are frivolous, such as the £600,000 we are spending on children’s TV in Kenya. Others are pet political projects in Britain which officials have decided to try to extend to the developing world.

We are for example paying £3.4million to a project to increase the participation of women in small and medium sized businesses in Nicaragua; £1.2million towards the privatisation of utilities in Nigeria and another £80,000 on a study of the link between gender equality and growth also in Nigeria.

Much goes on projects that fail to deliver
Other projects are just plain hypocritical. We are paying £53million on a project aimed at increasing citizens’ participation in the political system in the Congo. What does a government which could not persuade more than 15 per cent of its electorate to turn out for police commissioner elections last November have to offer in advice in that field?

We are also paying £6million on a project to create a “sound financial system” in Kenya. Presumably Fred Goodwin will be leading that.
Much of our aid budget is doomed to be wasted because of the foolish way in which the Government has set its aid target.

It has hit on the idea of spending 0.7 per cent of GDP on international aid because there was a UN motion to this effect in 1970. No other country has subsequently made any serious effort to achieve this target – the US will spend 0.19 per cent of GDP this year, compared with 0.56 per cent in Britain – and for good reason.

When you define spending money as a good in itself you create an incentive for officials to fritter their budget on the first projects to pass beneath their noses.

Splashing taxpayers’ money on frivolous projects in the developing world would be irresponsible at the best of times but doing so during a period when our taxes are rising to pay the interest on a record budget deficit is madness.

David Cameron may enjoy strutting the world stage. But for the Britons getting by on shrinking incomes the case for vanity projects on distant continents is rather less clear.

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expres ... ortunately