I won't be sending cash to Pakistan..here's why!

[Dick Moby]

My point is ----- why exactly is the onus on us (by us I mean the European countries) to provide the largest amount of support ?
Why do the likes of the RNLI in our own country have to rely on charity ? but you want me to dig into my pocket to support a country and people to whom I owe absolutely nothing.
We've had this discussion before and as far as I'm concerned charity begins at home.
You put your money where you think fit, I'll put mine to Help for Heroes and the like. The government is sending aid, a portion of which will be paid by my tax contributions and that's as much support as Pakistan will get from me.

[David Johnson]

"My point is ----- why exactly is the onus on us (by us I mean the European countries) to provide the largest amount of support ?"

Your answer is both confusing and I suspect incorrect. What do you mean "the onus is on us"?

By the way, the Financial Tracking Service, a UN database that aims to track all donations, showed that as of two days ago, $490.7m in funding has been collected, with another $325m pledged for aid to Pakistan. The United States ($88 million) has given the most, followed by Saudi Arabia and Britain. Even India, a country that has very bad foreign relations with Pakistan has donated $5 million. Australia has donated 27 million.

If you don't want to contribute to appeals for disasters overseas that's obviously your prerogative. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Cheers
D

[andy at handiwork]

I think you will find that the RNLI doesn't HAVE to rely on public donations, it prefers it. The RNLI zealously guards its independence and receives no money from government sources. The organization stresses that by maintaining its independence from state support, it is not subject to the vagaries of government policy or budgetary constraints. By raising its own money, it feels it can better respond to seafarers' needs. As the RNLI points out: "The management of the Institution has stability and continuity which could well be lost if were subject to the whims of politicians and government funding."

Just imagine the budget cuts they would now be facing if it was otherwise.

Also, I doubt if the crews, risking their lives to rescue seafarers and others, stop to check on the nationality or origin of those they are saving, people to whom it has to be said, the lifeboatmen owe nothing other than a common humanity. If 'charity begins at home' then they would only rescue British passport holders from sinking British registered ships. Thank goodness they have a little bit more concern for their fellow man irrespective of where they are from.

[Deano!]

I'd rather send money and aid to some place that has shown a willingness to improve themselves*, otherwise we're rewarding corruption and encouraging never-ending dependence on others.

It's a shame these places are so corrupt that the aid agencies have to spend considerable effort in making sure the aid actually gets to where its needed. You'd think in a disaster such as this that wouldn't be a concern.


*I know - Sam will say "In that case, you want to send money to Bill Gates and Arnold Schwarzenegger".

[belfast_birty]

I'm planning to send them some punts.

[David Johnson]

Well said!

[Dick Moby]

I have to agree with you for the most part about the RNLI but there is the unwritten law of the sea. I spent a large part of my life at sea so I do know about ships in distress.
The SOS signal is international and I've been aboard (British) ships which have gone to vessels in difficulty. I've personally pulled men from a life raft when they abandoned ship.Your charity begins at home jibe in this instance is obviously bullshit.