anyone who can't really see the point
Anyone needing a point for anything should look no further than that given by the famous mountaineer George Herbert Leigh Mallard.
Well, what did you expect when you have two pluckys in one day.
Brit adventurer Nick Hancock has finally landed on the North Atlantic island of Rockall, just over a year since a first attempt to conquer the remote granite outcrop ended in failure. Nick Hancock. Pic: Michael Schofield Nick Hancock. Pic: Michael Schofield A short message beamed via satellite yesterday confirmed Hancock …
>Isn't that true of all charities though?
No. Governments do not give you cancer, parkinsons disease, alzheimers nor a host of other things there are charities for. In this case the government has actively taking a decision while sitting in their comfy chairs to send people into war then wash their hands of them when they return injured, physically or mentally.
"No. Governments do not give you cancer, parkinsons disease, alzheimers nor a host of other things there are charities for. In this case the government has actively taking a decision while sitting in their comfy chairs to send people into war then wash their hands of them when they return injured, physically or mentally."
The government didn't make them join the army in the first place! Personally I think it is a fantastic charity, it's just a shame people like you are disgusted with its existance. They provide a level of funding that the government will never make, no matter how much you moan about them.
>it's just a shame people like you are disgusted with its existance. They provide a level of funding that the government will never make, no matter how much you moan about them.
Oh dear, oh dearI I said it is disgusting these charities exist not that I am disgusted by its existence, however I suspect the difference is lost on you.
As for the comment about not being forced to join the army. Great let's all sit at home and look after ourselves. I'm glad some people do chose to join up.
Charities, and the legal status they receive, are governments taking action to assist those in need. Yes, there are some shady charities, and opinions vary on the responsibilities of government, but there is no doubt charities are able to deliver assistance in a targeted manner and raise funds from sources that would never hand monies and tangible assets over to the government beyond the legal requirements.
In the greater scheme of things it's fairly impressive governments allow charities to exist. Government tend to adopt an 'I know best because I have a mandate' attitude, which is generally worthless.
"In the greater scheme of things it's fairly impressive governments allow charities to exist."
The government has savagely cut funding to local authorities and public services to pay for the cock-up by the banks which we are still sufffering for.
Charities are supposed to pick up the pieces left behind but those pieces get bigger and bigger,
Remember 'Big Society'? this is it -- born out of desperation rather than altruism.
The government always 'savagely cuts' funding for services, it's incredibly shortsighted to blame the bank bailouts for the service budget cuts. What you're seeing isn't 'big society', it's what happens when public agencies invest heavily in technology that's of great expense, questionable value and 'strategically focused'.
It's that last bit that's most crucial. Public agencies are cutting back on their own capabilities in order to weight performance in other, headline grabbing, activities. Along with the tech comes agency staff whose entire purpose is maximizing the visible value of that tech.
What you've got are public agencies increasing specializations and marginalizing their abilities to deliver a broad range of mission furthering services. Don't blame governments for cutting back funds, blame the agencies for trying to operate like businesses. Go take a look at technology spend then compare that with their overall budget. You'll see tech spend growing 3, 4 even 5x faster than budgets grow. You'll see a corresponding reduction in everything from full time staffing to the elimination and combination of programs. You're way, way out of touch on the issue. Whoever told you the bank mess played a hand in any of this is either an idiot, or is taking you for one. Don't take that bait.
But here in the US we have something called the "draft".
And compulsory service in wartime (sometimes in peacetime) is not unique to the US.
(I'm not weighing in on either side of the charity or not argument. Just correcting an ignorant statement.)
"But here in the US we have something called the "draft"....." Help For Heroes was set up to help those servicemen and women hurt in British military ventures, not Americans. It has nothing at all to do with America or the draft other than how they often co-operate with similar charities in America. So please take you politics and shove them where you have so stupidly placed your own petard.
"No. Governments do not give you cancer, parkinsons disease, alzheimers nor a host of other things there are charities for. In this case the government has actively taking a decision while sitting in their comfy chairs to send people into war then wash their hands of them when they return injured, physically or mentally."
The government do give regular handouts to those on the dole - see correlations with obesity, alcohol abuse, smoking, etc. which are paid for by the dole money, but which the recipients should use with a duty of care to look after themselves. They chose to abuse themselves and yet the government chose to look after them.
Many of these dole scroungers have done nothing to protect or advance the country, but are looked after through their illnesses, and yet those who have fought for this country are just discarded as a burden!
perhaps our former PM (Blair) might be persuaded to put his hand in his pocket and sponsor him
Yes, he can start with the £42 Million he owes in taxes for the £100 Million he earned while Gordon was throwing phones at people. Its a disgrace that a Labour leader would avoid taxes by squirrelling that much money into off shore trusts, companies, and accounts.
"I find it extemely disgraceful that these charities exist and the government (of any flavour) doesn't step up to it's responsibilities towards those who they have put in a position of need."
While you may think it is the government who hasn't stepped up to its responsibilities, ultimately it is you and I. We elect the government, and more importantly, we pay the taxes.
I'm not for one minute going to comment on the relative merits of one group over another. But ultimately the pot is only so large and can only be divided so many ways. And you won't find a politician (whose self-glory, whose job, whose pay packet, relies on everyone's vote) willing to increase income tax to pay for all the worthy causes.
if the choice is for my taxes to go to paying Vets what they have fought for vs boondoggles for MPs and Military Contractors to spend millions on things that don't protect anything buy a company's bottom line ... hell yeah, give them to the folks who served and are paying the price.
longer term we need to look at why we are engaging in military action in the first place ... we're not Team America, World Police (don't get me started on those clowns) and we're not longer the folks who can paint 3/4s of the globe pink and put fly the flag ... so when we're off helping "liberate" oil for BP lithium and other minerals for vested interest can't we at least charge them and stop pretending it's about peace keeping or democracy
WISE OLD BIRD:
My dear old thing, you have such a sympathetic face.
ARTHUR:
Is that why you’ve done what you’ve done all over it? I’m sorry, but on my world I had a nice home and a good job with prospects and I get angry at the thought that my life suddenly consists of sitting in sewage filled models of my own ear, being patronised by a lot of demented birds!!!
Damn, with a bit more warning and preparation we could have re-opened the Rockall Post Office again!
That raised some good money for charity from Lester et al's run up there in 2005 - double-damn was that really almost a decade ago?!?
Anyway best of luck to one man and his pod...
When the United Kingdom ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on 25 July 1997, which states - “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”, it signed away any legal claim to Rockall. Ireland and the UK subsequently sat down and decided on a policy of how to split up any explorations rights and/or rights of exploitation in the area. Iceland and Denmark disagree with Ireland and the UK- and Iceland in particular, makes a particular point of exploiting fishing in the area, to annoy other interested parties.
Its a rock, a barren, desolate rock- and we're not even fighting over it- we sat down over a table and agreed to how exploit the area- so why antagonise one another over it. Or at very least- the Irish and the UK- should gang together and get Iceland and Denmark- the hell out of the area.........
In the days before Internet everywhere (come to think of it it was pre web) Whilst discussing our relative geographies with an american co-worker we told him about Rockall and it's then effect on our fishing, mineral rights etc..
"RockAll !!! you guys named a place RockAll, I don't believe you."
After much scouting about we found a paper map with that bit of sea in it and convinced him.
Good luck to Nick
You seem to have misunderstood what UNCLOS III does. Not being able to enforce an exclusive economic zone in the sea around an uninhabited rock (200 miles in every direction,) does not mean that a country can't claim sovereignty over that rock. In fact because the UK claims sovereignty they can enforce their right to territorial waters around the rock (12 miles in every direction).
Britain is not alone in claiming sovereignty though- Ireland has claimed both sovereignty over the rock, and the territorial waters. Ireland came to an accommodation with the UK over exploration and exploitation rights- however, unlike its territorial claim to Northern Ireland which was rescinded with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement- Ireland never gave up its territorial claim to Rockall (and lands scores of fishermen on the rock annually, just to make this very point). Muddying the waters, if you'll excuse the pun, are Iceland and Denmark- who don't seem of a mind to come to a mutually agreeable arrangement such as the Irish and British governments did- however, even that agreement is in abatement, after the last leg of the talks (11 years ago in Dublin). So- read into it as you may- but as far as Ireland is concerned, it has sovereign right to the rock, and its agreement with Britain on exploration and exploitation- deliberately did not address the sovereignty issue- it was simply kicked into the long grass. Denmark and Iceland, on the otherhand, refused to negotiate at all (after the 4 way negotiations in London, 3 years previous, broke down- when they said the Irish and British were trying to railroad them).
Sorry, Lester - I've seen Rockall, and it exerted no pull over me at all. Put a lighthouse on it, and I might want to go, but as it is, I just regard it as another bit of rock in the sea. This isn't to say that people who go and try to spend time on it are wrong, but I had to counter your hyperbole in case anyone thought there is some Dr Who-type villain* inexorably drawing people there after one glance.
* Silurians, probably.