Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to ask if you agree that we "should not be sending aid to bongo bongo land"

217 replies

ICBINEG · 07/08/2013 09:22

Aside the ridiculous racist overtones of the statement itself....if you can...

The adorable MEP on radio 4 this morning was suggesting that it is inappropriate to be sending aid abroad when we are cutting police, hospitals and the defence back home.

The interviewer pointed out the last aid dispatched was 50 million to help with a polio outbreak in the Sudan area.

The MEP basically said if people want to give to charity they can, the government shouldn't and I think the majority of your listeners agree.

So please answer if you will:

  1. Did you hear the interview?
  2. Do you agree that we should stop sending foreign aid?
  3. Can you believe he said bongo bongo? In 2013???
OP posts:
Blu · 07/08/2013 13:58
  1. No
  2. No, but I think it is fair to review what aid, to where, for what purpose and on what terms
  3. Pretty depressing that anyone thinks it is OK to talk or think like that and doubly so that anyone who does can get elected to represent a UK constituency.
Inertia · 07/08/2013 13:59
  1. Didn't hear it.
  1. I don't agree that we should stop sending foreign aid. The UK overall is relatively comfortable compared to many countries of the world, though obviously there is a lot of inequality in our society, with people in the UK living in poverty. We spend a comparatively small amount in foreign aid- rather than begrudging support to the genuinely destitute and desperate nations of the world, we should be looking at ensuring a fair and efficient taxation and public spending strategy. Some aspects of foreign aid may be questionable and based on political/ outdated historical reasons rather than humanitarian need, but I don't want to support a policy which would stop providing life-saving aid in order to fund , for example, the writing -off of billions of pounds worth of business taxes. And as the world becomes increasingly capitalist and market-driven, it's hard to imagine how things can ever become more equal.
  1. That's UKIP for you! If you try to silence a basket of snarling racists by hiding them under a silky smiling sheet of voter-friendly patriotism, every so often one of them will rip through the cover to show the world what's really under the surface.
LittleSporksBigSpork · 07/08/2013 14:06

Tabitha, because that amount is a tiny drop in the ocean, it's the bare minimum standard that we've promised, . The system is set up to make it look like we're doing a lot, even in these hard times, when really the system has already been set for the UK to make profit out of any giving.

If we helped enforce the corporation tax laws in the countries where our citizens take resources, reworked the system of trade and redid the entire IMF debt system, and ensured a joint pot for aid in emergency situations like a sudden polio outbreak, it would be fairer and we would likely end up spending less on foreign aid as the countries would become less dependent on us and have the capital to build themselves, but that would mean we would lose out on the money and under-priced trades that boost our own economy.

HaroldLloyd · 07/08/2013 14:07

No no and bloody hell!

glenthebattleostrich · 07/08/2013 14:17

No I didn't hear the interview.

I don't think we should stop aid, but we do need to look at where it is sent, stop using it as bribery and be a bit more sensible about how it is used.

I'm only surprised he didn't manage to blame women for other countries needing aid as he is a misogynistic wankbadger who hates everyone who is not a middle aged man.

GoshAnneGorilla · 07/08/2013 15:09

Flat you are so boring. All you do is come on threads and call us a bunch of out of touch Guardian readers.

When anyone points out that they have direct experience of whatever is being discussed you then claim they're rubbing their credentials in your face.

Aid is controversial and there are arguments for and against. If you have any arguments it would be good to actually hear them, instead of the same tedious insults.

flatpackhamster · 07/08/2013 15:43

GoshAnneGorilla

Flat you are so boring. All you do is come on threads and call us a bunch of out of touch Guardian readers.

Only on the threads where that's clearly what's happening. As soon as I saw the Godfrey Bloom story, my first thought was 'The Trots on Mumsnet will be frothing with excitement at being the first one to post about this. UKIP and evil racialism, what could make them happier.' And I was right.

When anyone points out that they have direct experience of whatever is being discussed you then claim they're rubbing their credentials in your face.

No.

Aid is controversial and there are arguments for and against.

Yes.

If you have any arguments it would be good to actually hear them, instead of the same tedious insults.

I apologise. In future I will improve the quality of my insults.

Itsjustafleshwound · 07/08/2013 15:56

Britian is a member of the G8 and along with policy making/UN directives and enforcement there is also the need to balance it with the givng of aid and assistance whereever possible. Britian historically has a chequered colonial past and it would be irresponsible to abandon former colonies in need.

I still do not get this idea that it is an either/or situation - the idea that somehow taking aid away from people in dire need is somehow going to be able to plug gaps in our economy? We just pay our taxes and vote in the vain hope that the party we elect follow through on election promises and deliver.

I find this funny from the BNP. These are the same people who are quite willing to let Johhny Foreigners go home and not have any recourse to any aid, but yet don't realise that the money given for aid is often the reason why there aren't more economic migrants ...

somewheresomehow · 07/08/2013 16:00
  1. some of it
  2. yes , it doesnt go to where its needed
  3. i can believe it but i think he was trying to get the point across that we should not be giving our money out to every tin pot country that asks for it
ophelia275 · 07/08/2013 16:05
  1. No
  2. Yes - Because so much of it doesn't get to the people/groups/activities it is supposedly for.
  3. Yes I can believe it (rolls eyes).
LEMisdisappointed · 07/08/2013 16:09

flatpack, why would you want to insult someone????

from what i understand we are a member of the UN and would assume, maybe i am wrong, that we benefit from that in some way. We have a duty to other members of that society, to other human beings to ensure that within our capabilities, we provide aid to those who need it.

I am a member of the red cross, although to my shame, not an active member, however I am proud to be a member of an organisation that help anyone, regardless of race/religeon/politics, but simply because they are human beings.

I know that aid can be difficult because how does one ensure that in countries with political instability that the aid is actually getting to those who need it, but if there is no aid at all, no one will get it.

See, id rather my money go to bongo bongo land than to help some poncy art gallery or theatre and i think it is outrageous that the national lotteries money goes to these "causes". However that is my personal opinion, i am sure that these places do a lot for local communities and are deserving, but really, how can you put a new roof for a theatre over a child in need of a vaccine or basic needs such as clean water.

I also recognise that there is real poverty in this country, our government has a responsibility to do something about this, i'd rather the budget for this be taken from possibly the "arts" budet rather than the bongo bongo land budget though.

I don't give much to charity, i am skint most of the time, but i occasionally text a fiver to DEC when disasters happen. Its nobodies business but mine what charity i give my money to.

The irony is that the RSPCA get more money from donations in the UK than the red cross Hmm

softlysoftly · 07/08/2013 16:12
  1. No
  2. No but as already said needs to get to the right people AND make long term goals of improvement.

3 Yes, excellent PR, probably planned, less people who are likely to vote for them will be offended than than you think or hope the bastards.

  1. BongoBongo land is Bangladesh, I know because DH calls his loving family Bongos, s' ok apparently becausehe is one Hmm
JakeBullet · 07/08/2013 16:15

Its a case of UKIP not vetting it's MEPs very well.

No matter whether you agree with their policies or not they are not hrlped by people who use such poor language to promote them.

I didn't hear the interview
I don't necessarily agree with him
Sadly I CAN believe it and he is far from alone.

And for FlatPack.....I don't read the Guardian, I am just a human who doesn't like the type of person that feels such language is appropriate.

Purplepassages · 07/08/2013 16:16
  1. No
  1. Some of it. Our aid props up some pretty nasty regimes, and provides aim dept employees with some pretty lavish lifestyles - great jobs if you want to pay off your mortgage early and send your kids to boarding school. Not what you might imagine for the public sector. BUT that doesn't mean that I agree with this UKIP wanker.
  1. Wtaf? Revolting. Yes, but only because it is UKIP.
Purplepassages · 07/08/2013 16:18

Aid dept, not aim dept. Sausage fingers.

UnexpectedStepmum · 07/08/2013 16:23
  1. No
  2. No
  3. FGS...
Xihha · 07/08/2013 16:23

No
Yes
and Yes, but i am surprised they'd say it on the radio.

MissFenella · 07/08/2013 16:44

yes
no
yes but I am glad his sort use this type of language. It makes them easily identifiable and invalidates any argument by the sheer stupidity/crassness of language.

Original poster
ICBINEG · 07/08/2013 16:59

hmm I don't read the guardian either....

frothing over the language would indeed have been too easy...which is why this thread is about whether or not the goon was correct to assert that radio 4 listeners agree with him.....

a much more interesting question....and we answered it Grin

OP posts:
SarahAndFuck · 07/08/2013 17:53
  1. Yes and no. I heard a brief clip on the radio news but I was at work and couldn't really listen to it properly.
  1. Yes and no. One country (India?) apparently said they didn't want or need our aid, and we apparently insisted on still giving it because we didn't want to be politically embarrassed. I find this odd, if it's been reported accurately, and think we shouldn't force money on countries who don't want it when we could use it here or elsewhere.
  1. Unfortunately yes I can. I'm just amazed it made it past the spin doctors and into the speech.

I heard a little bit of the speech, including the "Bongo Bongo land" quote and then somebody else from UKIP saying that he doesn't understand what the problem is as there is no such place as Bongo Bongo Land so how can people be offended by somebody talking about it?

He didn't explain how we are managing to give money to a non-existent country though.

Or why one of his parties MP's had bothered to give a speech about a country that doesn't exist getting money we are obviously not giving to them (since they don't exist).

gordyslovesheep · 07/08/2013 18:01

No
No Yes - sadly

Oblomov · 07/08/2013 18:14
  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. No

Have since listened to the Radio 2 review and I just think his language has obscured a point.

flatpackhamster · 07/08/2013 18:21

SarahAndFuck

3. Unfortunately yes I can. I'm just amazed it made it past the spin doctors and into the speech.

UKIP don't have spin doctors. Most MEPs don't have speechwriters.

Saffyz · 07/08/2013 18:26
  1. No
  2. No, I think we should keep sending aid
  3. Sadly yes, I can believe there are some idiots who would say something like that.