Today I'm angry about.....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Jebus PB, I expected better than the 'incubators argument'. Let's for a moment assume this £20million is going to deprive someone somewhere of an operation. Is Haiti the right place to look. Is that man going to ignore things like the Olympics, or roadworks wars no-one wanted, benefits, immigration (not necessarily my arguments, just ones different folk would consider bigger 'wastes of money') or pretty much anything else we spend money on which is less important than keeping people alive? However we all know that isn't the case, for a start £20million is fook all in the grand scheme of the economy. I'm fairly sure if I was told we can't afford an operation for me I'd be asking for a bit of the squillions we gave the banks back, you know seeing as they can go back to paying record bonuses now. This 20 million isn't going to come out of the NHS, because the NHS is a priority, it's more likely to mean a couple of trade initiatives get shelved till next year etc.. Even if it did come down to this choice between a British person's life or the possibilty of saving hundreds in Haiti, I think the latter is the better choice. It isn't a competition, it isn't Britain vs Haiti, or anybody else. All human life should be worth the same, and it genuinley depresses, makes me angry today, perhaps, that it isn't.

If a private individual had run up horrific debts, but yet still had several charitable direct debits leaving their account every month, you'd have to say that they were mad and not facing up tp the reality of their situation, even if the amounts were relatively small-fry in the scheme of their problems.

[William the White]

Jebus PB, I expected better than the 'incubators argument'. Let's for a moment assume this £20million is going to deprive someone somewhere of an operation. Is Haiti the right place to look. Is that man going to ignore things like the Olympics, or roadworks wars no-one wanted, benefits, immigration (not necessarily my arguments, just ones different folk would consider bigger 'wastes of money') or pretty much anything else we spend money on which is less important than keeping people alive? However we all know that isn't the case, for a start £20million is fook all in the grand scheme of the economy. I'm fairly sure if I was told we can't afford an operation for me I'd be asking for a bit of the squillions we gave the banks back, you know seeing as they can go back to paying record bonuses now. This 20 million isn't going to come out of the NHS, because the NHS is a priority, it's more likely to mean a couple of trade initiatives get shelved till next year etc.. Even if it did come down to this choice between a British person's life or the possibilty of saving hundreds in Haiti, I think the latter is the better choice. It isn't a competition, it isn't Britain vs Haiti, or anybody else. All human life should be worth the same, and it genuinley depresses, makes me angry today, perhaps, that it isn't.

If a private individual had run up horrific debts, but yet still had several charitable direct debits leaving their account every month, you'd have to say that they were mad and not facing up tp the reality of their situation, even if the amounts were relatively small-fry in the scheme of their problems.

It's a point, though a debatable one. But if he had ready cash in his wallet an a fiver would save a dying child - ie there is actually a dire emergency, as in haiti, it is not mad to pass it over (and i think it close to outrageous for you to suggest it) and it is certainly facing up to the reality of the situation - this person's need is at this moment is urgently greater than mine, and I can help. This is the real situation. If you are prepared to demand the child be left to die, then all your protestations of charitable feeling are laughably untrue.

[Verbal]

I just don't think that it is legitimate for a nation state to spend its citizens taxes on anything other than national self interest. Does the argument that the amounts involved are relatively small cut it? I'm not sure it does, especially if made in juxtaposition with the argument that helping the foreign poor or distressed is our moral duty -either we argue that we should give lots and lots because it's incredibly important and it's right, or we don't. Why are we satisfied by putting our consciences at ease with a futile gesture of an amount of money that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the world's human suffering?

It's even possible that much more charitable giving would take place if people weren't allowed to rest with the comforting notion that their government is acting on their behalf, thus absolving them of any responsibility. The total amount contributed by British citizens might well be greater, if people were told that contributions were to be decided on an entirely individual level.

I am not completely naive, and I do appreciate that we derive some benefit from being a big player in the international community. Sometimes I have argued that we should not engage in any military spending that is not in our own self interest (be it security, or resources, or whatever...) - that the British taxpayer should not foot the bill of the generous gift to the world of an international police force overthrowing unpleasant regimes, keeping order, upholding human rights, when the interest of British people are not affected. In those discussions, I am receptive to the argument that some of these things are necessary to earn us the global prestige and influence that works to the advantage of British people - all I ask is that argument always keeps in sight how and why we intend to benefit from every penny we spend, even if long term calculations are involved that are difficult to quantify.

Anyway, the question of community solidarity is a fascinating one with no easy answers. I'm not saying I've got any of them, but how and why we share out our scarce resources amongst other people is an interesting question. With whom do we show solidarity and why? Family members? Friends? The English? Brits? Europeans? The global human race?

If you have the chance, give Hotel Rwanda a watch. Though it isn't the greatest of films in fully representing what actually happened and why, it does an excellent job of raising the issues which you mention.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Jebus PB, I expected better than the 'incubators argument'. Let's for a moment assume this £20million is going to deprive someone somewhere of an operation. Is Haiti the right place to look. Is that man going to ignore things like the Olympics, or roadworks wars no-one wanted, benefits, immigration (not necessarily my arguments, just ones different folk would consider bigger 'wastes of money') or pretty much anything else we spend money on which is less important than keeping people alive? However we all know that isn't the case, for a start £20million is fook all in the grand scheme of the economy. I'm fairly sure if I was told we can't afford an operation for me I'd be asking for a bit of the squillions we gave the banks back, you know seeing as they can go back to paying record bonuses now. This 20 million isn't going to come out of the NHS, because the NHS is a priority, it's more likely to mean a couple of trade initiatives get shelved till next year etc.. Even if it did come down to this choice between a British person's life or the possibilty of saving hundreds in Haiti, I think the latter is the better choice. It isn't a competition, it isn't Britain vs Haiti, or anybody else. All human life should be worth the same, and it genuinley depresses, makes me angry today, perhaps, that it isn't.

If a private individual had run up horrific debts, but yet still had several charitable direct debits leaving their account every month, you'd have to say that they were mad and not facing up tp the reality of their situation, even if the amounts were relatively small-fry in the scheme of their problems.

It's a point, though a debatable one. But if he had ready cash in his wallet an a fiver would save a dying child - ie there is actually a dire emergency, as in haiti, it is not mad to pass it over (and i think it close to outrageous for you to suggest it) and it is certainly facing up to the reality of the situation - this person's need is at this moment is urgently greater than mine, and I can help. This is the real situation. If you are prepared to demand the child be left to die, then all your protestations of charitable feeling are laughably untrue.

There are kids dying in dire situations everyday, all over the world. THIS is the real situation.

I'm not 'prepared to demand' anything, but I do still think our hypothetical person in debt should cancel their charitable direct debits...

[Lord Kangana]

Ah, capitalism. Still unable to deal with need regardless of want.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Ah, capitalism. Still unable to deal with need regardless of want.

Sold the petite maison and donated the proceeds to Haiti yet?


Ah, thought not.

[Dujon]

My wife complains when I leave the toilet seat up. She didn't have an answer when I said ''listen, you want the seat down, I want it up. How about if you see the seat up you put it down, just like when I walk in and it's down, I have to PUT THE F*CKING THING UP!!!!''

Doesn't your toilet have a seat and a lid? My wife and I sorted this ridiculous topic in the first week of our marriage. For starters - a toilet suite (like that?) is a functional bit of furniture. It is also quite obvious what it is and what it is intended to be used for. The only thing left for the poor thing is to be made more presentable than a hole in the ground with a plank laid over it is modern aesthetics (whatever form that might take given that both terms are moveable).

The obvious and successful solution is that all parties lower the dual standard of lid and seat. Mind you, I seem to have not passed on this simple solution to either of my children. Neither of them as best I can gather ever drop the lid, although my son (to his credit, I suppose) does seem to put the seat back where it belongs.

Then again there could be circumstances where discretion rules - but these are rare:

There was movement at the station as the bug had got around
And the cook since called 'Regret' had slipped away
To join the mad prospectors - so to make a few more pound
With all the crap he scattered on his tray
All the tried and noted plumbers from the stations near and far
Had mustered at the homestead overnight,
For a plumber loves hard digging as he does an open bar
But an upturned seat had never quite felt right.

[Lord Kangana]

I sense a great anger.

[Prufrock]

bob-indeedy-on I am FOREVER getting splashed as I turn mugs and cups upside down to put them in the dishwashwer cos my missus ALWAYS leaves half an inch in the bottom....

Thank f*ck for that! I thought it was just me who got mad at this.

So I'm not shallow and insensitive and short-tempered and irrational after all?

Count me in for the 'People who leave a bit of tea are bastards' clique.

My missus has never finished a cup of tea in the 16 years I have been going out with her.

16 happy years with a bastard, then?

Am I right in thinking this is a woman's thing then? (LK excepted)

My wife complains when I leave the toilet seat up. She didn't have an answer when I said ''listen, you want the seat down, I want it up. How about if you see the seat up you put it down, just like when I walk in and it's down, I have to PUT THE F*CKING THING UP!!!!''

Exalcee. As if it doesn't work both ways. Had this argument with a girl housemate. Either both leave it as the other might want it, or both don't. Easy.

[Prufrock]

Jebus PB, I expected better than the 'incubators argument'. Let's for a moment assume this £20million is going to deprive someone somewhere of an operation. Is Haiti the right place to look. Is that man going to ignore things like the Olympics, or roadworks wars no-one wanted, benefits, immigration (not necessarily my arguments, just ones different folk would consider bigger 'wastes of money') or pretty much anything else we spend money on which is less important than keeping people alive? However we all know that isn't the case, for a start £20million is fook all in the grand scheme of the economy. I'm fairly sure if I was told we can't afford an operation for me I'd be asking for a bit of the squillions we gave the banks back, you know seeing as they can go back to paying record bonuses now. This 20 million isn't going to come out of the NHS, because the NHS is a priority, it's more likely to mean a couple of trade initiatives get shelved till next year etc.. Even if it did come down to this choice between a British person's life or the possibilty of saving hundreds in Haiti, I think the latter is the better choice. It isn't a competition, it isn't Britain vs Haiti, or anybody else. All human life should be worth the same, and it genuinley depresses, makes me angry today, perhaps, that it isn't.

If a private individual had run up horrific debts, but yet still had several charitable direct debits leaving their account every month, you'd have to say that they were mad and not facing up tp the reality of their situation, even if the amounts were relatively small-fry in the scheme of their problems.

But, as a nation, we aren't a private person, to continue the analogy: before you attacked the 10p they gave to Oxfam (which is effectively what the 20million is) you'd attack the two grand they had to redo their front room (the olympics), or the £300 quid they spent on CoD MW2 on a new Xbox (the wars). If we are going down the insular Britain vs the world route, surely they come before helping a broken, shattered people?

And the champagne socialist dig at LK is weak too, surely you are better than that, maybe claiming back your soul back from the lawyers, only to give it to the advertisers has weakened it, or maybe it's Owen Coyle-esque excitement of Captain Evil mkII (the Mandleson is dead, long live the Cameron) has overcome you?

[Montreal Wanderer]

No matter how much I hate to say this. PB, Prufrock is right. When there is an urgent humanitarian need, the big players need to step up. Helping Haiti is the right thing to do - spending tax payers' money on invading Iraq was not - think how much you could have saved there! In a sense we have had this argument before about H1N1 when it would only be a worry if Europeans started dying. We live in a global village and we cannot be Eurocentric, worse anglocentric any more. Great Britain became great by exploiting the third world, but with the greatness (granted it is somewhat diminished), comes great responsibilities. That includes helping out when natural disasters strike those unable to help themselves. No one expected Britain to pour millions in to helping New Orleans after Katrina, but Haiti is clearly a different case.

[Worthy4England]

No matter how much I hate to say this. PB, Prufrock is right. When there is an urgent humanitarian need, the big players need to step up. Helping Haiti is the right thing to do - spending tax payers' money on invading Iraq was not - think how much you could have saved there! In a sense we have had this argument before about H1N1 when it would only be a worry if Europeans started dying. We live in a global village and we cannot be Eurocentric, worse anglocentric any more. Great Britain became great by exploiting the third world, but with the greatness (granted it is somewhat diminished), comes great responsibilities. That includes helping out when natural disasters strike those unable to help themselves. No one expected Britain to pour millions in to helping New Orleans after Katrina, but Haiti is clearly a different case.

It's good to know the traditional Tory values of me, me, me and me, that got them kicked out in the 1990's are still alive and well and just waiting to come gushing to the fore after a while in the wilderness...

[superjohnmcginlay]

Well I'm off to go and cancel me World Wildlife Fund direct debit. Them pandas are fooking useless anyway.

[bobo the clown]

Guys ... don't you think this should be on the politics thread ??

This one is for proper serious stuff.

I'm sitting here reading this in a coffee stained shirt, which won't be cleaned by normal washing powder unless I add some actual cleaning agent into the wash, whilst watching a "SellUzYerGoldForNowt" TV advert during an "I Can't Believe The Country Has So Many Scrotes In It" TV programme starring Jeremy Kyle as I ponder which lawyer to approach because I broke a nail last night .... ("Ambulance-Chasers 4U"are winning at the moment).

You need to start focusing on the properly important issues.

[Verbal]

Well I'm off to go and cancel me World Wildlife Fund direct debit. Them pandas are fooking useless anyway.

Pandas don't exist. Their just bears who get black eyes from zookeepers.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Well I'm off to go and cancel me World Wildlife Fund direct debit. Them pandas are fooking useless anyway.

Pandas don't exist. Their just bears who get black eyes from zookeepers.

Do they get fed morphine tablets for breakfast n'all? Cos they're bloody useless. All they do is sit about half chewing some grass, slowly.

[Prufrock]

Well I'm off to go and cancel me World Wildlife Fund direct debit. Them pandas are fooking useless anyway.

Pandas don't exist. Their just bears who get black eyes from zookeepers.

They're goth bears.

[Lord Kangana]

Well I'm off to go and cancel me World Wildlife Fund direct debit. Them pandas are fooking useless anyway.

Pandas don't exist. Their just bears who get black eyes from zookeepers.

Do they get fed morphine tablets for breakfast n'all? Cos they're bloody useless. All they do is sit about half chewing some grass, slowly.

Don't tell me you wouldn't if you could get away with it.

[Puskas]

Pandas are crap - as Harry Hill once described them, "Just puffed-up Chinese badgers".

Essentially they prove to demonstrate the point that evolution isn't about "improvement" in any sense, it's about exploiting ecological niches. Physiologically, they really "ought" to be carnivores. However there was an exploitable gap in the "eating bamboo" niche that early pandas moved into and flourished.

Still rubbish from any given standard, though. And, apparently, fart like bastards.

[TANGODANCER]

Rarely angry, more puzzled or curious, but why do people use the word "dead" in front of expressions. Even my good wife said at lunch time: "Be careful, the soup's dead hot". How can hot be dead? Why do people say, dead-fast, dead-cool, dead- good? To me dead is lifeless, soulless, nothingness. Where the hell did that come from?