No cash for charities that attack the Island?
Friday 18th November 2011, 3:00PM GMT.
Alex Cobham, Christian Aid’s chief policy adviser
JERSEY might be forced to reconsider donating hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money to UK charities which repeatedly attack the Island for being a tax haven, the Overseas Aid Commission said today.
Kathryn Filipponi, the commission’s executive officer, stressed that there had to come a point when Oxfam, Christian Aid and ActionAid acknowledged the charitable contributions of the finance industry.
However, she said that as long as the money was spent on those in real need and not on the organisations’ political campaigning, the flow of cash would continue for now.
Her comments come after months of campaigning by the three major UK charities against offshore centres like Jersey.
Alex Cobham, Christian Aid’s chief policy adviser, said that Christian Aid was very grateful for Jersey’s support but felt they had to make their views known on the issue.
‘We recognise that the stance that we, and increasingly the broader international development community including ActionAid and Oxfam, have taken with regard to financial secrecy has at times been uncomfortable for Jersey.
‘However, recognising the extent to which the secrecy offered by tax havens can prevent people from lifting themselves out of poverty, and the genuine concern of Jersey’s citizens to help them do precisely that, we could not in good faith remain silent on this issue.’
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Wednesday 19 June
- Population up to 99,000
- Jersey Live to have weekend camping
- Proposals for long-term care of elderly
- Planning's recommendation for Co-op plan
- Win cosmetic dental treatment worth £15,000
- Deal of the Day: Free cake with hot drink at Voisins
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Jersey Airport Arrivals/Departures
Jersey Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Links to UK regional airports
Jersey Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Why are we still giving our tax money to those who criticize us?? Surely these charities should not be taking Jersey’s money if they so hate us?? Plus why are we giving our tax pounds to charities that spend it on political agendas not needy people?? STOP GIVING THEM OUR MONEY NOW!
Report abuse
Tom, This is a classic bit of lightweight JEP reporting with the classic question mark being at the end of the headline.
The unasked question being the moral dimension, a dimension that is being ignored by all. You are correct to question the action of the charities, for if Jersey money is tainted then they should not accept it. However, in the charities defence taxpayers money cannot be regarded as tainted.
The Commission is correct in regarding political campaigning, however legitimate the politics, as being incompatible with the charities charitable status. However the target of the charities political campaigning is not Jersey, be it the island or its inhabitants, but the practices of some of the financial institutions that operate from Jersey.
If ever there were a legitimate reason for the Dean of Jersey to sit in the States of Jersey camber this is it! Senator Alan Maclean has taken a moral and ethical stance on so-called vulture funds. I am sure Christian Aid’s chief policy adviser, Alex Cobham, would fully support Senator Alan Maclean on this.
This is a complex moral and ethical issue which goes way beyond our local insular politics. As with many disputes I suspect there are rights and wrongs on all sides; so, come on JEP why not try some serious investigative journalism on a matter which is central to inland life.
Report abuse
I would say stuff these charities if they don’t want the money from Jersey business. I’m sure that many local charities would gladly accept the monies these charities turn down.
Report abuse
Why are we sponsoring charities with a clearly Religious agenda anyhow?
Charity should be for charity’s sake, without having to label oneself ‘holier than thou’ by virtue of emblazoning one’s faith all over the donations.
Report abuse
Agreed.
I don’t want to support charities with religious leanings.
Report abuse
Even if they give assurances that our cash will be used for ‘charitable purposes’, it is just freeing up other funds these charities receive from other donations to use for their pressure group tactics.
Make these people realise that their purpose is to act directly for the relief of poverty, not to allow themselves, and the money they receive from others, to be hijacked by left wing pressure groups.
Report abuse
This seems quite hypocritical to me.
Have to admit that although I work in the finance sector myself, I used to see the other side of the story for these charities. However, that was before I knew this.
Why complain about a donator and then say what they do is criminal or unethical.
The finance industry in Jersey has rules and regulations set up so that any criminal or unethical funds are turned away. Perhaps these charities should follow the same lead.
Report abuse
The charities are not calling the people of Jersey criminal or unethical.
They are pointing out that an industry, which operates from here, costs governments around the world billions in lost tax revenue.
As far as i’m aware the people of Jersey are not indivisible from the finance industry, so a verbal attack on the industry is not an insult to us.
Legal tax avoidance costs money to someone, somewhere, that has to be evident.
If the island chooses to defend the finance industry, we could make the point that it’s the way of the world and of business and proactively argue the business case. Or we could call the critics names and not give to good causes because they said something we don’t like.
Now which plan do you think will change the perceptions of the rest of the world?
Report abuse
If the UK are so ungrateful then we should adhere to the policy that ‘charity begins at home’ which means that Jersey folk in need come first.
Report abuse
You dance with the Devil…
Report abuse
May I be the first of many Jersey people to express my disgust at these remarks. Senator Ian Gorst has cowardly hidden behind his executive officer but they must be HIS views as he has been the politician most recently responsible for Overseas Aid. He is free to denounce these threats if he pleases but all I hear is silence.
Absolutely well done to OXFAM, Christian Aid and Action Aid for bringing to our attention things like the vulture funds. I just hope many Jersey residents will donate MORE to these three charities to embarrass the small minds behind these threats. This is not how true Jersey people behave and they are not true Jersey people. End of.
Just a small query: does anyone know if UK-based charities can qualify for the return of tax on the donations made by Jersey taxpayers, or does the charity have to be incorporated in Jersey? It is extremely unfair if this is restricted only to Jersey-based charities with whom Jersey politicians very often close links.
Report abuse
Well said Jerry.
But, no Jersey does not pay UK income tax, hence there can be no UK tax relief on charitable giving by Jersey.
Report abuse
talk about biting the hand that feeds . we can use the money at home
Report abuse
Perhaps the island should accept that some activities in the island, eg vulture funds and transfer pricing, does work against the best interests of some of the poorest people on earth.
Should millionaires be allowed to use our courts to squeeze millions out of the people of the Congo who must rank amongst some of the poorest in the world?
I think we should accept the criticism where it is just and try to put it right.
To suggest that we will only fund bodies that will not criticise our activities smacks of coercion or worse.
Report abuse
True. I agree. We should take a long hard look in the mirror before we criticise others.
Report abuse
Many charities have become too big for their boots,dictating how much they want for a donation etc…a donation is just that discretionary…send £££ minimum …damn cheek..also many have now become corporatised.and are paying huge salaries to execs who manipulate the system…millions given to the Tsunami went missing and the poor buggers who needed it went without…if they don’t deserve it let’s not give it after all it’s Taxpayers money when it comes from Jersey Ltd.
Report abuse
I agree
Charity begins at home and the only ones worthy of donations are local ones.
Most of these in UK have office staff on high wages and very little of these donations go to the real cause.
Look after your own first Jersey and let the UK get their funds from elsewhere.
Report abuse
Jerry Gosselin. Are you not aware that for every pound that you donate to some of these more well know charities only a fraction of that pound actually gets to the people who need it. Most of your donation being eaten up by administration costs, salaries and very often, bribes!
Far better to donate to local charities, or smaller charities run by local people who can prove that EVERY penny goes to where it is supposed to.
Report abuse
That would be local charities like ACET would it (remember the headlines several years ago over their CEO’s huge salary?). Yourself and Zoro (11) have lowered yourself to sweeping generalisations that Jersey charities are somehow more efficient than UK ones. Some facts and sources please! In my own experience as a supporter of some small UK charities since the 1980′s, the exact opposite is true. When I applied for a Shop Co-ordinator position at Jersey Hospice Care earlier this year, I was truly amazed by the remuneration package they quoted me, which was far better than an equivalent retail worker in the private sector would expect to receive. Furthermore, have you enquired what the annual salary costs are for senior execs (marketing/human resources etc.) at Durrell Zoo, which is a constant recipient of huge portions of Jersey taxpayers’ money? Next year the Zoo will receive a handout which far exceeds the total amount given to these 3 combined UK charities and nobody is telling them what they can or can’t say.
Report abuse
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! I agree with most comments, Jersey should donate most of it’s charity to locals, or groups like the British legion who always have respect for any precious gifts.
If we gave these charities who criticise us smaller donations, it may make them more appreciative.
Report abuse
Ridiculous. Charities should do what they are meant to do – help the ones in need and not go on some higher than mighty political stance. On whose benefit is it for?? Not the needy they are supposed to be helping. Are they saying that the starving folks in africa are going to question whether the money/aid coming to them is kosher? Think not!
Report abuse
So, the question no large charity likes answering. How much of my donation will actually be spent on helping those in need? Local small charties could well do more good for than the buck. Pay to be traduced?
Report abuse
Such a stupid and churlish way to think, the views of a few will affect so many, give without want for a thankyou or dont bother giving, just a thought, one day Jersey may need help, would they say no you theatend to stop giving? No they wouldnt, so childish I am ashamed to be Jersey, this is the attitude of young financiers, the same attitude that created this money grabbing attitude that We are special and the elite do not dare question us, who or what are you Jersey turning into?
Report abuse
Christian Aid etc are trying to make people worldwide aware of the effects of tax avoidance etc and repercussions on the poorest countries in the world.
A couple of hundered thousand from a tax haven here and there isn’t going to make a lot of difference. Stopping the likes of vulture funds will have a much greater impact as will stopping other practices.
If Jersey goes down the route of stopping contributions it will fuel the fire and be a spectacular own goal. I can just imagine the headlines now.
Report abuse
Mario your absolutely right. All these daft statements will do is draw further attention to the way in which jurisdictions such as Jersey operate in the finical markets.
Being a one trick pony we need the finance industry but, lets have a finance industry to be proud of rather than vilified around the world. Surely we can do business ethically and still have a finance industry to be proud of and providing employment for our community attacking charities in this way because they point out the bleeding obvious simply wont help us one jot.
Report abuse
Bonkers you are far from being bonkers.
Report abuse
Well said mate!
Report abuse
Well said Jerry Gosselin #8.
The fact is if it weren’t for charities such as Oxfam, Christian Aid and Action Aid government’s would simply do what the hell they like and there would be no accountability. The world is changing and all right thinking moral peoples who care about the way our government’s behave are starting to speak up about the immoral practices being used to keep billions of people in poverty.
Well done to Oxfam, Christian Aid and Action Aid for bringing to the worlds attention the disgusting way in which finance industries around the world are used to facilitate keeping billions of people trapped in a cycle of never ending poverty.
Keep it up every person whose ever travelled the worlds poorest regions and seen the terrible poverty (and many who haven’t) are right behind you all the way.
Report abuse
The main cause of poverty worldwide is the ever increasing, unsustainable, human population, now estimated at 7 billion.
Many of the charities, especially the religious ones are doing nothing to prevent this increase.
Report abuse
Overpopulated your talking nonsense. the cause of poverty is the unfair distribution of wealth and resources around the globe.
Poverty stricken families in places like Africa have large families because they need the children to support the parents and siblings in the daily desperate search for food and sustenance. These countries have no social welfare structures such as, free hospitals treatment, GP visits , schooling all has to be paid for. Your on your own completely.
When I was in Africa we had to take an African charity worker to hospital as he had managed to borrow the money for his mothers treatment but couldn’t afford to pay for the hospital meals so we would give him a lift to ensure he’s mother got a meal of maize cooked as a porridge.
The increase in population is due to survival rates increasing because of charities providing life saving medical care which you expect and take for granted on a daily basis.
You have no idea how lucky you are simply because of an accident of birth, be grateful and show some humanity
Report abuse
Thanks Bonkers. We might as well use this opportunity to raise awareness of these charities, so here’s an Action Aid link explaining what they do:
http://www.actionaid.org/what-we-do
Overpopulated- one of the ways to tackle the high birth rates in these very poor countries is to increase the rights of women, who make up 70% of those living in poverty. Action Aid are dedicated to this, as the link above will show. Gender equality could help in the fight against AIDS too.
Report abuse
Overpopulated, you are correct that he ever increasing, unsustainable birth world rate is a major contributory factor in world poverty and yes the Roman Catholic church has much to answer for.
Nevertheless, the truly perverse fact is that the best birth control comes in the form of increasing economic activity. Well healed middle classes are too busy making money to make babies.
Report abuse
These charities need to be given as much money as possible. Their good charitable work has helped Sudan’s population increase from 21 million in the year Live Aid year of ’85 to its current population of 42 million.
Report abuse
So what do you propose Flymo? Cut the aid and let millions starve. That will Reduce the worlds population , will you be satisfied then?
Report abuse
To suggest that a country’s population growth is linked to the amount of aid it receives is not credible. Over that time period, many countries have seen significant population increases. For example, Jersey’s has risen by about 15% since 1986 and that’s got nothing to do with aid.
Jersey’s population increased by no less than 150% in just 45 years up to 1851. Was that linked to aid? No- according to Mark Boleat, it “reflected a favourable economic climate including significant tax advantages”. Then in the next 50 years up to 1901, it had dropped by 7.8%. St Clement was by far the fastest-growing Jersey parish in the 20th century but that doesn’t mean the States were giving too many subsidies to St Clement residents!
Fertility rates are always going to be higher in undeveloped countries because of the higher rates of infant mortality and once these mortality rates come down, fertility rates should drop also.
Report abuse
In the 1st paragraph above, I should have said “and that’s not got ANYTHING to with aid” – I forgot to check what I had just written before submitting!
Report abuse
The UK has strict rules on charities in that they are forbidden to make political statements.Jersey is an independent jurisdiction, responsible to its taxpayers alone.Kathryn Filipponi has my complete support and if those UK charities continue to politicise and criticise those that contibute, cut the funds as there are plenty of local charities that deserve support.
Report abuse
It’s a shame that bankers and financiers have to assuage their guilty conscience by giving to charity.
At least they are not throwing away money which they are supposed to be looking after on frivolities such as round the world yacht racing.
Wouldn’t it be would be nice , though, if they could find a little bit somewhere to pay savers some realistic interest, if there’s anything left after paying for their own expensive lifestyles.
Report abuse
If “our” finance industry was actually based on money we generated ourselves within the Island, then we could indeed tell outside critics where to shove their opinions. But of course, “our” finance industry is actually based on £billions from countries across the world (often entirely legally). However, there is a very legitimate, and growing debate about multinationals making great profits in one particular jurisdiction, and then arranging their accounts so that very little goes back in tax to that same country. And while the usual Jersey stance is to split hairs about “illegal” and “legal” tax avoidance, the real debate is not about whether it is either of these but whether it is FAIR. Unfortunately, so many people on this site have taken a very, narrow partisan view that they just cannot see that there is a much bigger debate going on outside. Yet strangely enough, when taxation for companies in Jersey was recently changed, a great many people complained that it wasn’t FAIR that Jersey owned businesses were paying more tax than businesses which were owned by non Jersey companies. Does that “fairness” argument sound familiar? The current Occupy protests in Wall Street and around the world are also part of the growing debate about the nature of the world’s finance system. The partisan view of such protesters is that they are “anti capitalist”, when in fact they are “anti” this particular brand of capitalism. Capitalism is not a single narrow brand of ideology, but a broad spectrum with Fairtrade at one end and the mafia at the other. It does not follow that because we buy our socks at BHS that we should therefore automatically be assumed to be sanctioning child labour in the third world. As consumers we are entitled to choose the brand of capitalism we want just as much as the brand of soap powder. What makes the current debate on tax, banks, finance markets etc so fascinating, is the period it is happening in; the age of the near collapse of the worlds finance markets through their own greed and recklessness. The consequenses of that have been catastrophic for hundreds of thousands, and it is the resultant anger and disgust which are fuelling the current debates (not the outpourings of some loony left politician as used to be the case). Attitudes outside Jersey are changing, even if some here continue as if it were still the 1980′s. At some point it won’t just be Oxfam criticising Jersey’s tax status, but the middle England ladies working in the Oxfam shops. Unfortunately taking the entrenched view, and labelling everyone who criticises our tax status as “anti Jersey traitors” isn’t going to help in the long run, and black-balling particular charities won’t help our case either. Yes we have a big finance industry, which we are heavily dependant on. But most that money which passes through the Island isn’t actually our money. It might be worth remembering that.
Report abuse
Andre, a long tirade but nevertheless balanced and correct. Jersey is stuck in the 1980′s and the world economy moves on regardless.
Report abuse
Jerry (comment
I too would like to know if UK based charities can claim tax back from Jersey taxpayers donations as they can on donations from UK taxpayers.We are currently raising money for Sheffield Childrens Hospital and the “gift aid” which can be claimed back from a UK taxpayer is 25% so amounts to a great deal extra going to the charity.Being from Jersey originally I have had some very generous donations from family and friends in Jersey but as they are not UK taxpayers there seems to be no option for getting the tax back on these amounts.Does anyone know?
Report abuse
Julie- Since I originally asked the question at No. 8 above (and Mark replied), I’ve done a bit more research. It seems Jersey still doesn’t have a UK-style Gift Aid scheme despite this twice being a recommendation of the Jersey Law Commission in 2006 and 2009. According to the Commission’s 2009 report (page 12 onwards), Jersey provides for the deduction of tax from outright gifts in excess of £100 per year, but the charity MUST BE ESTABLISHED IN JERSEY. However, if you are willing to donate through a deed of covenant over a period of more than 4 years, the news is better: according to the Commission, there are no minimum or maximum limits to the amount that can be covenanted AND the charity does NOT have to be based in Jersey, so it would appear that not only would these 3 UK charities qualify but also Sheffield Children’s Hospital. The charities would have to complete paperwork each year to reclaim the tax from Jersey, which would be a bit time-consuming for them, particularly if the sums being claimed were small and they are not used to dealing with the Jersey Tax authorities. However, would you be interested in donating over more than 4 years? Some campaigns are urgent and people want to give a one-off payment now rather than over several years. Obviously you must be resident in Jersey, paying Jersey Income Tax, and I think it is also a requirement to have lived on the island for at least the past 3 years, according to Article 87B of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law. If Article 87B is taken to apply also to Deed of Covenants then it mentions a £100 minimum donation, whereas the Commission report says there is no minimum, so this discrepancy needs to be clarified.
If you are interested in setting up a deed of covenant, the official States of Jersey link is here:
http://www.gov.je/TAXESMONEY/INCOMETAX/CHARITIES/Pages/DeedCovenantScheme.aspx
Jersey Law Commission 2009 report:
http://www.lawcomm.gov.je/TR%20-%20Jersey%20Law%20of%20Charities.PDF
Tony Bellows blog article (he campaigned in 2010 for the introduction of Gift Aid):
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-jersey-needs-gift-aid.html
BBC Jersey report on Tony Bellow’s Gift Aid campaign, including Facebook campaign page link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/jersey/hi/people_and_places/the_states/newsid_8469000/8469110.stm
Report abuse
There is an awful lot of ignorant tosh on this board. Those who think the finance industry is immoral should realise a few things.
Firstly, the majority of Jersey booked private clients are wealthy middle eastern families who are not even liable to tax in their home jurisdictions. Any sample of trust law reports shows the disproportionate number of middle-eastern names. Now, you might not like the fact that Saudi Arabia is a rich country, but it is hardly Jersey’s fault.
A second key string to the Island’s bow is investment funds. An investment fund is established in Jersey because Jersey is tax neutral. What does that mean? It means the fund makes investments in other countries and pays tax in those countries. It makes distributions to investors who pay tax in their own countries. But it pays no tax in Jersey. If it was established onshore, the fund would pay tax, and the investors would have to claim a repayment of the portion of tax attributable to them from the fund, assuming a DTA existed between the fund’s jurisdiction and that of the investor. Still with me? Funds are established in Jersey not to avoid tax but to avoid complexity for investors.
Increasingly the Island(s) are the home to companies such as Rangold, Glencore, Polyus, West China Cement etc, which are resource companies listed on the LSE. Why are they domiciled in Jersey? Because Jersey has the same companies law as the UK, which investors prefer to say Russian or Zambian or Chinese company law, which is where the companies operate.
All this waffle about immorality also forgets that the ultimate investors in these products and companies are almost all pension funds. So if there is more complexity and more taxation, either the consumer will pay more to reflect increased costs or pensioners will receive less pensions. There is no such thing as a free lunch. To say “lots of other people should pay more tax provided I don’t have to” is in my view morally bankrupt.
There is a myth going around that if only places like Jersey were closed down the whole world would be much wealthier. There would be no poverty in Africa, there would be world peace. Well, it didn’t happen in the thousands of years before 1961. I wonder who was to blame for that?
In fact, you could make the case that having places like Jersey actually act as an important check on the power of governments by taking away their ability to invade countries and seize assets. Perhaps that is why Jersey is so popular with clients from the Middle and Far East who know and understand what can happen when the government changes and seizes private property.
Report abuse
Many thanks to all who have commented. It’s great to see such a vibrant back and forth about development, which does not always have the media profile we would like it to; especially in these hard times at home.
Christian Aid, and I’m sure the other NGOs mentioned above, do really appreciate the commitment of Jersey people to the eradication of poverty globally.
I can’t respond to every point raised, but will pick out a couple of key ones and comment below. I hope that’s ok.
Report abuse
The first group of comments raise the question of whether Christian Aid, Action Aid and Oxfam should be accepting any money from Jersey, when we are engaged in campaigning against financial secrecy. [I can only speak for Christian Aid of course, but believe most of what we would say on this is broadly shared.]
There are two points to make about this. One is that we see the role of civil society, including NGOs like ourselves but also e.g. the 41 churches of whom we are the relief and development agency, to include holding governments to account so that they deliver for their citizens. This is true of our many partners, whether for example they are working to reduce corruption in Ghana to ensure children actually receive the free school meals they are entitled to, or pushing the UK government to pass effective anti-bribery legislation to prevent UK-registered companies from promoting corruption overseas with impunity.
We do not believe that our lobbying of e.g. the UK government is incompatible with our also working with them, including receiving funding from them, in other areas. The relationship is open and positive; we believe they see the development NGOs like Christian Aid as trusted partners, who will work with them but also challenge them where we believe they can deliver more for the eradication of poverty.
We very much hope for a similar relationship with the States of Jersey.
On the specific point of our having been critical of some aspects of financial transparency, including around international information exchange with developing countries, we have said similar things to the UK government and do not see it as a barrier to working with them.
There is no question of seeing Jersey, or its people, as somehow ‘bad’ – it is purely a question of our wishing to see some policies changed, because we believe the evidence shows that a global improvement in financial transparency, with Jersey, the UK and a great many others having a role to play, would remove a major obstacle to poverty eradication.
We estimate developing countries lose around $160 billion a year in tax revenues, through the unfair shifting of profits overseas – much more than the total received in aid. By improving international information exchange, this could be greatly reduced. At the same time, corruption with impunity would be reduced also, so that not only would developing countries have more revenues to spend on health and education, they would also be more likely to spend them for the benefit of their citizens.
Recognising the commitment of Jersey’s people to fighting poverty, we firmly believe this is a shared goal – and hope to continue gaining support internationally and in Jersey for this effort.
Report abuse
This Gift-Aid thread is interesting in that – give or take – it isn’t a gift at all. Without it donations made from earned income are made on taxed earnings (at, say 20%). So merely giving the equivalent back for each donation only really has the effect of not taxing the earnings relative to donations made.
What this means is that Jersey effectively taxes earnings used to donate to charity.
The Overseas Aid Commission are dead right but it is impossible to give to a charity that spends some of its money acting against us in the belief that our money isn’t supporting that effort.
As for these ‘vulture funds’ I don’t quite get how the poorest nations (where people are starving) can own companies which have liquid assets in the region of £60M. Surely the biggest issue is that such companies ( if they are owned by these countries) are able to hide this cash away and not use it for the benefit of the inhabitants. If the ‘scam’ relies on proving that the countries concerned own these companies in order that the funds can be used to settle the debt then surely the funds should be being used to either A, settle the debt, or B, benefit the starving population.
Report abuse
Stuff them
Charity begins at home
Report abuse
lets hope your never in need of any charity, we might just say stuff you charity begins at home.
Report abuse
One other interesting fact about overseas aid is that, much like welfare, it tends to entrench the position it is intended to address. It is noticeable that aid charities have always focussed on Africa, which remains resolutely stuck in poverty. Whereas those places with less of an aid presence – such as southeast asia and south america – have done much better.
The reason why large swathes of Africa are so poor is, frankly, because most of the rulers there are incredibly vain and poor judges of character. So Mandela has a grandchild named after Gadaffi, Mugabe is regarded by many as a role model of anti-colonial values, and the rulers of some countries spend 3 times the amount they get in aid on a private plane for themselves (http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Mutharika-Private-jet-cheap-for-Malawi-20100602). But no, the reason the continent is poverty stricken is not a failure of government but Jersey’s fault. And as long as the aid agencies who have failed to have any effect for decades are given more funds all will be fine.
Report abuse
Donald Pond “All this waffle about immorality”
Morality waffle? What can you say about that statement nothing repeatable here unfortunately.
Donald Pond “There is an awful lot of ignorant tosh on this board. Those who think the finance industry is immoral should realise a few things.”
Only a complete ass would think the finance industry is endowed with any sense of moral responsibility . Where have you been in hibernation? Who do you think has bought the world economic system to its knees?
Maybe it’s those damn Africans? Greedy little buggers! if they cant manage the pittance we throw at them in aid let em starve, that will teach em…
Report abuse
“Who do you think has bought the world economic system to its knees?”
Everyone. Take a country like Spain as an example (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15789385). The country has borrowed 363% of its GDP. That is not the government, but the private sector as well. For over 20 years, people have lived well beyond their means. Now they are having to learn to live within their means.
How exactly is that the fault of the finance industry? It is the fault of governments who paid pensions that were unaffordable, of businessmen who believed that buying competitors was a good idea, of homeowners who wanted a slightly bigger house, or people who bought cars on credit and the people who sold them, of newspapers who allowed credit card companies to stuff brochures in every paper for years, of people who have lowly paid jobs and yet believe they can afford daily coffees and mobile phones.
In short, it is the fault of almost everyone. To blame Jersey is the same catagory of mistake as those who blamed the Jews over the centuries whenever anything went wrong. We are a minority, nobody much understands what we do, and people want someone to blame. But in the end, if we have to blame a minority, blame the politicians, those idiots in the western world who only manage to run a balanced budget one year in ten (at best) and didn’t give a thought for the future.
Report abuse
How exactly is that the fault of the finance industry?
Simple Donald, irresponsible lending. Nice fat bonuses from institutions that were too big to fail.
That said nobody cried too loud whilst the good times flowed, especially not the Prudent Chancellor Brown and his side kick Tony. Yes we all have to take some blame, but some are more blame worthy than others.
Report abuse
Well said Mark. That sums it up.
According to Donald everyone is to blame but the banks lol…
Report abuse
Wow.
A whole continent damned with such brilliant analysis.
“The reason why large swathes of Africa are so poor is, frankly, because most of the rulers there are incredibly vain and poor judges of character”.
Well there you go. I had been duped into thinking that most of the nations within Africa had been colonised and plundered by the European states.Then dumped after WW2 without any assistance or remuneration (unlike the Germans). I’d also been tricked into believing that a lot of the dictators who rule (past and present) in Africa had been assisted or installed by the west, you know like Gadaffi was.
But now i see it was “because most of the rulers there are incredibly vain and poor judges of character” thank God we don’t have any politicians like that eh?
You also pointed out that
“the rulers of some countries spend 3 times the amount they get in aid on a private plane for themselves”
Really? A dictator will steal money meant for his people? Wow. But wait a minute, how could he do that? Surely he would need somewhere outside of his country, a haven if you like, to stash the money. Who knows how they do it?
But you’re right it’s nothing to do with us.
Report abuse
Donald, so you think the finance industry is perfect? What about the money laundering and tax evasion cases and the extradition cases? Pure imagination?
The ‘finance industry’ is not a bed of roses. Great strides have been made in cleaning up our local ‘finance industry’ act but a bit more transparency would help. More transparency and less gripes would result.
Donald, you can and do speak a great deal of sense, at times, but then spoil it all with you own tosh.
Report abuse
I don’t think the finance industry is perfect. However, I have worked in it long enough to know that money laundering is exceptional and every business I have been close too has taken its responsibilities in that regard very seriously.
What I object to is the view that it is responsible for the current state of the world’s finances, or that people who work in it should feel guilty about doing so, or that we should fund political agencies such as Christian Aid.
What we are currently witnessing is a period of monumental stupidity, when there is a great danger that many of the benefits of capitalism will be lost. Of course the degree of inequality in society is wrong and needs to be addressed. It is also wrong that teachers and nurses are so badly paid. But what people need to realise is that the real evils are advertisers and politicians, both of which promise more than they can deliver and in doing so generate misery.
As for Alec’s comments, they really beggar belief. Here is the world’s largest church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Our_Lady_of_Peace_of_Yamoussoukro. It’s in the Ivory Coast and was consecrated by Pope JP II. Yes, that’s the place that had a near civil war earlier this year. Or look at the history of Liberia, founder by freed slaves from the US who promptly started dressing like 18th century gents and enslaving the indigenous people, keeping it that way until the most horrific civil war imaginable. Or look at Belgium’s odious role in the Congo, or France’s in Rwanda. There is a lot of blame nobody else has accepted which is a lot clearer than Jersey’s alleged “responsibility”.
Report abuse
So what you are saying is you have a vested interest in it and would be out of a job if finance left Jersey. This will obviously colour your outlook to some degree.
Of course the degree of inequality in society is wrong and needs to be addressed by a more equatible sharing of resources between the top 1% and the rest. Finance centres obscure things and enable money to be easily moved around the world from A-Z making tracebility a lot harder.
It also enables people like General Abacha to hide their ill gotten gains from their own people. How did this slip through the net donald?
Change is coming the masses are fed up being fed garbage by politicians banks businessmen and the upper echelions of society who constantly harp on about the advantages of capitalism. The vast majority are falling further behind with each passing year whilst others are doing rather well.
The unfairness of the system is causing misery and suffering to millions however it is allowed to continue.
Africa is in its present state due in no small part to exploitation of its peoples and natural resources and the process of “civilising” carried out by the imperial powers.
Bad habits linger. Many of these people some now leaders were around before independence and the likes of the Mau Mau rebellion would have had a profound influence on their mindset and outlook.
Also these countries on gaining independence were then mired with debt from which they had no chance of escape. As far as I am concerned the west should write off all African debt as a token of goodwill and as an acknowledgement of their past wrong doing. They have made more than enough from the African continent to do so hundreds if not thousands of times over.
Report abuse
“However, I have worked in it long enough to know that money laundering is exceptional and every business I have been close too has taken its responsibilities in that regard very seriously.”…
Donald, you speak a great deal of sense and have many valid points to make on this forum, however in this case you are a victim of ‘the willing suspension of disbelief’. Do you honestly and truly believe that the proceeds of criminal activity do not find their way to this Island, even in 2011. If your answer is yes, then I’m afraid you’ve been sleepwalking through your long career.
Report abuse
Er, OK,
“Or look at Belgium’s odious role in the Congo, or France’s in Rwanda. ”
Yes, those would be some of the European states I mentioned. Liberia as you say was established as a state by the descendents of slaves who were taken by the European powers and sold in the Caribbean and US. However there has been a hint of western involvement directly or indirectly(via companies) in their recent histories of both states. Charles Taylor was (allegedly) backed by diamond companies and (covertly) by elements within the US administration of the mid 80′s.The French army is still in the Ivory Coast.
You end with “There is a lot of blame nobody else has accepted which is a lot clearer than Jersey’s alleged “responsibility”.”
Just to make it clear, I wasn’t suggesting Jersey has colonised or plundered Africa. I was pointing out that many of the continents problems have come from being colonised and that many of the dictators could not have come to power if they had not been supported by the west.
Jersey is home to companies that have assisted some of these dictators in funnelling money from their states. Not all Jersey companies,not most, but a few have undeniably assisted. Those were my points and I really don’t see how they beggar belief.
Report abuse
Sorry to bang on but here is Robert Peston’s take, published today. I hope the monitor publishes this because it is vital – nowhere does he suggest that any serious person thinks the current crisis occured because “the finance industry is evil”. It was a massive failure of society to face the reality that was second nature to my parent’s generation: save as much as you can, borrow as little:
“It has now become widely recognised that perhaps the greatest economic policy failure in the UK, US and eurozone during the 16 boom years before the crash of 2008 was the explosion of borrowing by banks, households, businesses and governments – or, to use the jargon, the unprecedented and massive leveraging up of entire economies.
These giant debts triggered the crash of 2008 because creditors refused to roll over short-term loans to banks, and caused the simultaneous recession because banks stopped lending, and have brought about our current economic malaise because our ability to spend and invest is hobbled by the imperative of repaying what we owe.”
Report abuse
I suppose that the reasonable stance is that the charities, whiter than white that they purport to be, should not be accepting money from the swirling cesspit that is the finance industry.
Perhaps charity comes at a price- that price being the setting aside of one’s charitable principles. That said, the wonderful irony is that the crumbs thrown and gratefully received by the holier-than-thou are by-products of the festering fiduciary effluvia which is draining the financial reserves of the poor countries for the benefit of a few, to which fortunate individuals the financial services sycophants so enthusiastically grovel.
Report abuse
If you listen to local commercial radio, read the Post or look at the leaflets dumped through doors than you will realise that there are plenty of lenders in the island ready to advance yet more money to the already highly indebted.
Sadly we are in a dealer addict situation between part of the finance industry and quite a lot of it’s employees. The more they earn the more that the industry that they work for will lend them.
In the past bank employees would not have been allowed to run up such debts.
Report abuse