One of the more unedifying spectacles on the world stage in the last fortnight has been the verbal dogfight between Bob Geldof and the BBC over aid to Ethiopia.

For me the allegations, that money from Band Aid and Live Aid was diverted for political and military purposes, and Geldof’s furious denunciations, had particular resonance.

Exactly twenty years ago, I was in Ethiopia to make a film for Four Corners, called the Forgotten Famine, which addressed some of these issues on the spot. The debate today seems to me confused, exaggerated and divorced from reality.

First, a reminder of what was happening in Ethiopia in the eighties and ninetiies. The country was governed by the Dergue – a communist military junta, backed and armed by Moscow and led by Colonel Haile Mengistu Mariam.Two northern provinces – Tigray and Eritrea – were fighting for independence. Bad harvests and other factors meant they were also in the grip of a famine.

The Dergue’s response – as my colleague Chris Masters reported for Four Corners in 1985 – was to use “hunger as a weapon of war”. What did that mean? Well, at the time I went in to Tigray in March 1990, the Ethiopian Air Force was bombing aid convoys.  A couple of weeks before our trip, Ethiopian Migs using phosphorus bombs had destroyed four full grain trucks. Our convoy travelled only at night, because then the bombers were grounded.

Crucially, there was only one way in to the country.  As I wrote at the time: “The only way in is the clandestine one – across the Sudanese border. To reach Central Tigray and deliver the food means several hundred kilometres travelling some of the world’s worst roads. The trucks may cover only sixty kilometres in an entire night”.

The trucks themselves were clapped-out vehicles that had already done hundreds of thousands of kilometres in Europe. The roads were treacherous – with patches where trucks would sink into deep sand in the dry or become heavily bogged in the wet. This single route into the country was the key to the problem then, and it’s also the key to the current debate; because the only organisation accredited by the Sudanese Government to use the route was REST – the Relief Society of Tigray.

All aid agencies including Live Aid, and Australia’s Community Aid Abroad (now Oxfam), with whom we travelled had to deal with REST to get their aid in. And REST was the ‘humanitarian arm’ of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front – the TPLF, which was waging war against the Ethiopian Government. What no-one wanted to talk about at the time was that, like the Government they were fighting, the TPLF were Marxist-Leninists.

An example: in the middle of our trip, they brought us to a recruiting function – a sort of concert and rally, where they then prevented us from filming until they could cover up the massive party symbol on stage: it consisted of a hammer, a sickle and a Kalashnikov rifle.

I wrote at the time: “Even aid groups and charities sympathetic to the TPLF suggest that its ideological base is a type of Stalinist Marxism”.

On the other hand, it was clear that the TPLF had widespread support, if only because people were desperate. And above all, there was no-one else with whom the aid community could deal; no other way whatever to get the food in.

Now, the BBC, in a World Service documentary, has made the explosive claim that the aid agencies “were hoodwinked, and that millions of dollars were diverted to buy weapons for rebels in Ethiopia”.

You can download it from this page.

They based the claim on the word of two former senior officials of the TPLF. One, who lives in Perth, went so far as to say that 95% of the aid went to political and military funds – not to feeding the hungry. In the BBC’s words, “it had all been an elaborate charade”.

It’s that 95% claim that has created headlines around the world – and left the impression in many minds that members of the public who opened their hearts and wallets for the “Feed The World” campaign had instead created what another ex-TPLF official told the BBC was, by the late 1980s, an armed force bristling with brand-new military hardware.

Well, I travelled right through TPLF territory in 1990, and I find that description simply incredible. We saw some fighters with AK-47 automatic rifles, certainly, but also many with older rifles, farmers’ shotguns, or without firearms at all.  New military hardware? We went very close to the fighting front, and saw nothing that didn’t look either old, or as if it had been captured in recent battles with Government forces.

And when it comes to the diversion of aid, the public now find themselves between two poles: the BBC’s source, who claims 95% was siphoned off, and Bob Geldof, who says there is “not a single shred of evidence” that a single cent was ever diverted.

In defending its program, the BBC has, I’m afraid, been using weasel words to try and defuse the effect of what it’s done. On the 95% claim, “We have never said that is the main news element in this program”, says the BBC World Service News and Current Affairs editor Andrew Whitehead.

That’s frankly disingenuous. Whitehead goes on: “what we didn’t say in that program, and what nobody said in that program, is that 95% of all famine relief aid was diverted. We had one voice, a credible voice, saying that 95% of aid through one particular organisation was diverted for military and political purposes”.

But that “one particular organisation” was REST – the only channel for getting aid into Tigray. So Whitehead’s defence is actually to make a distinction without a difference.

Is it even possible, as the BBC’s “credible” source maintains, that 95% of the aid money was not spent on buying food in Tigray but on arms? No, because the great majority of aid sent to Tigray at that period was not sent as money, but directly – as bags of grain or flour.

It must also be said that both the BBC’s TPLF sources are potentially tainted. One is a long term opponent of the TPLF’s leader (now Prime Minister of Ethiopia) Meles Zenawi, and heavily involved in opposition politics from exile.  Ethiopia’s Honorary Consul in Australia Graham Romanes claims the other source was asked to leave the TPLF for embezzlement, before defecting to the Dergue.

Romanes ran Community Aid Abroad’s East Africa operations at the time I went in to Tigray.

Asked about the BBC’s figures now, he says “they just don’t add up. The aid groups – particularly Christian Aid – at the time monitored this question very closely and they found nothing like this”.

I think Bob Geldof is overconfident when he says that there’s not a shred of evidence of a single cent going astray.

But between him and the BBC, his is the lesser exaggeration: Geldof is on much stronger ground when he says: “Where were all the dead people then? If no one was getting food, why was nobody dying? ... They weren’t dying because they were getting help, and massive amounts of it”.

The aid diversion claim has the potential to do enormous damage to future fund-raising.

It relies on a simplistic view of the world, well-reflected in an article in the Australian that said “On whatever scale Live Aid money disappeared in Ethiopia in 1985, there is no question that the priority for the rebel movement at that time was not alleviating the incredible suffering of starving people but overthrowing the country’s brutal dictatorship”.

Well, no. The priority was both – and in the long term, as proved to be the case, the only way to alleviate people’s suffering was to win the war. 

Sometimes, when you want to save lives, reality - complicated, difficult and even political – is what you have to deal with.

33 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John A Neve says:

      06:59am | 17/03/10

      Reading Mark’s sad documentary, one has to ask, is aid the way to go?
      I would suggest strong intervention was the better option, to keep getting trucks, drivers and food destroyed serves no real purpose.

      If we can go to war over oil, why can’t we go to war to save lives?

    • Eric says:

      07:28am | 17/03/10

      We do go to war to save lives - see the interventions in Somalia and Kosovo for example.

      When have we ever gone to war for oil? We went to Iraq to save lives, too.

      As for why we don’t go to war to save lives more often, just look at the reaction to the Iraq intervention. What political leader wants that sort of blowback just for being charitable?

    • John A Neve says:

      07:41am | 17/03/10

      Eric,

      “We went to Iraq to save lives, too”.  You don’t really believe that do you?
      If you do, you must be the only one Eric.

    • Eric says:

      08:06am | 17/03/10

      John,

      Look up the history of Iraq in the late 20th century. Count up the number of lives lost because of Saddam Hussein.

      Yes, we did save lives in Iraq - by removing the biggest killer there. Probably about a million of them.

    • Matt says:

      08:45am | 17/03/10

      RE: Eric

      Do you realise that at least 1 million citizens have lost their lives since 2003? That be a higher kill-rate than Hussein

      http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

    • Astrosodi says:

      09:19am | 17/03/10

      Eric, I recall reading somewhere—oh, that’s right, in every major newspaper in the western world—that we needed to invade Iraq because they had WMDs that could wipe ~us~ out, not to save the Iraqi people. That was an additional benefit. But I think the ‘intel’ on that was wrong?

      Regardless, many of the people who voted to go to war in Iraq did have Iraqi people’s welfare as a priority; many did not. Like Bruce says below, war makes good business sense. Sadly, many humna beings don;t really ccare about the suffering of others, only the beneifts to themselves. We see that every day when we try and blame our own governmentss here when citizens take advantage of other citizens to make money, but we talk about in terms of failed government policy.

      Iraq, Afghanistan…many places around the world…hopefully we do some good there, and there were many ~noble~ reasons to go there; but we’ve done a lot of bad (and not just in the recent wars, but for decades before that). What’s stopping us for interferring in Zimbabwe if we are truly only concerned for the welfare of people? Our planet’s biggest corporations make more money than many countries, and while many have ‘global corporate citzenship’ charters, their first priority is usually securing commercial viability, which is focused on profits and resource availability.

    • Nathan says:

      03:13pm | 17/03/10

      @Matt

      Who killed them? Not the U.S., but Iran and Islamist crusaders. How many have they killed? Well, it’s complicated.

      About your numbers: “They’re almost certainly way too high,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election (of Dubya).  Heck, according to your source: “Since our interest is simply in providing a rough estimate – rather than a scientifically accurate estimate – of current Iraqi deaths, we can accept the possible inaccuracies produced by combining the Lancet and IBC.”

      So basically, a bunch of dudes, reckon that a whole bunch of people have died for reasons related to the invasion, and all other confounding evidence is political. Yeah, sounds objective to me. The directors of that institution are arch-lefties, like Vincent Navarro from Johns Hopkins University, who first came up with the overquotation of deaths, and writes articles such as “Fascism is Alive and Well in Spain”. He also penned “Opus Dei and John Paul II: A Profoundly Rightwing Pope”.

      They sound about as objective as Pravda.

    • Dan says:

      08:52pm | 17/03/10

      Nathan, the ‘Iran and Islamist crusaders’ wouldn’t have killed them if it weren’t for the invasion. You can’t open a door and invite in a murderer, and claim that you had nothing to do with it.

    • thomas vesely says:

      07:18am | 17/03/10

      no profit in saving lives,oil on the other hand…..

    • thomas vesely says:

      07:49am | 17/03/10

      i dont know the right or wrong of this,however the same questions are being asked regarding aid to haiti.it seems,to me,that whenever money, aid and tragedy combine,leeches appear to siphon off as much as possible,including the theft of children.and everyone is helping,or so they say…......

    • Bruce says:

      07:51am | 17/03/10

      Mark, I have listened to the BBC podcast and read Bob Geldof’s article and I have to say his response does not stack up. He simply avoided dealing directly with the allegations and spent an enormous amount of time lambasting the BBC over unrelated issues . He had been invited by the program makers to put his point of view forward and maybe contextualize and acknowledge this fact but chose not to participate.

      No one denies that working in war zones is fraught with dangers and ethical complications and that some “leakage” of funds will occur.
      People will continue to give money if Aid organizations are open and honest enough to acknowledge that corruption is a major even sometimes unavoidable issue in this field, but they will not give money if they deny that such a problem exist.

    • Ryan says:

      09:27am | 17/03/10

      Bob Geldof has made a living mooching off the misfortunes of Africa, of course he is going to be defensive, the BBC is attacking his livelihood.

    • Eric says:

      11:05am | 17/03/10

      Matt, citing fictitious figures is unhelpful. The real number of Iraqi deaths since 2003 is about 100,000. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

      That’s about one year’s work for Saddam.

      Astrosodi, there were many reasons we went into Iraq. To call it a “war for oil” as some do, is simply untrue.

    • Dan says:

      12:36pm | 17/03/10

      Firstly, to say that we went to Iraq to save lives is nonsence. Saddam may have been a killer, but we did not go in for that reason. To think so is delusional.

      Furthermore, even accepting that the figures you quote are accurate, it does not matter whether Saddam killed more people in one year or not (and BTW, in the early 200’s he was killing far less than 100, 000 people a year). The fact is that those people would still be alive if it weren’t for the war.

      You’re right that there are many reasons why we went to Iraq (oil being one), but it had NOTHING to do with saving lives.

    • AFR says:

      01:32pm | 17/03/10

      If it had nothing to do with oil/resources, then why isn’t America, the self appointed leader of the free world, invading the dozens of other countries where corrupt governments, warlords etc make life a misery for its citizens?

    • Astrosodi says:

      02:45pm | 17/03/10

      As I said, Eric, there were a number of reasons why we invaded Iraq. A combination of commercial, resource and democratic reasons. I didn’t call it a ‘war for oil’; I agree that that is toos implistic. But it is also too simplistic to deny that it played any role and to state that we (and other nations) only invade countries for purely for altruistic reasons.

    • Eric says:

      03:04pm | 17/03/10

      Dan, as I have said, there were many reasons we invaded Iraq. Saving lives was just one of them. There were also the reasons of stopping WMD production, preventing terrorism which Saddam supported, creating a democratic state in the Middle East, and many others. And by invading, we saved several hundreds of thousands of people who would now be dead if Hussein was still in power.

      AFR, I already mentioned Kosovo and Somalia, where Western states intervened to save lives despite that lack of any oil. I might also mention Afghanistan, which has no oil.

      Astrosodi, protecting the world’s oil supply is also a good motive. But Saddam was willing to sell as much oil as he could - he was only slowed down by the UN embargo, which attempted to reduce the amount of weapons he could buy with oil money. If access to oil was the main motive, the embargo could simply have been lifted.

    • Dan says:

      08:54pm | 17/03/10

      Eric, the point is that there are primary reasons and there are secondary reasons. Saving lives was a secondary reason of complete unimportance. The US couldn’t really care less about saving lives, and Wolferitz even said that saving lives wasn’t worth risking American blood and treasure. Simply put, America did not go in to save lives. You also say that it was about ‘preventing terrorism which Saddam supported’; which terrorism was that? Contrary to what Bush said, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. WMD? America would have gone in regardless. ‘Creating a democratic state in the Middle East’? Sadly, you’re correct. But it wasn’t about creating a democratic state for the sake of the Iraqis. It was about his evangelical Christian vision of the world.

      “And by invading, we saved several hundreds of thousands of people who would now be dead if Hussein was still in power.” And you know that, how? Nice, how apologists for the war try to justify by claiming that we saved X number of lives that would otherwise have been killed by Saddam. Except, you do not know how many people Saddam would have killed, in the decade leading up to the war he was killing far less people (his most prolific killings occured in the 80’s and early 90’s), and hundeds of thousands of civilians died as a result of the Iraq war, who might very still be alive today. I can’t believe that even today, there are some people attempting to justify an illegal and immoral war.

      “I might also mention Afghanistan, which has no oil.” Give me a break. Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with saving lives. Conservatives might like to rewrite history, but Afghanistan was about one thing and one thing only: Al Qaeda. It had nothing to do with human rights or saving lives or anything like that. Do not attempt to rewrite history.

      “protecting the world’s oil supply is also a good motive. But Saddam was willing to sell as much oil as he could - he was only slowed down by the UN embargo, which attempted to reduce the amount of weapons he could buy with oil money. If access to oil was the main motive, the embargo could simply have been lifted.” Except, it wasn’t just about access. It was about control. There’s a big difference. Additionally, there are numerous other ways to make money off the war, which don’t involve oil. Just ask Haliburton.

      To be fair, though, hard reasons such as money was secondary to Bush’s evangelical christian extremism and father issues.

    • Phil says:

      04:27am | 18/03/10

      Eric, are you seriously still trying to claim that one of the reasons for invasion was stopping WMD production? There was no production. There were no feasible plans for production. They made it all up.

      Similarly Saddam’s alleged support for terrorism, there is not one credible piece of evidence that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, as was alleged by Bush and co.

      Surely all but the most gullible TT/ACA viewers of 2003, who lapped up every bit of that pre-invasion propaganda, have now accepted that is was all made up? Even Colin Powell, one of the major players of the time, has subsequently acknowledged telling a few porkies. Can there really be sentient beings out there that still believe that rubbish?

    • Richard Fleming says:

      11:59am | 17/03/10

      Great piece Mark.

      Whether money disappeared or not back then. The Aid industry has definitely revolutionised the process in which it monitors and evaluates the use and effectiveness of every dollar given.

      You can go to bed at night knowing that your money has been given to projects which are effectively managed, monitored and evaluated.

    • MF says:

      12:30pm | 17/03/10

      I flat out refuse to give money to aid agencies anymore.

      Way back when, I used to donate my $30 a month to save the starving kids in Africa.  Used to get my update letters saying how my money was being used to support *insert child’s name here*.  Then I had the opportunity to actually visit Africa and thought it’d be a great idea to actually go and visit the child that I’d been supporting.  So I get the details and go visit the village with a local guide.  Only to find out that in the more than 5 years I’d been supporting this charity the only thing the child had received were a pencil and a notepad.  No school had been built, no food provided.  But they got a pencil and notepad!

      An absolute rort.  I don’t know whether it was the charity that was dodgy or the people on the ground who were pilfering the money/supplies.  But this put me off ever donating again.  Now when I visit Africa I buy food on the ground there and take it to orphanages/schools myself.  I have absolutely zero trust in these people.

      Just one personal experience, sure.  But you have to wonder how many others out there aren’t aware of where their money is really going.

    • Mr Subramanian says:

      01:46pm | 17/03/10

      It’s a pity that your one poor experience has led you to generalise that opinion to all other aid organisations. How large and well known was the particular aid organisation in your case? World Vision for example, is all for oversight and governance models, and their financial reports always detail how much is going in to aid itself. There are organisations that manage to put a higher % of income into aid because they are structured differently - using more volunteers, or having less professionally produced communications, for example. How much detail did your update letters include? I’d be interested in finding out more…

    • marley says:

      12:49pm | 17/03/10

      I think this whole mess brings to light the fact that the issue of aid to impoverished nations is a very complex one.  You see starving kids on TV, so you send aid, be it in cash or in the form of actual food.  The cash gets siphoned off, and a lot of the food goes onto the black market.  Even if the food gets to the people who need it, it has the rather nasty side-effect of destroying whatever local agricultural economy there might be by undercutting prices.  And that makes for long-term dependency.

      The fact is that aid, however well intentioned, often carries with it unfortunate consequences.  Fancy tractors supplied to villagers who can’t afford petrol so they rust; processing plants built in countries that have no capacity to maintain them so they break down; dams that result in large scale salination of fields and water supplies; and of course the ever- present opportunity presented by foreign aid for corruption, embezzlement and the like.  I know quite a few people who’ve worked for decades in international aid who would agree that many of the projects undertaken in the past were unnecessary, inappropriate, and even counter-productive.

      I actually think it’s a good thing that the stoush between Geldorf and the BBC has brought to light some of these issues.  Maybe in future we can have more nuanced approaches to calamity, rather than just the standard knee-jerk reaction of throwing money at it.

    • Mr Subramanian says:

      03:26pm | 17/03/10

      The “unfortunate consequences” you mention is something that many aid organisations have recognised and changed to accommodate, so that their aid is delivered in culturally relevant and appropriate ways. So while some groups are still busy constructing orphanages - that’s you, Oprah and Brangelina - you can give to groups who are actually trying to improve the prospects of the local community so that children don’t have to leave their families and siblings World Vision is an excellent example, with projects like teaching farmers sustainable farming practices (in some cases undoing exactly the sort of boneheaded, fertiliser intensive practices which had been previously taught to them), making micro loans or savings groups available so women can start small businesses, and installation of safe drinking water so that children don’t have to walk x kilometres to get it (which impacts on both their health and their education).

    • marley says:

      06:51pm | 17/03/10

      Mr. S - I agree that many aid agencies have recognized this - but a lot of amateurs, like BandAid, and a lot of well-meaning but uninformed people have not.  Take a look at some of the “aid agencies” in Haiti - basically kidnapping kids for the international adoption market in the name of humanitarian relief.

      That’s the problem.  A whole lot of aid is being misdirected, misused or stolen.  The more responsible agencies have learned from their errors, but there are thousands out there that have not.  I just want people to realize the whole issue is far more complex than pictured in the media, and that giving money without thinking about the consequences is no help at all. 

      And if you look at the title of this article, well, I’m not so sure the attacks on Bob G. are all that baseless - maybe disproportionate, but not baseless - and interestingly, Colvin’s last few lines would support my opinion and not his own headline.

    • Zoe Higgie says:

      01:09pm | 17/03/10

      Great article - only quibble: isn’t it redundant to describe Geldof as ‘over confident’? Isn’t that a permanent state of affairs?

    • glengyron says:

      02:36pm | 17/03/10

      What about the CIA report that also confirms that aid money was spent on weapons?

      In terms of who was in a position to know the reality of the situation it surely goes TLFP members, REST, reporters such as yourself that were actually there… and then Bob Geldof who was NOT in a position to see what was going on behind the scenes on the ground.

      Everyone in that situation had a political viewpoint that they brought to their experience, but to argue about the ‘95%’ claim misses the more important question of ‘how can we avoid this sort of corruption of aid in the future’.

    • Astrosodi says:

      02:51pm | 17/03/10

      The answer to that is simple! By ending human sufferring…and achieving world peace. We need to send in a crack squad of Miss Universes. Just kidding (about a very serious topic, mind you). The only way we can avoid corruption is for all humans to act ethically. Sadly, it’s this sort of fundamental, and apparently simple, appraoch to life on this planet, and too each other, that we can’t achieve.

      It’s really quite heartbreaking, isn;t it, that we have to ask the question - ‘How can we stop committing such horrendous abuses against each other?’

    • Eric says:

      03:08pm | 17/03/10

      We can’t stop humans from being abusive, but we can minimise the damage by accepting the fact that not everyone is a snow-white innocent.

      That’s why capitalism and conservatism work - they accept human nature and work within it, rather than pretending in rainbows and unicorns.

    • Astrosodi says:

      03:29pm | 17/03/10

      Hi Eric…hopefully you can tell from my post (the part where I mention that this is—heartbreakingly—something ‘that we can’t achieve’) that I don’t believe in ‘rainbows and unicorns’. Hopefully, though, we don’t have to ignore and abandon the great capacity for good that people have (otherwise, Eric, you’re own suggestions that we invade for altruistic reasons is fundamentally flawed).

      Hopefully, being a good human being will be worth something one day, and not just brushed off as ‘leftie, PC’ crap. Human beings are also capable of good deeds and sharing.

      (Btw, it’s okay to believe in rainbows, because they exist).

    • Eric says:

      03:40pm | 17/03/10

      Being a good human being has always been the goal of rightie conservatives.

      But rightie conservatives don’t make the mistake of assuming someone is a good human being simply by virtue of being poor, black, female, or any of the other lefty cliche classes.

      Goodness and badness are independent from these.

    • Astrosodi says:

      09:52pm | 17/03/10

      Hi Eric
      I don’t presume anyone is good or bad purely based on membership to class, regardless of where you feel that class may sit on a left/right line. I’m not sure what you’re assuming about me, but I appreciate (as I’ve stated) that there are many complex and interrelated reasons for why were in Iraq and Afghanisatn I’ve only stated that it’s simplistic to believe that economics and interests other than altruism have played their part, and with that I think you agree. It appears that we also agree that people are very much capable of doing good deeds for no reason other than it’s the right thing to do; I think that they ~should~ do it more. That doesn’t mean I am not realistic; but I can always hope.

    • Clem says:

      04:44pm | 17/03/10

      Mark, great article. It’s good to know what really went on from someone who was there than from a TV producer who’s chasing an explosive story.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 Very difficult to believe the excitment of 'Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme' website doesn't have ppl all over it.

Malcolm Farr

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 As for the 'Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping' website, just how do you contain your excitement?

Malcolm Farr

RT @lynlinking: @farrm51 Well the links should be posted on Twitter more, by people that care about the Government. Perhaps the MSM could help cheers lyn

Malcolm Farr

941 web sites and nothing to read. The rarely visited http://t.co/vPfJmesu sites. http://t.co/MhXMyvZv

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

An insecure workforce makes for an insecure society

An insecure workforce makes for an insecure society

It’s usually best to avoid putting too many statistics in a post but reading the ACTU’s report…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: The greatest ending to a football season ever?

Dave B says:

Congratulations & well deserved win! I've been a Utd supporter from 7 years of age, even stuck with them when they went down to the 2nd Div. However, despite the X-town rivalry & even as a devout MU fan, I can say that I truly admired the determination, courage & skill shown by the Blues - What a spectacle,… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter