pliptrot wrote:60% of the price of poppies goes to administration. That is why I won't wear one.
I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my SM-G900F using hovercraft full of eels.
According to the Royal British Legion 2016 accounts (link - PDF) the Poppy Appeal raised £47.6 million & cost £12.5 million. I make that 26% rather than 60%.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
Tangled Metal wrote:BTW it's failure of diplomacy not politics that results in war. I believe that's possibly a fine distinction.
And who carries out the diplomacy,if not politicians?
True they set the policies but career diplomats will be doing the real heavy lifting on any matter I would expect. Jeez! It would be a real nightmare if politicians did it all on their own.
Perhaps I've got too high a regard for career diplomats and that's bunkum. Or too low a regard for politicians that I can't see them doing the diplomacy hard work. Is it even possible to have a too low a regard for the current set of politicians?
pliptrot wrote:60% of the price of poppies goes to administration. That is why I won't wear one.
I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my SM-G900F using hovercraft full of eels.
According to the Royal British Legion 2016 accounts (link - PDF) the Poppy Appeal raised £47.6 million & cost £12.5 million. I make that 26% rather than 60%.
Ah but in cost is that manufacturing cost only. Do they include other overheads related to the appeal? I think I read a figure that admin costs in most mainstream charities was a lot higher than that percentage, significantly over 30%. I guess you've also got to include costs to distribute the moneys. Charities are not very efficient these days, especially the big business ones like RBL, Oxfam, cancer UK.
Tangled Metal wrote:BTW it's failure of diplomacy not politics that results in war. I believe that's possibly a fine distinction.
And who carries out the diplomacy,if not politicians?
True they set the policies but career diplomats will be doing the real heavy lifting on any matter I would expect. Jeez! It would be a real nightmare if politicians did it all on their own.
Perhaps I've got too high a regard for career diplomats and that's bunkum. Or too low a regard for politicians that I can't see them doing the diplomacy hard work. Is it even possible to have a too low a regard for the current set of politicians?
We share the low regard generally for politicians,but ultimartely its they who make the decisions to go to war,and in the recent past all too willingly IMHO. As TC mentioned up thread,without the armed forces being properly equipped for the job in hand it's a case of lions led by donkeys. As for diplomats,to much of the old school tie network brought about by the rank class system that permeates UK society at those levels,in short,it stinks to high heaven
Last edited by reohn2 on 15 Nov 2017, 7:23pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2 wrote:without the armed forces being properly equipped for the job in hand it's a case of lions led by donkeys.
It's not confined to todays conflicts. Crimea was an example of many dying from disease and cold rather than conflict. The temperature range there was more extreme than the individuals who decided to intervene were aware of. There was the confused messages of the charge of the light brigade and the personality conflicts between the likes of lucan, cardigan and raglan. Then in WW1 we had cavalry charges at the start and the "it'll be over by christmas" false optimism. Warfare had changed but many still believed in the methods of the past.
Perhaps this is half the trouble, politicians and military leaders may be overly optimistic about their military ability and perhaps have an arrogance that the enemy is not at their level of fighting expertise. No excuse nowadays with the depth of military intelligence compared to the past but we still seem to blunder our way through. We have a huge history of military successes but so many too seem to have been skin of the teeth victories, more luck than good judgement.
I WENT into a public 'ouse to get a pint o' beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, " We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I: O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, go away " ; But it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls! For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, wait outside "; But it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, O it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap. An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit. Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? " But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints; While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, fall be'ind," But it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, O it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! " But it's " Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
Tangled Metal wrote:BTW it's failure of diplomacy not politics that results in war. I believe that's possibly a fine distinction.
And who carries out the diplomacy,if not politicians?
True they set the policies but career diplomats will be doing the real heavy lifting on any matter I would expect. Jeez! It would be a real nightmare if politicians did it all on their own.
Perhaps I've got too high a regard for career diplomats and that's bunkum. Or too low a regard for politicians that I can't see them doing the diplomacy hard work. Is it even possible to have a too low a regard for the current set of politicians?
You are assuming that the brief given to the diplomats was to avoid war. It is not the case, it is to achieve the governments' political objective. A prime example being the condition given to Saddam Husein that he could avoid war by handing over his WMDs, it wasnt peace or even WMDs that we were after, it was regime change.
