So, apart from his mildly disparaging description of the continent of Africa, was Godfrey actually [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386482/So-right-UKIP-MEP-Godfrey-Blooms-comments-caused-storm--ample-evidence-claims.htmlWrong[/url in his assessment?

Is this the Godfrey Bloom who is utterly opposed to the EU but is happy to milk it for all he can get?

The Godfrey Bloom whose verbal incontinence and attention-seeking xenophobia means he has to apologise for most of the things he says?

That Godfrey Bloom ... you want us to discuss his opinions?

He is a clumsy gobe who enjoys the publicity that his gob brings, but in principle he is correct and he will make an awful lot of people nod their heads in agreement, if not in agreement at the actual words he uses to describe foreigners.

More worrying is the fact that UKIP tend to act as the Tory party's thinktank these days, they currently have the Tories in an absolute panic in the polls and there is no doubt at all that the so-called "racist van" publicity campaign was a direct public funded attempt to put UKIP back in their box and steal the immigration issue back from them.

I expect to see Cameron announcing something on foreign aid spending very shortly.

Saw the full interview on Look North Hull last night and he said he will only apologise to President Bongo of Gabon if he thinks he meant him, otherwise he stands by what he said and in the context he said it. Arrogant, racist barsteward.

... also reactionary, misogynistic drunkard and lecher.

Yes,

He also said it in a deliberately provocative, insulting, divisive and disparaging way. Which makes him a racist.

He also said it in a way that made him sound not all that intelligent. Which makes him stupid.

Wrong, Stupid, Racist. It’s a pretty good description of UKIP and unfortunately the people he purports to represent in sports clubs up and down the country.

Now, now.

There's nowt wrong with a spot of lechery.

Indeed Mintball. A little of what you fancy does you good.

However, at the risk of thread drift, can I take it that the perpetually offended, (who apparently are almost all refugees from Yorkshire/Southstander!) have got their knee jerking under control. Would it be possible to address the points made in the link?

Anyone who has had business dealings in that part of the World knows full well that they will be fortunate to see at best 75% of the invoiced goods price, as various officials are rewarded for their "professional" help and advice. And of course, this is all done with the full knowledge that there will be consequences should some eager young Media hound delve into it.

So why should HM Government still be pumping billions of pounds of easily diverted "aid" into corrupt African Politicians' Bank accounts? A fraction of which could provide the City of Leeds with a modern transit system, which I suspect would appeal to the ferret huggers amongst us.

I think we as a country would sound pretty hypocritical to start lecturing others on corruption. We just call it ‘outsourcing’ or ‘privatisation’ or just hide it, or tell people it is for their own good.

If we did do what you propose, I’ve no doubt that just as much would be creamed off by the governments favoured parties here as we would lose to corruption in areas where aid is sent.

OK ... how about "[ichauvinist whose judgement of women is scaled according to the size of their breasts[/i"...?

There has been a sensible debate on the issue this morning on BBC Radio Leeds with the warning to set aside the issue of how the message was delivered and just concentrate on the issue - the issue being two fold, should we donate billions to regimes who's leaders pocket a percentage of it for their personal use, and should we be donating billions at all when there are a hundred and one other causes that the money could be used for in the UK ?

The consensus among the chattering ferret huggers was that yes, a debate is required at the least as to why the foreign aid budget is ringfenced in this current period of budget slashing to the point of destruction of services, and I think they have a point.

There were interviews with various aid agencies who pointed out the obvious, that some of them do do good work with the poor and starving but of course none of them had any experience of how much is wasted on bribes or skimming, and they also pointed out that any country who contributes to foreign aid is, remarkably by coincidence, also likely to be top of a list of suppliers to major projects in those very same aided countries, so if you bung a dictator £1b to help him build a dam then he'll probably award the dam project to a business based in yoru country - and then go on holiday to his new flat in Knightsbridge.

When it comes to knee-jerking, I think Godfrey Bloom is a stand-out champion at that sport.

Your link was to the Mail Online ... do you possibly have a more reliable source?
You know, one that can compare what proportion of foreign aid is spent well against what is wasted or misappropriated?
Or is the idea that because foreign aid all goes to foreigners it is therefore all wasted?

"Ferret huggers"? ... whooo-hooo, aren't you the bold outspoken one?