Sigh. The Adele thing, true or not (I personally suspect it is true, though accept that many of the tabloid reportings of it are exaggerated, though that's irrelevant) has relatively little to do with what I dislike about Geldof. I can't even say for sure that I do personally dislike him, because I don't actually know him. No more than any of us can say that we LIKE him... Again, because none of us know him.

It's also not what I've been focussing on in this thread regarding Geldof / Africa / Band Aid and what I think is inherently wrong with it, what I dislike about the man in THAT sense, since maybe my first two posts in this thread.

But if you want to focus on that to make a point, that's entirely up to you my friend. It's a bit weak, though.

Give 'me' the money isb a pretty odd turn of phrase given what band aid was meant to be about D: I didnt know this

So Bob Geldorf says; "“There are people dying now, so give me the money” and swears at one point in the broadcast of the original Live Aid.

For Fecks Sake!!! The guy was a 34 year old pop star in 1985 who was a product of the 'punk' era - as were most of the audience - and not only was it 'cool' to talk in such a fashion, the event was mega, historically ground-breaking, and a phenomenal success, so everyone present was emotionally hyper charged

As for saying bollocks twice during a Sky News broadcast?-- Ooooh I'm shocked. It's reprehensible. Outrageous. Letter to the Times at least.

Oh p--l--e--a--s--e do me a favour. The words; 'Nit' and 'Picking' combined, and 'over-reaction' spring to mind.

:nono::nono::nono:

YOU were the one to raise those points in the first place.

If they're irrelevant to what you want to say then keep your weak irrelevant points out of the thread.

It will come to a point where nobody will stick their neck out to help anyone, anyone would think Bob was advocating conscripting the unemployed and shipping them to Liberia to nurse the sick rather than asking people to buy a 1.99 single :laugh:

Gets on phone to call Michael Buffer. Headlines looming; "Will this fight eclipse Bellew v Cleverly 2?".

"Let's get ready to ruuuuummmmbbbble!":hehe::hehe::hehe:

What an absolutely spliffing, splendiferous idea Cherie!!! Must text Cameron.:hehe:

It is like people on this thread have not grasped how much we give to Africa and what we have done already


i give up..:shrug:

Interesting article - especially;

"Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country and its newest economic powerhouse."

Probably all the trillions of pounds Nigerians rake in every year from all their pathetic internet scamming.

In any event, just because Nigeria has its house in order does not mean that there is not great urgency to combat this virus - such a suggestion is totally preposterous.

why

Oh I didn't know we HAD to buy the single :suspect:

I don't consider them irrelevant but you implied that my entire problem with the Band Aid concept, and the way Geldof sells it, is based on what he (ok, ok, "allegedly") said about Adele and me having some sort of "odd fixation" on him / disliking him for this and because of his family issues... which completely ignores the majority of my other posts in the thread which didn't reference either of these two factors at all :shrug:

Because the virus is the perfect organism.

Because the Ebola virus is highly contagious.

Because we don't yet understand everything about it

Because the Ebola virus is so potentially lethal.

Because our preventative policies are woefully inadequate.

Because the sooner any war is won, the fewer the causalities.

Well tbf here the only time I have personally noticed/heard of Bob in any media at all for the past while is due to his daughters death and then on the xfactor promoting the band aid single but like I say that's just my personal thoughts.

Surely any press is a good thing when the sole purpose is raising awareness though, the song reaching number one even better?

This is why I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about this, even if it does benefit the celebs that are taking the time out of their own lives to do it, what does that matter? as long as the main point gets across about this virus and who better to put that point across than people that are looked up to in a way.

I didn't imply those were the only things at all. I was mocking your irrelevant points.

Its actually crazy the backlash about this, yet think of all these people saying what a great job the celebs done raising awareness for when they jumped on the 'ice water' bandwagon..

I do believe that a lot of the time these charity things are self-serving. Especially in Bobs case tbh. However...it does raise awareness and cash for good causes, so I dont see the need to get worked up about it.

Yes,Exactly.

Haven't seen anyone on here say they wouldn't give to a charity for ebola. Lots of people have already donated. It isn't like no one gave anything until Bob stepped up and pricked everyone's conscience, although that's what's coming across.

It's Ebola, it doesn't exactly need more awareness when the media has been dominated with stories about it for months. At this point everyone knows what Ebola is. It doesn't need a prick with a Messiah Complex to muddy the understanding of Africa's situation and the virus whilst lining his own pockets at it's expense.

No what is coming across is a lot of cynicism about Geldofs actions, and dragging his reputation and his relationship with his family into the argument just for the hell of it.

That's a very good point.

It actually does need more awareness and lots of it, especially since there is still a slim risk that it could reach the UK at some point, hell there was even members on here debating it in the other thread that clearly had no understanding of the virus at all apart from the name... They had no idea how it spreads, the incubation time frame and so on, so if it takes some high profile people like the celebrities to make more people aware of it then it can only be a good thing regardless of who organised it, it's getting a great amount of exposure and like mentioned a lot in the thread no one is being forced to buy it.

Well said! whatever anyones bizarre imagination cooks up as to his alternative agenda for raising awareness the fact is he is... And getting 1D involved? Masterstroke.

More money is going to be there to fight this virus thanks to the charity single. Geldolf comes across as a bit of a crusader, but the end result is that there will be more resources to fight this problem that is facing a part of the world.

What's better? Doing nothing, him behaving like most of the rest of us who don't t give a damn about ebola. Or him trying his best to help, devoting his time, energy and influence.

Even if his efforts just save one person, isn't that enough to justify his actions.

But it's getting his face on the TV and newspapers. Doing good for the world pales into comparison when it gives him some fame. :mad: :fist:

I wouldn't even say it's raised awareness of Ebola that much and it certainly hasn't educated anyone on how it spreads. It's done more to raise awareness of Bob Geldof than anything else and, unless there's a verse I've missed which details how Ebola is spread and how to avoid it, it's not educating people either.

It's just a shallow gesture that ultimately serves the celeb's interests above all else.

If Bob Geldof made an appeal that didn't present himself as Africa's sole Savior and instead highlighted the plight and the people that are actually doing something significant to prevent the spread of Ebola then I'd support it but I can't support something as self serving as this 'charity' single.

Yes. And just to reinforce your points about Geldorf raising awareness - or polarising it as I like to think of it - 149 posts on this thread alone as a result of this single.

If this single can stir up so much controversy and move so many people to post on the subject just on this forum, then those claiming Geldorf and his single are redundant better think again, because we may or may not all have been aware of Ebola, but nobody was even talking about it until this subject came along.

Hasn't raised awareness that much...did you watch x factor on sunday? And 1D are on it...look at their UK and US fanbase. Some of the fans of the show are maybe not as up on their contemporary issues as others but I would think that this effort helped.
He has nothing to promote has he? no new music, book so what is the benefit I don't see it.
Even ( And I don't think for a second you are) if he was doing it for those reasons you claim it's raising funds that are badly needed in the process so who cares.
As said if you don't agree with the methods, the man or the music don't buy it easy as.

At the same time it contributes to the negative stereotypes about Africa (the whole continent, not just the few affected countries ) and these stereotypes are part of what keeps these countries POOR and their people DYING. It is impossible for them to climb whilst westerners happily paint them as the world's poor cousins.

Like I keep saying - might save lives tomorrow, will kill millions more over the decades.

I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-odg?CMP=fb_gu


Worth a read.

The message is, that for the sake of a few million raised by charity every few years helping a few towns and people, the tourism industry in Africa is decimated, and few want to invest in African businesses or enterprises costing the continent billions, robbing them of the chance to properly grow their own economies.

I hope that people can start to get to grips with this. I know it's difficult to understand that raising charity money can end up having the opposite effect. But at least give it some thought.

No that is not difficult to understand at all, and I don't know why you think it would be, if Africa can go it alone by all means feel free to go ahead, I don't see Liberia or Sierra Leone turning away the Army or the NHS staff or any other countries staff though, neither do I hear of more economically sound African countries stepping in to help, maybe if they were seen to be actually doing anything the charities might back off? To my mind this is about preventing this disease spreading to other counties and stopping it in its tracks, it has nothing to do with the African economy or lack of

Would it not have been better to sing to other African countries a song that says

stop spending on military and start helping your poorer neighbours?

maybe if top celebs started that narrative it may help more?

It has everything to do with the lack of African economy because parts of Africa have been kept under a boot-heel, a boot heel that things like Band Aid inadvertently add weight to. Again, it's not "all Bob's fault lol", they just further the perceptions with their ham-fisted messages - they provide charity but damage the prospects of any real economy developing.

If these countries had had proper sanitation and healthcare systems in place a year ago, Ebola would never have spread beyond a few isolated cases. Even if we do "stop Ebola in it's tracks", the further damage done to these economies ensures that nothing is going to improve any time soon, and it's only a matter of time before there's some other viral outbreak or disaster.

It's not that anyone should just "do nothing" but these are complex, intricate issues that need to be addressed, properly, to stop things like this from happening anywhere in the world. It's not OK to just let it happen over and over and then release a knee-jerk charity song and say "Everything's going to be OK! We're sending you some lovely money to help you, as you must need help to survive in your putrid hell-pit of a continent!". It's clumsy, and the good done in the short term is outweighed massively by the long term damage to these countries' images.

Like I said; it's like a bull in a china shop. It's trying to perform an appendectomy with a claw hammer.

If I understand what you are saying T.S. - then isn't a logical extension of this argument, that we should stop all benefits to the needy in this country because it's a 'short term' fix which only exacerbates the underlying causes of that need, and is encouraging the recipients of such benefits never to do anything for themselves which will make them self-sufficient?

Why can't the countries receiving Bob's millions still develop their economy independently of, and extra to these millions?

Why are such vast amounts of charity monies actually harming such independent economic development?

Surely, then, the real truth is, that the ruling authorities of these countries would still be as impotent and inert in developing any kind of self-sustaining economy even without Bob's millions? Therefore, no type of funding at all would be available for dealing with this terrible virus, it's causes and effects?

I admit to being confused by your contention.

No - although there is indeed a problem with benefits recipients being demonised - it's not the same thing. I'm not saying that these countries don't help themselves because they receive charity. I'm saying that this specific type of charity, that hammers home the message that Africa is poor / dirty / helpless, inadvertently gives people a certain image of these countries that is damaging to them and COSTS them more than what charity they get. Like I said, tourism is all but destroyed (no one wants to go to these countries, we've seen how awful they are, right?) and people with real money don't want to invest in countries that are seen to be "failing".

If a charity drive that raises millions ends up costing their economy ten times that in lost revenue because of the "bad press", then it will have been a complete failure. And yet it will be hailed as a success.

I'm not necessarily talking about the Ebola issue here, it's understandable that people want to avoid countries when there is disease, but the original band aid and follow ups... Yes, they did a lot of good in the short term in 1984,but how much has their message about poor, starving Africa actually harmed Africans in the three decades since then? I would argue, more than any of us can imagine. Exponentially more than can be raised with yet another song release.


The article I linked to explains the effect much more succinctly than I have I think.

Again, there's probably very few people who aren't aware of Ebola and Band Aid does nothing but say' EBOLA EXISTS! GIVE US MONEY'. It's a shallow message and it's not raising awareness of anything that a vast majority of the UK isn't aware of.

His motives do matter because he's serving himself up as this great savior when all Band Aid does is throw other people's money at the problem and hopes it goes away whilst also stealing spotlight from other more meaningful and useful appeals. Like I said before, if his appeal highlighted the charities and organisations combatting the disease then I'd support it.

I can't support a vacuous appeal like this in which Geldof and his merry band of arseholes are presented as living gods that have taken an afternoon off to help all the poor little Africans who apparently doesn't know what Christmas is (despite Christianity having a huge following in Africa) and can't stand on their own two feet for a second without Saint Bob's help. It's self indulgent tripe that patronises the people it's meant to be aiding.

I agree again Dezzy, on it being fine if it was to highlight the organisations that are and have been working hard (and quietly) in these areas, working WITH the local people, for years. No one is saying that Charity is a bad thing or that no one should donate. Just that there are better people to send that money to and this siphons money away from those.

The world has changed a lot in 30 years and they should be having a modern, progressive charity drive to tackle this. Not a tired old relic (the song itself, as well as Sir Bob) wheeled out to rehash ideas from decades ago. As you say, this wrong headed idea that if you throw a block of money at a problem it will go away.