[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

He's not doing it for charity though, it's a vanity project. If he had truly altruistic intentions he wouldn't put himself front and center of it all, making himself out to be a Saint when in fact he's profiting heavily by raising his own profile. If he really wanted to help he could have just highlighted the charities and make an appeal to raise donations instead.

Charity singles are cynical things and it's not really charity if the person doing it is also benefiting from it, it's why I refuse to support them. Even if I did I can't support a song that's so patronising and ignorant.

Exactly. I think when people are looking at Geldof and not understanding that he has, at least, many and varied motives when he makes his "impassioned speeches" they can't possibly be taking into account the amount of money he has made from Band Aud. He would be penniless by now with out it (he was never particularly talented) but instead, he still has an absolutely gargantuan profile. He has exploited African nations to do this. The fact that he has accidentally done some good in the process - maybe - does not absolve him of this. The man is a vulture.

Which leads me into what I said before about African scholars suggesting he makes things worse:

He has these fundraising campaigns seeking to raise money to ease the symptoms of the huge political problems in many parts of Africa. In doing so, he bolsters the world's negative perceptions of "dusty, poor" Africa and in the process worsens those political problems and as a knock on effect, deepens the issues that he's raising money to remedy. He wants to SAVE poor old Africa, he has absolutely no interest in EMPOWERING African people, and as such, he is a part of the problem. He is part of the very reason that African health infrastructure has not been able to contain Ebola. He's been a part of that problem since the early 80s. Good old bob.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Exactly. I think when people are looking at Geldof and not understanding that he has, at least, many and varied motives when he makes his "impassioned speeches" they can't possibly be taking into account the amount of money he has made from Band Aud. He would be penniless by now with out it (he was never particularly talented) but instead, he still has an absolutely gargantuan profile. He has exploited African nations to do this. The fact that he has accidentally done some good in the process - maybe - does not absolve him of this. The man is a vulture.

Which leads me into what I said before about African scholars suggesting he makes things worse:

He has these fundraising campaigns seeking to raise money to ease the symptoms of the huge political problems in many parts of Africa. In doing so, he bolsters the world's negative perceptions of "dusty, poor" Africa and in the process worsens those political problems and as a knock on effect, deepens the issues that he's raising money to remedy. He wants to SAVE poor old Africa, he has absolutely no interest in EMPOWERING African people, and as such, he is a part of the problem. He is part of the very reason that African health infrastructure has not been able to contain Ebola. He's been a part of that problem since the early 80s. Good old bob.

I always read your posts with relish T.S. because you 'know your onions', but I'm lost here with your views on this to be honest.

Is there any proof that Geldorf has made money from Band Aid over the past 30 years, and that he'd have been 'skint' without it?

I read somewhere once that he'd made a lot of money during the 'Boomtown Rats' heyday, and that he'd invested it wisely - including in property.

I don't understand your view that he is a 'vulture' either T.S. - how?

Finally, why do you maintain that his efforts have actually exacerbated the problems in Africa?

These are genuine questions because I have the polar opposite view of Geldorf as a person, what he is trying to achieve, and his motives for doing so - and I am therefore baffled.