|
BandAid, Comic Relief, Children in Need and every other faux celebrity begging bowl which jumped on the band-waggon are long past their sell-by dates. The original concept was brilliant but I cannot be the only one who's heartily sick of both the original song and the continual self-righteous preachiness of both Geldof and Bono.
|
A good piece and I happen to agree with the writer on the points she raises.
I too find it odd that Geldoff trots out a rehash of the song every ten years or so and yet nothing seems to have changed in Africa - our government still sends millions in aid as do other nations and the great British public still digs deep on Red Nose Day and similar events but Africans remain in poverty. Perhaps its time Bob and his merry band of skinny jean wearing, gel hair product smeared celebs did something different, such as rolled up their sleeves and spent a year in Africa building up its infrastructure or dishing out condoms. It could save us all from another wretched single released by One Dimension at the very least!
|
Quite a fair article... pleased though at closing on 60 I know more of the recording participants than the article writer who the Telegraph describes as a streetsmart twentysomething.
By chance Sir Bob and the Rats performed at a small venue near her a couple of weeks back. A venue the management described to me as a place "giving a platform to the wannabes on the way up and the hasbeens on the way down".
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 18 Nov 14 at 13:32
|
I am pretty sure that Geldorf only trotts this recording out every ten years just out of some ego trip and keeping himself in the public eye.
|
|
No sense of irony in the idiot's comments on Adele "Bringing up a family"
|
|
Geldof, Bono and Sting. Who'd want to be stuck on a desert island with those three?
|
|
You could always eat one of them and comfort yourself with the thought "it's what they would have wanted"
|
OK, let's assume that Geldorf et al are as self serving and cynical as most here seem to believe. Let's take it as read that the record is absolute trash.
Let also imagine, as seems likely, that it raises millions which go towards the treatment and care of ebola victims. Is that not on balance a good thing?
If your loved ones were dying of this terrible disease would you particularly care where the money came from to fund the hospital they were being treated in and the nurses that were treating them? I suspect not.
|
Fair comment CG, but the point being made in the article is that perfectly decent people are being pilloried for daring to refuse what Geldof in particular seems to treat as a royal summons.
Given the previous track record of charity money going to Africa, I'd also have my doubts as to how much of this particular stunt's takings will end up where it deserves to be.
|
>> OK, let's assume that Geldorf et al are as self serving and cynical as most
>> here seem to believe. Let's take it as read that the record is absolute trash.
>>
>> Let also imagine, as seems likely, that it raises millions which go towards the treatment
>> and care of ebola victims. Is that not on balance a good thing?
>>
>> If your loved ones were dying of this terrible disease would you particularly care where
>> the money came from to fund the hospital they were being treated in and the
>> nurses that were treating them? I suspect not.
There is no shortage of money and resources from old world governments going into the ebola problem, because its an issue that could escape and bite them.
It is however a fantastic bandwagon for the "et al" to jump on. And his sarcastic "she is raising a family" put down from a man who clearly needs some lessons in family is ironic as mentioned above. He wont see it that way of course.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 18 Nov 14 at 22:49
|
AIDS and Malaria are more worthy causes by a factor of 1000.
Not to mention education and sanitation.
Ebola?
Meh.
|
|
Surely education and sanitation are one of the prime ways in reducing ebola and constitute a major area in which funds are desperately needed.
|
Not actually true. there is an acute shortage of funds as witnessed by the DEC appeal. Many countries e.g Germany have actually given surprisingly little.
And the point I am making is that if money is required does it really matter whether we liike the people or means of raising those funds it if they are succesful in raising large sums and is used to alleviate suffering.
For those who are upset by Mr Geldorf there are plenty of alternative ways of giving.
|
|
Quite so. To my local children's hospice.
|
If you think West African Ebola outbreaks will be controlled by guys/gals in space suits, think again.
Education is absolutely paramount - as it is will all forms of disease control.
And with respect to my post above - a bunch of cash spent on rubber johnnies and mosquito nets will save far more lives than chucking billions directly into Ebola.
Over 6 million or so in South Africa have HIV (>50% women, and around 15% of the total population).
I know which is the real 'crisis'.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 19 Nov 14 at 00:48
|
"Education is absolutely paramount - as it is will all forms of disease control."
Yes, of course but ………..
If a hole appears in the dam, then you stick your finger in it to stop it getting any worse. Then you patch it up …….. and then you educate people about hydrology - which could take rather longer.
|
>> If a hole appears in the dam, then you stick your finger in it to
>> stop it getting any worse. Then you patch it up …….. and then you educate
>> people about hydrology - which could take rather longer.
True, but I understand a major element in the spread of ebola is to do with cultural practices about treatment of the body of the deceased and its burial.
The way it is prepared for burial includes extensive ceremonial washing etc. Where death has been accompanied by copious vomiting and uncontrolled excretion AND the products are highly infectious you have a means of rapid transmission. What's desperately needed is education to change those practices.
Ebola is reported to be actually quite difficult to catch without being in close proximity to bodily fluids. Unlike flu it's not spread by coughs and sneezes. Given Western practices re burial and widespread use of cremation it's though that it would not spread so rapidly here.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 19 Nov 14 at 08:30
|
Education is absolutely paramount - as it is will all forms of disease control.
And with respect to my post above - a bunch of cash spent on rubber johnnies and mosquito nets will save far more lives than chucking billions directly into Ebola.
Over 6 million or so in South Africa have HIV (>50% women, and around 15% of the total population).
I know which is the real 'crisis'."
Of course education is essential as you rightly point out. It does however cost money. Yes HIV and Malaria are statistically far bigger problems and need a lot more more money spent on them. However to deny that ebola is a huge problem to the people and economies of West Africa would be absurd and not to attempt to help the people suffering from this terrible disease would be wrong.
Would you advocate letting the victims die by the roadside without benefit of basic nursing care or a roof over their heads for lack of funds on the basis of cost efficiency? Listened to Will Pooley on the radio this morning. Is he not worthy of support?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 19 Nov 14 at 08:21
|
|
Don't know him. Don't know her. Don't know him. Don't know her. Stop warbling. Is that Coldplay? Bono. Seal. Don't know him. Don't know her. Sinead. Don't know her. Don't know them. Don't know her. Don't know them. Fat git. Don't know her. Don't know them. Don't know them. Ginger. Ponce. Geldof.
|
>> Don't know him.....etc..... Ginger. Ponce. Geldof.
Excellent BBD, but I can do better:
I don't recognise Coldplay, Bono, Seal or Sinead either. Not young enough.
|
>>Would you advocate letting the victims die by the roadside without benefit of basic nursing care or a roof over their heads for lack of funds on the basis of cost efficiency?
Of course - I'm a GP.
|
>> >>Would you advocate letting the victims die by the roadside without benefit of basic nursing
>> care or a roof over their heads for lack of funds on the basis of
>> cost efficiency?
>>
>> Of course - I'm a GP.
We could offer you 50 quid for each +ve diagnosis of Ebola? would that help?
|
>>We could offer you 50 quid for each +ve diagnosis of Ebola? would that help?
The dementia 'bonus' doesn't apply up here but it's certainly a very distasteful way to be remunerated.
A blob of cash to screen for dementia would make more sense, regardless of outcome of the screening.
It would make more sense still if there was effective treatment of course.
|
>> Education is absolutely paramount - as it is will all forms of disease control.
>>
>> And with respect to my post above - a bunch of cash spent on rubber
>> johnnies and mosquito nets will save far more lives than chucking billions directly into Ebola.
>>
Which, I understand, is not totally dissimilar to what Her Maj said yesterday/today?
|
>> a bunch of cash spent on rubber johnnies and mosquito nets will save far more lives than chucking billions directly into Ebola.
>> Over 6 million or so in South Africa have HIV (>50% women, and around 15% of the total population).
>> I know which is the real 'crisis'.
Yes. The media are making an unholy, unjustified clamour about ebola. They must have put a lot of people in a bit of a state about it.
|
>> If your loved ones were dying of this terrible disease would you particularly care where
>> the money came from to fund the hospital they were being treated in and the
>> nurses that were treating them? I suspect not.
I'm sure, but its not the intended destination or use of the money which bothers me, it's the approach to raising it.
Why doesn't Geldof stump up 10%, or whatever, of his weekly disposable income and then ask others to follow?
Giving a day or two of his time when his livelihood doesn't depend on working regulated hours is meaningles. Or close to it.
|
>> Giving a day or two of his time when his livelihood doesn't depend on working regulated hours is meaningles. Or close to it.
I don't know Bob Geldof and he isn't a hero of mine, but I can't help feeling you are being a bit unfair here FMR. Doubtless he has helpers, but organising band aid twice must have taken quite a lot more than 'a day or two'. As for assembling the band, the image of 'herding cats' seems particularly appropriate.
There may well have been times when Geldof wished he'd never thought up the scheme in the first place and considered simply producing some f*****g money himself. Seems more than likely to me.
|
Do the people in Africa really benefit from all this.I often wonder where the money ends up does it go to the people who need it most?
There was a African young women on one off the discussion programs the other day on the Television.She is well educated and protested against this kind of aid.The African lady had a bit of a argument with Ester Rantzen about this kind of help.
It is beyond me that in this day and age people are still starving and picking up all kind of illnesses and not much happens in Afrika.
Bill Gates keeps going on about this he supposed to give so much but getting richer by the day.Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
|
>> Do the people in Africa really benefit from all this.I often wonder where the money ends up does it go to the people who need it most?
Some of it probably does Dutchie, although it's hard to say how much. But Band Aid did have the effect of concentrating attention on Africans who are in need. Most aren't in need of course, or not in need of food anyway. Clean water perhaps.
The African lady you refer to was expressing quite a common attitude. Some Africans resent what they see as a patronising attitude by rich countries which are themselves often very unequal socially. It isn't hard to understand, although it isn't very practical or realistic.
|
>> Do the people in Africa really benefit from all this.I often wonder where the money
>> ends up does it go to the people who need it most?
>>
A question that is being asked more and more often.
The original concept of Bandaid was a decent and noble one, and no doubt it did a vast amount of good. That, however, was nearly thirty years ago, and not much seems to have changed, at least not for the better. Add to that a growing sense of "charity fatigue" in the developed world, coupled with an increasing public awareness that Africans have cottoned on to the fact that we are wealthy and generous, and rather than us sending our gifts to them in Africa they're more likely to come over here to Europe and collect this munificence.
Like the NHS, Africa needs more than a constant and ever-growing supply of dollars.
|
Very hard to offer aid to countries without it appearing at least in some respects condescending.
Equally I'm sure it is hard for government aid not to be used to curry favour and influence.
Perhaps it's a bit pie-in-the-sky but I would have thought a 'twinning' arrangement between developed and undeveloped nations to encourage increased trade and education would be a great way for African nations to develop economically and educationally, and for developed economies to have a more symbiotic relationship with the rest of the world.
Currently it looks more like we treat them as parasites, exploit them, or both.
|
>
>> I don't know Bob Geldof and he isn't a hero of mine, but I can't
>> help feeling you are being a bit unfair here FMR. Doubtless he has helpers, but
>> organising band aid twice must have taken quite a lot more than 'a day or
>> two'. As for assembling the band, the image of 'herding cats' seems particularly appropriate.
>>
>>
I'm sure Geldof did the original Band Aid for all the right reasons, whether or not it was effective to any degree. But it's worth remembering that well before 1985 Geldof and his band, The Boomtown Rats, were a spent force and would be unknown to anyone under forty now apart from the occasional playing of "I don't like Mondays" on a golden oldie slot. He refused to supply record shops with the single unless they donated the whole of the price of the record to his charity and he argued that the artists whose sales increased due to the resurgence of interest in their work after taking part should donate all the increased proceeds of their own sales to it. Yet much of his rather large fortune (Around £35 million) is due to the high profile he commands directly through Band Aid.
If he cares that much a donation of fifteen or twenty million to the cause wouldn't exactly leave him on bread and marge.
|
>> much of his rather large fortune (Around £35 million) is due to the high profile he commands directly through Band Aid.
Yes, but it seems a bit harsh to suggest that that was his motive in thinking up bandaid. The disproportionate rewards heaped on pop bands and musicians who may be quite undeserving is an old story after all. It would have taken someone even more saintly than Geldof to turn it all down when he got lucky.
|
>> Yes, but it seems a bit harsh to suggest that that was his motive in
>> thinking up bandaid.
I don't think anyone would dream of suggesting that. For all that Geldof has come across as somewhat churlish over the Adele story, there is no doubt that his motivation is wholly sincere, if in some ways a tad misguided in some folks' opinion.
I suspect that much of the current backlash stems from the fact that we live in a more worldly-wise and therefore cynical society these days. Back in 1985 Africa was only seen on the news, nowadays it's the click of a mouse away and people have seen for themselves that the misfortunes of that continent are rarely caused directly by disease and famine, rather that those two pestilences are the result of human intolerance.
|
U2's Bono is involved in a bike accident and suffers fractures to his arm, shoulder & face requiring three plates and 18 screws.
Well tonight thank God it's him instead of me.
**Shamelessly nicked from somewhere else before Brompt snitches on me** ;-)
|
>> **Shamelessly nicked from somewhere else before Brompt snitches on me** ;-)
>>
Don't think Sickipedia is Brompt's style
8o)
Last edited by: neiltoo on Thu 20 Nov 14 at 16:26
|
>> >> **Shamelessly nicked from somewhere else before Brompt snitches on me** ;-)
>> >>
>>
>> Don't think Sickipedia is Brompt's style
>>
>> 8o)
Au contraire, The Lad and I quite regularly have a laugh at what's on there. Only a small number are truly offensive.
On a wider note it's interesting that the line quoted 'Tonight thank God it's them instead of you', has gone from the current version. It never seemed to generate controversy until quite recently; changing mores over 30 years?
|
>>. It never seemed to generate controversy until quite recently; changing mores over 30 years?
I don't think its changing mores, I recall quite a discussion about it many years ago. I think the change is peoples' willingness to complain incessantly about stuff that doesn't really affect them which has grown.
|
Three plates and 18 screws...
Sounds like my kinda night!
;-)
|
|
Is it considered callous to wonder if his jaw was broken?
|
>> Is it considered callous to wonder if his jaw was broken?
>>
Overuse?
8o)
|
>>Overuse?
I doubt it, that's not what he normally talks through.
|
>> Back in 1985 Africa was
>> only seen on the news,
We only went for the whole band aid thing because it was the concert of the century, there had not been a line up like it before, there had never been a global concert before, and it was amazing. For the bands and the crowd and the TV audience. We knew Geldof was a talentless rude arrogant dirty scruffy git, but we were prepared to forgive him
In reality no-one gave a stuff about the africans.
>> I suspect that much of the current backlash stems from the fact that we live
>> in a more worldly-wise and therefore cynical society these days.
The backlash is because its been done before, several times in fact and this time is P poor in comparison, in fact its a crap single and there is no magnificent concert. Geldolf is still a talentless rude arrogant dirty scruffy git only worse because of band aid in 85 and no-one likes him.
And we still don't give a stuff about the africans.
|
"And we still don't give a stuff about the africans."
I wouldn't put it quite like that, but I can well understand why compassion fatigue has set in. I've been giving money to Africa for 60 years. It started at junior school when we were handed small books of detachable photos of smiling African children which we sold for a penny a time and the money raised was sent to Africa. It would be considered most un-PC these days! To be honest, though, I'm not sure that Africa is any less corrupt or dysfunctional than it was then - in fact, it's probably worse.
I realise that that whenever I mention that human population growth is the scourge of the planet, I am jeered at as a racist but the population of, say, Ethiopia has gone from ~20m in 1955, to 41m in 1985 (Live Aid), to 97m in 2014. How can this possibly be considered to be sustainable?
|
>> Ethiopia has gone from ~20m in 1955, to 41m in 1985 (Live Aid), to 97m in 2014
>> How can this possibly be considered to be sustainable?
More to the point, if they are dying in such high numbers as claimed by the aid agencies, how did it get there?
|
>>
>> More to the point, if they are dying in such high numbers as claimed by
>> the aid agencies, how did it get there?
>>
Simple. whilst modern medicine and health education has stopped them dying like flies, modern contraception and social education has not stopped them breeding like same.
|
>> Simple. whilst modern medicine and health education has stopped them dying like flies, modern contraception
>> and social education has not stopped them breeding like same.
The frownie is (predictably) mine. The birth rate in Africa will, like everywhere else, fall to a sustainable level when life expectancy and prospective security in old age rise to levels near those of the first world.
|
"The birth rate in Africa will, like everywhere else, fall to a sustainable level when life expectancy and prospective security in old age rise to levels near those of the first world."
Exactly, BUT, the wherewithal to do that must develop from within, not be supplied artificially from outside.
|
>>The frownie is (predictably) mine.
A serious question;
Why a frownie? It didn't seem offensive and Harleyman was actually pretty much correct, if a little brutal in the wording.
|
>> A serious question;
>>
>> Why a frownie? It didn't seem offensive and Harleyman was actually pretty much correct, if
>> a little brutal in the wording.
The frownie was for Haywain not Harleyman. I'm surprised reference to human beings, in circumstance where you need ten kids to ensure two outlive you, 'breeding like flies' doesn't raise your red mist too.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 21 Nov 14 at 21:04
|
|
Whoever the frownie was for, I think you gave it to Harleyman.
|
|
Wheres mine. I hate being left out.
|
|
You can have mine. I may get one for pointing out that medical and social progress has filled the world with unnecessary masses of humans who need to be fed and are bound to cause endless trouble.
|
But I might just be very confused...
"I realise that that whenever I mention that human population growth is the scourge of the planet, I am jeered at as a racist but the population of, say, Ethiopia has gone from ~20m in 1955, to 41m in 1985 (Live Aid), to 97m in 2014. How can this possibly be considered to be sustainable?"
I don't really see how this is racist. Its not discriminatory as far as I can see. Well, unless you're a martian sneering at humans.
And as it happens, it is part of the real problem - artificial interference rarely has desirable results in any culture, country, community. etc. etc.
|
>>I'm surprised reference to human beings, in circumstance where you need ten kids to ensure two outlive you
And by the way, why do you suppose welsh mining families were traditionally so large? And I am from a welsh mining family.
It might be rude, but its not discriminatory. Is it? Or am I missing an interpretation?
|
>> And by the way, why do you suppose welsh mining families were traditionally so large?
>> And I am from a welsh mining family.
>>
>> It might be rude, but its not discriminatory. Is it? Or am I missing an
>> interpretation?
Yep, large families are a characteristic of societies that cannot sure that 2.4 or whatever children will provide the survivors to sustain society and support parents in their old age. While that might have been case in Europe in past these day it's a third world problem.
Using phrase 'breed like flies' to describe such societies is a phrase with which I am, to put it mildly, uncomfortable.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 21 Nov 14 at 21:25
|
Me too, kind of.
But it felt like the sort of phrase he would have used about anybody rather then focusing on a particular group, consequently it didn't bother me.
I don't find offensiveness offensive. Its discrimination I don't like.
|
|
There was also a 'three strikes' issue; it's not first time Haywain's posts have pinged my sense of the offence we cannot name.
|
Haywain didn't mention flies did he?
I can't follow this thread on one reading and I'm not reading it again!
Whatever; there are too many people.
|
>>Haywain didn't mention flies did he?
Nope. Harleyman.
|
|
OK I got confused. Apologies to all.
|
Just got back from jazz club (the great Jim Mullen) ………… what on earth's going on here? Has Brompto been drinking and inaccurately firing off his frownies?
BTW, I didn't mention anything about flies.
Last edited by: Haywain on Fri 21 Nov 14 at 22:59
|
>> Just got back from jazz club (the great Jim Mullen) ………… what on earth's going
>> on here? Has Brompto been drinking and inaccurately firing off his frownies?
>>
>> BTW, I didn't mention anything about flies.
Half right HW, but the inaccuracy was before I'd touched a drop .
|
>> Yep, large families are a characteristic of societies that cannot sure that 2.4 or whatever
>> children will provide the survivors to sustain society and support parents in their old age.
>> While that might have been case in Europe in past these day it's a third
>> world problem.
>>
The point I was making Bromp, as I'm sure you're fully aware, is that within two generations we have effectively brought a halt to that particular problem; but it will take far longer, perhaps a century or more, for the cultural norms of the affected countries to adapt to it. By that time the population of this planet may well have grown to such an extent that its very survival is threatened.
Consider China; even a draconian state-sponsored limit on family size, which has brought with it a host of other unforeseen problems for the future, has not stopped that country having a massive population increase.
|
>> within two generations we have effectively brought a halt to that particular problem; but it will take far longer, perhaps a century or more, for the cultural norms of the affected countries to adapt to it.
That's about the size of it Hogman. Pathetic, isn't it? Bunch of moronic apes blind to reason or too stingy or narcissistic to use birth control.
I'll be gone by the time the scheiss hits the fan in a big way, if it does, but I worry about the children.
|
>> That's about the size of it Hogman. Pathetic, isn't it? Bunch of moronic apes blind
>> to reason or too stingy or narcissistic to use birth control.
>>
You KNOW you'll get a frownie for that one! ;-)
Problem is, where efforts have been made, such as in China, as I mentioned above, and also the sterilisation programmes in India, what started out as sensible ideas on paper have been so badly handled by the authorities that their further usage is being discouraged .
Whether we like it or not, even benign methods of contraception are in effect a form of eugenics, inasmuch as their use is a method of controlling the population so that any children born will have a better chance of survival. As Bromp rightly says this can only realistically come about if coupled with a rise in both living standards and future security, but one will not automatically beget the other and it's the period in between which may prove most critical.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Fri 21 Nov 14 at 23:59
|
>> As Bromp rightly says
>> this can only realistically come about if coupled with a rise in both living standards
>> and future security, but one will not automatically beget the other and it's the period
>> in between which may prove most critical.
>>
A rise in third world living standards will only add to future problems. Increased consumerism means more of our diminishing resources are used and all the things they tell us accelerate climate change multiply. The world is probably overpopulated already and the long term solution is so far unpalatable politically, controlling population growth in the developed world through taxation and welfare changes and in the third world by cutting or stopping aid and letting them sort it themselves. The wisdom of letting third world inhabitants settle in developed countries would also have to be questioned, it is the best and most intelligent who tend to leave and they are the people their own nations need the most.
Over-population of the planet is the ticking time bomb that nobody dare yet tackle, but well within the next century (After I've gone thank whoever) it will emerge from round the corner to mug us.
|
I couldn't care less. My post might have been blunt but regrettably I don't think I am far from the truth.
Life expectancy in third-world countries has improved dramatically within my lifetime (although admittedly there's room for improvement) but far more significantly, whilst the rates of infant mortality have plummeted the culture of keeping womenfolk in those countries in a state of permanent pregnancy has not.
Whilst I agree with Bromp that the birth rate may indeed fall once incomes rise, that hides the unpalatable fact that foreign aid is keeping those people at an artificial and unsustainable level of survival; this of course being compounded by the ceaseless, usually tribal conflicts which have plagued Africa since long before Europeans ever set foot there.
There is no easy fix, and we all know that. Much is said about the problem largely being caused by empirical division of lands which ignored traditional tribal boundaries, but most of them have now been there for long enough to suggest that there is far more to it than that; many of the African tribes were nomadic in any case, and simply blaming European interference and exploitation ignores the considerable influence which the Arabs had in shaping the continent, particularly in the areas most affected by conflict and famine today.
Incidentally I used "flies" deliberately; I was going to say that they bred like rabbits but that would not have allowed me to say that they died like flies. I'm sorry if some of you are uncomfortable with it but I was not intentionally belittling Africans by using it.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Fri 21 Nov 14 at 23:15
|
Band Aid - IMO a better perspective. - Harleyman
