£50,000 to hear Geldof swear. - Page 2

garinda · 05-08-2005, 23:50

That wasn't about making money though was it, can't he have opinions about hypocrisy?

Live8 was supposed to be about raising conciousness about world poverty. I'd have been angry as well.

chav1 · 06-08-2005, 01:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Would you not go if they offered you money?

I would, my case is packed, l can talk ****e all day.

of course i would take money of idiots willing to pay me for doing sweet F.A

the point is i dont preech or demand that others should give money to help others then keep money i have made off the back of that particular cause

the old saying " do as i say and not as i do " comes to mind when geldof is mentioned

garinda · 06-08-2005, 01:19

But we don't know what he does or doesn't do with his money, do we?

He took his ex wifes daughter in as his own, after both Paula Yates and Michael Hutchens died, so he can't be that bad, and you can't say he did that for altuistic reasons.

Acrylic-bob · 06-08-2005, 04:47

The point is that being soooo socially concerned and foul mouthed in support of the poor of Africa and the world in general has turned out to be a fairly profitable career move.

Not only has Geldof's seen an increase in record sales on the back of his fulminations, he now has the potential to earn even more through spaeking engagements. Which would be OK if he were to put that money where his foul mouth is, and practiced what he preaches. That he will not, and the money earned will go into his bank account, prooves my point that Live8 was more about public posturing than it ever was about solving the problems of the developing nations. To make a living and to increase your personal wealth by lecturing the world on what a bunch of tight fisted uncaring B*st*rds they are, is shabby and hypocritical, to say the least !

And what of all the consciousness raising that Live8 was supposed to be about? what has happened to that? Are any of us more likley to choose fair trade products over well known brands, which would do far more to help the poor than all of Saint Bob's profanity? Or are we more concerned with our own lives? We have all chipped in a bit for the BBC's campaign to help the starving in Niger, but as usual it is far too little and far too late. Thousands are already dead and thousands more will follow.

Ok the G8 Summit agreed to massive amounts of debt relief, but they were going to do that anyway! However, will that put food on as much as one child's plate this morning? And what of tomorrow morning and all the other mornings to come until the debt relief begins to trickle down through the layers of bureaocracy and corrupt officials?

Live8 was about raising consciousness allright, consciousness of fading rock stars. Many of who would fade away at the prospect of walking a few yards in the shoes of the poor, let alone a mile. And, as Elton John observed in the Telegraph the other day, it wasn't even that good of a concert!

garinda · 06-08-2005, 10:31

We are to take note of that arch Queen bitch [of Hearts] Elton John now, and the daft things that he comes out with?

You can. I'll skip on that one thank you.

He comes out with more foul mouthed obscenities and idiotic, unproven statements, than he's had hair treatments over the years.

WillowTheWhisp · 06-08-2005, 10:58

OK let's just suppose for a minute that we agree on the fact that Live8 was about raising awareness of the situation in Africa. The concert tickets were only obtainable through phone lottery type "competitions" which did not necessarily mean that those who wanted to go got to go.

There were people who wanted to go to the concerts who would have been willing to buy tickets from those who had tickets. This did not in any way shape or form affect the attendance at the concert, the performance of the artists, the situation of the people on Africa or Mr. Geldof himself - what it may have done and more than likely did do was draw more attention to the concerts by having the auctions on eBay mentioned in the press, so in fact what they were doing was drawing more awareness to the concerts and consequently to Sir Robert's altruistic intentions. I fail to see what the problem was with that but he came out accusing those who sold their tickets of profiteering out of the musery of the starving people in Africa.

Now attention has been drawn to Mr. Geldof and his saintly ways and he is earning money from talks he gives on the subject of the starving people of Africa. Is this not him making money out of those starving people of Africa? So why is it acceptable for him to do so after he criticised others for doing so?

OK, I don't know what he does with his money and I don't particularly care, but neither did he know what people would have done with the money they made from the sale of their Live8 tickets. Perhaps he prevented a lot of money going to charity by insisting that a stop be put to those sales.

It still sounds like hypocrisy to me.

I'm not saying that he probably isn't a very kind and loving father/stepfather-once removed and that he may well be very generous with his own money but I do seem to recall at the time of Paula Yates' death he said that he had "accidentally" adopted her child by something he said at the time which was misinterpreted.

If he doesn't expect people to question his motives he should have thought a little bit before he made such sweeping statements and incalled for unpleasant comments abut the Live8 tickets. From that point he went down in my estimation, especially considering some tickets were actually SOLD to VIPs by the concert organisers themselves! I'm doing a competition at the moment to win a house. If I won it and subsequently decided to sell it I would be peeved if the competition organiser tried to prevent me from doing so. I just think BG overstepped the mark and has now left his own money making actions open to crtiticism.

Gayle · 06-08-2005, 11:33

There is no such thing as altruism or altruistic acts - it doesn't exist. Everyone has a motive in everything they do, whether it's for money, glory or praise - it all comes down to the same thing. It doesn't matter what we're talking about, everyone's in it for what they can get out of it.

Not that I think there's anything wrong in that, you understand, it's simply a fact!

garinda · 06-08-2005, 11:39

I find all the talk of what he may, or may not do, with any income derived from an increased public profile resulting from Live8, presumtous. The fact is neither you or I know what he does with his own money.

He lives in Battersea as Pendy posted, for all we know he may give all the income earned to the dog's home.

From some of the bile directed towards the man, perhaps dogs wouldn't have caused as much of a fuss as wanting to help starving African children.

Less · 06-08-2005, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle Knight

There is no such thing as altruism or altruistic acts - it doesn't exist. Everyone has a motive in everything they do, whether it's for money, glory or praise - it all comes down to the same thing. It doesn't matter what we're talking about, everyone's in it for what they can get out of it.

Not that I think there's anything wrong in that, you understand, it's simply a fact!

So speaks a 'potential' councillor, you heard it first on accyweb!

Gayle · 06-08-2005, 14:15

Yes, and I'll stand by it because it's not about money and I'm not a hypocrite. There are a lot of people who do good things and I'm not doubting that they are doing them mostly for good reasons, but tagged onto the back of that is that they want something in return - not always money but often just praise and attention.

I could ask you to name one altruistic act that you have done, but by simply talking about it you are garnering praise or attention for it. I don't see anything wrong with that because it is a win/win situation - the person that you're doing the charitable act for gets something nice done for them and you get praise and attention which makes you feel good.

For example, I work for a number of organisations for free. This benefits them because they get my services for no cost and are able to do things that they perhaps couldn't do otherwise, in return my profile is raised, thus supporting any of my long term goals. Ergo - win/win. It's not a personality flaw to admit it, it's just honest and realistic.

Plus, don't go trying to make out that it is only me who is like that - in my experience EVERYONE is like that - even you I'm sure Less!

Gayle · 06-08-2005, 14:45

I'm warming to a theme here because I've had this argument with other people in the past and the only truly altruistic act that we've managed to identify is helping a blind person cross the road. You don't get money and you don't get recognised for it either.

It doesn't make me a bad person to be honest about this, in fact, people who try to deny it are only lying to themselves.

Think of some examples:-
Childbirth - supposed to be the single most selfless act that any woman can perform - no, you have children because you want to create mini versions of yourself who will look after you in your old age.
Mother Theresa - will get her rewards in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Running your sons football club - makes your son like you.

Anymore for anymore?

Think of anything you like and you won't find any truly altruistic acts out there.

Less · 06-08-2005, 14:59

Congratulation's Gayle one of my nearly serious posts has hit a soft spot and you have deemed to answer, what you should understand is that NOTHING! I ever say should be taken with more than a pinch of salt (it just isn't worth it), however IF you are going to go down the road of representing others you should always consider what you say, without a decent advisor you could (and will), drop yourself in it!, therefore I suggest you get yourself some-one that can 'spin' on your behalf, he/she does not have to believe in what you say but must be permitted to read what you plan to say before you say it.....

May I suggest Mr. T' I think he will always put forward an honest view.

P.S. Strange as it may seem you are working your way forward, I'D VOTE FOR YOU

Gayle · 06-08-2005, 15:16

No, you've got me on a roll Less. I love this argument because I want to be proved wrong. I'd love there to be a truly altruistic act but I honestly believe there isn't - wouldn't it be good if there was?

Anyway, back on to the original subject which was Bob Geldof - he never even attempted to claim that what he was doing was altruistic so can't be faulted for hypocrisy on that point
.

Less · 06-08-2005, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle Knight

No, you've got me on a roll Less. I love this argument because I want to be proved wrong. I'd love there to be a truly altruistic act but I honestly believe there isn't - wouldn't it be good if there was?

Anyway, back on to the original subject which was Bob Geldof - he never even attempted to claim that what he was doing was altruistic so can't be faulted for hypocrisy on that point
.

There was a gentleman from Manchester that has been recognised just recently, he has just had a street named after him, he (posthumously) was granted the V.C. he died after single handedly attacking an enemy anti-tank nest, I'm sure he expected and received nothing more for saving his comrades lives, DEATH!

yerself · 06-08-2005, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle Knight

I'm warming to a theme here because I've had this argument with other people in the past and the only truly altruistic act that we've managed to identify is helping a blind person cross the road. You don't get money and you don't get recognised for it either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle Knight

Mother Theresa - will get her rewards in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Have you not contradicted yourself here Gayle? If Mother Theresa will get her rewards in the Kingdom of Heaven for her good deeds surely the man who helps a blind person cross the road will benefit to the same extent. Therefore, using your logic, there is no such thing as an altruistic act.