Bono really is a cock head

I wonder if even diehard U2 fans think that guy is anything l more than a wanker. I can't imagine...
 
That really disturbed me, because even though I had my issues with Bono I thought he was semi-decent. Now with the knowledge of his organization's theft my previous disdain for him has replaced any warmth I had towards him. He's the true definition of a hypocrite. But the article overall gave me a sense of glee reading it, because I always hated these celebrities who participate in charity to seem fashionable.
 
Last edited:
"The New York Post revealed that in 2008, ONE took $14,993,873 in donations from philanthropists, of which a thrifty $184,732 was distributed to charity. More than $8m was spent on executive and employee salaries."

more here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst.../sep/23/bono-one-millennium-development-goals

Not enough information.

How do we know that the money donated to ONE wasn't specifically to be used for operational costs? Did a person who donated $5,000 actually expect that money to make it into the hands of aid-workers on the ground in Africa? Or did the person donate the money to enable an organization to operate and eventually provide aid to workers on the ground in Africa?

If $8m of the $14m was spent on executive and employee salaries, but those same executives and employees generated, say, $28m in assistance for various causes, wouldn't that mean the philanthropists' donations were doubled?
 
If $8m of the $14m was spent on executive and employee salaries, but those same executives and employees generated, say, $28m in assistance for various causes, wouldn't that mean the philanthropists' donations were doubled?


*applies for a job at One* :rolleyes:
 
I think there's an opening at ONE for the person who puts phone books under Bono's ass so he can actually be seen at round-table meetings of world leaders. :rolleyes:


He's better than morrissey who just moans about everything and everyone...
 
"The New York Post revealed that in 2008, ONE took $14,993,873 in donations from philanthropists, of which a thrifty $184,732 was distributed to charity. More than $8m was spent on executive and employee salaries."

more here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst.../sep/23/bono-one-millennium-development-goals

Bono may be a twat, but this is a total non-issue. As the article you link to points out, ONE is an advocacy organisation, not a donor organisation. That means it exists to persuade policymakers and the public to adopt certain positions and views, not to funnel aid to charities. Specifically, it is a campaign organisation, which tries to mobilise broad popular awareness of poverty and support for measures against it. Incredible as this may sound, that actrually costs money to carry out. Campaign organisations don't get their housing and electricity for free, phone bills actually have to be paid, printers charge them for whatever materials they produce and so on. And it's kind of tough to be very effective with no actual work getting done other than what volunteers can achieve on their spare time, so in fact you need to hire people, and these people need to be paid. If you want results, you even need to hire good people, who, in the nature of things, don't tend to work for hamburger-flopping wages, idealists or not.


So, Happy Maudlin can safely go right back to thinking of him as "semi-decent"...:)

cheers
 
Sorry but if the whole idea behind this ONE crap is to help people, why should it be done sitting behind thousands-dollar-worth desks and offices that would probably make everyone balk at the sight of, and stellar salaries?
There's a lot of hypocrisy behind these things.

The difference between Morrissey and Bono is that Morrissey doesn't give a crap about what people and media will make of his thoughts and actions, while Bono is hell-bent on trying to appear as a saint, with his totally generic MOR band continuing on delivering bland boring songs to the public.
 
What part of this is difficult to understand?

It's an ADVOCACY ORGANISATION.

That means it uses money, it doesn't give them away. It exists to persuade decision makers and public opinion to adopt certain policies, not to send food to Africa. Consequently it uses money on things like hiring clever people and carrying out media campaigns. If you prefer direct aid, fine, support someone else. But this has zero to do with "hypocrisy". It does exactly what it purports to do. I don't know anything about what kind of salaries they pay, and nor do you.

cheers
 
The venom directed at Bono for the time he spends actually trying to HELP people and making the world a better place just baffles me.



Bono's philanthropic work has not gone unnoticed - in recent years he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize THREE TIMES, granted an honorary knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II, and named "Person of the Year" by Time Magazine.


Bono has supported the following charities:

* 46664
* ALAFA
* Amnesty International
* Charity Projects Entertainment Fund
* Chernobyl Children's Project International
* DATA
* EDUN
* Food Bank For New York City
* Global Fund
* Greenpeace
* Keep A Child Alive
* Live 8
* Make Poverty History
* Mencap
* Millennium Promise Alliance

* Millennium Villages
* Mulago Positive Women’s Network
* MusiCares
* Not On Our Watch
* ONE Campaign
* (RED)
* Simon Community
* The Lunchbox Fund
* UNICEF
* UN Millennium Project
* War Child
* Wildlife Conservation Society
* Witness
* Zero Hunger


Yeah, what a cock head. :crazy:
 
Well, there isn't actually really a nomination process for the Nobel Peace Prize, other than that suggestions can be made to the Nobel Committee. In that sense, there are maybe 150 people or organisations "nominated" every year. And it would be the last straw if they gave it to Bono. But other than that, I essentially agree with you.

cheers
 
Back
Top Bottom