^ I disagree.

I'm no Bob Geldof fan but it's very convenient that the writer made a point of his 'bollocks' quote from the Sky News interview but omitted his lengthy defense of Adele's lifestyle choices and decision not to participate, which completely contradicts the crux of her article. He wasn't 'shaming' her with those comments.

I also can't take her very seriously because the piece is littered with unnecessary, petty remarks, such as reducing Olly Murs to 'the bloke who once lost the X Factor' (never mind the fact he's one of the UK's leading male popstars with three multi-platinum albums etc!)

She also just assumes these celebrities don't donate privately based on the fact they make a big public show of themselves for Band Aid and have been known in some cases to avoid tax, which is a very problematic assumption and most likely wildly inaccurate.

While I agree some of the lyrics are somewhat patronising and simplistic, I don't get the level of criticism Band Aid gets from people like her. Like it or not, the artists involved are very popular and have influence. Them making a big deal out of their particular form of philanthropy via the single raises huge awareness and funds for people who desperately need them. Surely the benefits massively outweigh the annoyances that people have with it?

Thing is, would funds towards Ebola have raised as much as they have without Band Aid? Obviously not, so this 'ugh we don't need this awful song, you can donate yourself!!11' argument is missing the point because things like this, plus Comic Relief/Children In Need are there for a reason - to maximise donations and raise mass awareness to the cause. The ambition of Band Aid 30 wasn't to make a great song with a star studded line up that will go down as a classic, but to raise money and awareness of the cause. Yes, celebs like Bono/Bob Geldof are a bit worthy about it and it is a shame that some people would need an incentive like a song or a night of entertainment in the name of a cause to get them to donate or even realise what was going on, but that's simply how things works - high profile celebrity events/songs raise awareness/money by the millions and however 'patronising' they are or, in this case, however bad the song is (I don't think this song is that great at all, nor were any of them after the original, which itself wasn't exactly Ivor Novello material), it's essential for what it is, and I am so sick of reading the likes of Digital Spy/The Guardian comments which are full of people missing the point and moaning about the 'patronising/incorrect' lyrics, the artists telling us what to do (they're not, they're just high profile names that are taking unpaid time out of their schedule supporting a cause and thus raising awareness) and the like. (that wasn't aimed at you btw Liam, just the general article/things I've read on here )

I'm not a massive fan of Geldof but if you were passionate about raising money for funds to help combat a deadly disease killing millions, wouldn't you want to be a bit forceful to get people to buy it?

I'm not a massive fan of Geldof but if you were passionate about raising money for funds to help combat a deadly disease killing millions, wouldn't you want to be a bit forceful to get people to buy it?