Bob Geldof doesn't like your clothes

Bob Geldof. Remember when he was a punk?

He almost certainly doesn't.

Bob Geldof upset fans at a festival when he launched into a rant about Brexit and wearing clothes from Primark.https://t.co/E4QZHcPmX7

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) July 22, 2016

There's something touching about Bob Geldof, a 64 year-old multimillionaire, instructing people how they should dress for a "rock and roll concert", as if he was Billy Fury in his pomp.

Band Aid 30: We let in light, and we banish Macca

Apparently, there are some people upset that Paul McCartney isn't on the new Band Aid single. (He wasn't on Band Aid II, either, but that wasn't, as far as I recall, a "thing").

Bob Geldof is trying to explain why, in what sounds more like a desperate bid to remain invited to McCartney's Boxing Day Cluedo party than any real concern about the spat:

Asked why McCartney wasn't involved by the Daily Mirror, he replied: "Because Macca's always done stuff. He was in the band in 2004 - him, Radiohead and Damon [Albarn].

"But look, on this we've got from the newest to the hippest to the oldest... and he hasn't made the cut, what can I tell you? The thing is, there's only so many lines, so what do you do?

Remember, this is a record which found space in the vocals for Zoella, a video blogger, and her brother, who is thatcher with a YouTube account.

Also: Seal. If you can find space in front of a microphone for Seal, the suggestion that there might not be room for McCartney starts to look a little odd.

…Then it's who's happening in America - that's really important as sales are quantifiably more over there. Ellie Goulding, Ed Sheeran, One Direction, Coldplay, Sam Smith, U2... all these people are caning it in America."

Yeah, because The Beatles, famously, never had an American fanbase.

Still, you can't fault Bob's logic in packing the record with America-friendly stars, for how else would he have managed to get the record to, erm, number 63 in the US charts.

Band Aid 30: Uncharitable

Adele didn't take part in Band Aid 30. Which is fair enough - nobody's obliged to take part in charitable endeavours, however well-intentioned they may be; and having to get to a certain place at a certain time to record a track that seems to be happening more because of an anniversary than from a desire to help doesn't sound like much of a deal.

That's what you'd expect a grown-up attitude to be, anyway.

Instead, it's got a bit like this:

To be fair, it's not Bob Geldof who's making a fuss - he was quite fair-minded:

When asked why Adele wasn't taking part, Bob told The Sunday Mirror: "I got through to someone, not her, but she’s not doing anything at all at the moment. It’s fine, I understand it’s not for everybody and other people support in different ways.”

He insisted: "I put the call in. I didn't speak to her. I spoke to Jonathan (her manager) and he says, 'I can't speak to her. I try but she won’t pick up the phone'."

That seems understandable then - she's not doing anything at the moment, even her manager cant interest her in projects, and Bob understands that some people don't care for this sort of charity showboating and will offer their support in other ways.

Oddly, though, the Mirror headline on this isn't 'Some people opt not to take part' but...

Adele SNUBS Band Aid 30 - Sir Bob Geldof insists he tried to pin the star down for track

She doesn't just snub it. She snubs it with caps lock on.

This is one of those rare occasions where the comments on a Mail Online story are actually more measured than the article they appear under - for while the Mail goes heavily for the suggestion that Adele "ignored" Bob, the commenters - almost to an avatar - shrug and say 'yeah, she's busy, and it's not that big a deal'. The winner is CelticShady:

I love that after posting the original message, an hour later Celtic had a further thought about how Emeil Sande shouldn't have gotten involved, neither.

Band Aid 30: Or, keeping Emeli Sande busy

Could there be anything worse than the Band Aid 30 idea?

Oh, hang on...

Announcing the project, Bob Geldof and Midge Ure said the song's lyrics would be changed to reflect the Ebola crisis.

This does give the impression that Bob and Midge had this conversation earlier in the year:

- Hey, it's the 30th anniversary, we should definitely do a Band Aid 30
- Who is this?
- It's Midge
- Midge Who?
- This isn't a knock-knock joke
- Oh, Midge. Hang on... how did you get this number?
- Jools Holland
- Bloody Jools. Anyway, what did you want?
- Band Aid. Band Aid 30.
- Oh. Yeah... but is there an African crisis we can help with?
- Well, Syria's in Africa...
- [silence]
- Bob?
- [silence]
- Bob?
- [silence]
- Well, I'm sure something will turn up...

God knows how they'll change the lyrics - "It's Christmastime, that's no time to die from ebola/ At Christmastime, we let in light and we wash our hands properly/ And our world of plenty handwash/ We can scrub our fingers clean/ Throw your arms around the world/ After checking its temperature, of course..."

Geldof and Ure, who masterminded the first version, said the project was nothing to do with nostalgia.

Then why call it after Band Aid, and mark the 30th anniversary, and use the same song that was used 30 years ago?

So far, confirmed artists include U2's Bono, Chris Martin of Coldplay, Emeli Sande, Underworld, Sinead O'Connor, Paloma Faith, Foals and Bastille, who have given up two arena dates to record their contribution.

Who would have guessed that Bono would be involved, eh?

But don't think this an insular British thing:

Versions will also be recorded in France, Germany and the US. "Think Daft Punk. Think Johnny Hallyday," said Geldof.

Ah, Johnny Hallyday - Bob's finger-on-the-pulse understanding of the Francophone music scene is, clearly, second to none.

As ever: it's lovely to raise money for charity, but you can donate right now to the DEC Ebola fund, and we don't need to make Emeli Sande do any singing at all.

Smarter than the average meter

Smart meters are pretty controversial. Or, at least, they should be. Sure, there's a bunch of easily-dismissed EMF radiation panic about them. And, yes, they can help you keep track of the energy you're using (in case somehow you might have so many rooms in your house you don't know when you've got a radio switched on in one.)

But more concerning is the privacy aspects. All of a sudden, your meter will be sending data about your behaviour to the power companies. It's becoming a large civil rights question in America.

"Right, but what has this got to do with pop music?" you're probably wondering.

Well, faced with intrusive technology that ultimately could tell British Gas when you're home and EDF if you're awake in the middle of the night, what sort of shill could the industry find to sell their case?

Guardian diary, can you tell us?

A diary date, finally – 8 July sees the launch of the Smart Meter Central Delivery Body's nationwide campaign to persuade everyone to buy gas and electricity via a new "smart meter". Special guest speaker: Sir Bob Geldof. Whatever the worthy cause, call for Bob.

Ah, Bob. Increasingly, taking great strides to be on the wrong side.

Midge Ure: The Daily Mail is a piece of work

I know, I know that the Mail being like a word-flavoured tapeworm extruding from a mangy asshole isn't exactly news, but it's always useful to remember this.

Midge Ure has a new album out, and did an interview with the Mail to promote it. The interview was quite wide-ranging, covering not just the new work, but also how his head got turned by post-Live Aid adulation and how he nearly wrecked his life through excess.

Plenty, you might think, for a newspaper to focus on.

But not the Mail.

They went with this angle:

My father to father letter to my dear friend Bob: Midge Ure, who had known Peaches Geldof since she was a baby, on how he's tried to comfort his Live Aid mate

Inevitably, this makes the thing look like he's trying to use the death of a friend's child to sell a few albums, and the Mail comment area (or "the subtitles for the hard of thinking") rips into him,:

Chriatina, Chesterfield, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
Why reveal you have sent a very personal letter to an old friend after the death of hia daughter. Jump on the band wagon of getting your name aired. I think its a disgrace no point in it what so ever .

Deedee, Kent, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
This is not a heart felt letter, if Midge wants to write to Bob then he can. Why does the daily mail need to be involved. This is disgusting.

null, 1 hour ago
Comfort him by talking to the newspapers? All heart

Shropshire boy, Bridgnorth, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
Nothing like publicity eh

But even some Mail readers, while waving their pitchforks, seem to sense that there's something a bit iffy here:

Gilliedew, Norfolk, 1 hour ago
I didn't like Midge using Peaches death in relation to his come back, Why? Isn't anything private, such as a letter to Bob at such a traumatic time in his life.Most probably it was the journalist sensationalizing it but why give them the chance, some friend I don't think.

Gilliedew, you nearly had a moment's clarity there, before you decided it was Midge's fault anyway for answering a question.

So there's the Mail's nice work for today: driving page impressions and selling ad space on a story that unfairly implies a man is using a death to sell records.

The Daily Mail is a piece of work.

Bob Geldof and Bono: Perhaps they spent the interval talking truth to power

I know we don't need any further evidence that Geldof and Bono's outsider act is, well, an act, but in case you're still looking to be convinced, who turned up for Matthew Freud's birthday in what for most people would be the 'clown making balloon animals' slot?:

Guests thought to include Davina McCall and Jimmy Carr were treated to a performance from Bob Geldof and U2 frontman Bono. The duo joined forces to perform a rendition of Martha and the Vandellas’ Dancing in the Street.

Amongst the revellers were the Blairs, Cameron and Osborne.

But I'm sure Bob and Bono were thinking about the poor the whole time they did it.

Bob Geldof can now drive his sheep over bridges

Yesterday, Bob Geldof was given the freedom of the City of London:

Singer Bob Geldof received the Freedom of the City of London in recognition of his services to music and outstanding contribution to International social justice and peace.

I bet there was a phonecall or two:
- Yeah, Bob's thrilled, but he says can you include a mention of his services to music? ... No, music... The Boomtown Rats? The Vegetarians of Love? ... oh, you haven't? ... look, have you got Google there? Try searching for the Boomtown Rats...

Apparently, he doesn't really have the right to drive sheep over bridges; and it's probably a moot point if he'd be entitled to a silken rope should he ever find himself being hanged in the city.

Bob in space

I'm a little lost about this story:

The singer and campaigner Bob Geldof is to travel into space as a passenger on a commercial space flight.

Space Expedition Corporation (SXC) is hoping to launch 100 people into space in 2014 at the cost of $100,000 (£64,000) per ticket.

Isn't this just "very rich man plans terribly expensive joyride in break from lecturing people about poverty"? Or am I missing why this is actually news?

Bob Geldof wants you to put your money into bricks and mortar

Like his chum Bono, Bob Geldof isn't just interested in equality and aid; He's also fascinated with making a quick buck out of property.

He's turned up to push a thing called Progressive Property - shill is such an ugly word, isn't it, so let's use that. He shills in the least attractive way possible, by claiming that land-grabbing is exactly what Gandi would do. PlanetyPropetyBlog raises an eyebrow:

They’re a bit like ... Gandhi (I swear, I’m not making this up!)... who, as we all know, was famous for preaching the redeeming qualities of buying Below Market Value.

Then he goes on to laud Germany for its relatively stable housing market – it’s not a casino economy based on property says Bob, because lots of people rent and rents are capped by the Government (“not something you want to hear”, he admits).

Ooops. Quickly changing tack, he then gets back to the flattering stuff (you’re all great entrepreneurs who will save the country!) and slags off the banks for not lending money to property investors and for giving themselves big bonuses.

Hmm. You can watch the full video here; it's rather long and a bit rambling, but in short: free Daily Expresses and Bic-style razors all round...

Bob Geldof: Well, tonight, thank God, it's mine instead of yours

Who was the keynote speaker at the annual global gathering of Private Equity firms in Berlin last month?

Why, it was Bob Geldof.

Not just there because 'putting Geldof on the bill' is an easy way to pretend you're socially responsible and ethical, but also because Geldof is one of them:

He is now the chairman of an Africa-focused private equity fund which said earlier this month it had raised $200 million from investors, close to half its targeted size of $450 million.

Dubbed 8 Miles, the fund plans to invest in companies that can develop into "African champions" in sectors such as agribusiness, telecoms and consumer goods.

"We put together our little thing - a goldilocks thing, not too small, not too big, just right. And we will make a lot of money, a lot. For me I want to leave behind me firms, farms, factories. Fuck the money, that's me," Geldof said.

Geldof's fund is promising a rate of return of 25% - or, in other words, is promising to take a large chunk of any wealth created straight back out of the continent into the developed world.

But remember, Geldof's not really bothered about the money:

Geldof referenced the big payday of some of private equity's titans, including Henry Kravis and George Roberts, who got $94 million each in 2011 from buyout firm KKR & Co LP , in also making a wider case for philanthropy.

"You have got the four houses, the three jets, the 10 cars, the 65th fucking Picasso. What's the point? So its stuff, and right now it's the stuff that will get us out of that mess," Geldof said.

So, Geldof's big idea is that you encourage people to invest in Africa, to rake enormous profits out the natural resources and endeavours of those who live there, on the sort-of-off-chance that the people who've made all that money will decide they don't really need it and give some of it back?

Righto, Bob.

Because, as we know, it's not like Bob Geldof is greedy, is it?

In other news: Oh, look, Geldof's playing a tax dodge:

The country is missing out on more than £1bn in tax as the rich and famous have registered thousands of their exclusive properties into offshore companies, it has been revealed.

Town houses, mansions, vast country estates and castles are among the 94,760 properties which have been placed offshore, according to the Land Registry.
[...]
Rock stars Mick Jagger and Bob Geldof and Ringo Starr are among the many who have taken advantage of the loophole.
[...]
BVI companies own poverty campaigner Geldof's homes in London and Kent which his spokesman said was 'perfectly legitimate' tax planning and not a way to avoid stamp duty.

Ah, 'prefectly legitimate tax planning'. It's an irregular verb, isn't it?

I plan my taxes
You avoid your taxes
He dodges his taxes

Did I say that the private equity industry could cite inviting Geldof as an example of its social commitment? Maybe I was wrong. Maybe they should have avoided tarnishing their reputation by bringing him along.

BBC say sorry to Band Aid, Bob Geldof

The BBC has withdrawn and apologised some of its reporting over Ethiopian aid - although the actual complaints findings aren't online yet, so it's not entirely clear yet what, specifically, they're saying sorry for.

Much of the apologising seems to be for other news programmes making a direct link between Band Aid and misused aid; the BBC has admitted you could have come away with the impression that the programme was talking about Band Aid funds rather than aid in general.

In much the same way that this morning, you could come away with the impression that the apology was for the original investigation into what happened to aid rather than some of the summarising which followed.

The Mail is relatively restrained in its reporting of the apology. But then the Mail did run a story directly linking Band Aid funds to weapons around the same time, with an on-the-record source.

If it wasn't for Bob Geldof, people would still be living in poverty

More4 is showing a documentary on Monday which includes a segment that takes a hard look at celebrity anti-poverty campaigns:

The film that appears to have angered Geldof is Starsuckers, a polemic against media and celebrity that will be broadcast on More 4 on Tuesday. A section of the documentary makes a string of allegations about singer-turned-campaigner.

They include the suggestion money raised from the 1985 Live Aid concerts to tackle famine in Ethiopia was mis-spent, leading to deaths, and criticism that the successor concerts two decades later, Live 8, overshadowed a mass movement of campaigners in the Make Poverty History coalition.

Now, you know how much Bob Geldof likes being challenged on his views."Fair point" he chuckled, "but we do our best..."

Did he buggery. Oh, no, it's all angry letters and complaints to Ofcom:

In the letter, seen by the Guardian, Geldof claimed to have had significant influence over world leaders, including Tony Blair, in the run-up to the 2005 G8 summit, and contrasted the achievements of his Live 8 campaign with the global coalition of anti-poverty campaigners, which he characterised as "a bit lame" and almost entirely ineffectual.

If it is true that Geldof had enormous influence over world leaders in 2005, you'd have to ask why. At the time of Live Aid, arguably Geldof could claim he had some sort of mandate to speak for everyone. By 2005, though, there were quite enough media industry millionaires pumping their unelected viewpoints into the ears of world leaders; having another one isn't the unquestionable good thing that Geldof seems to think. Surely he wasn't claiming Make Poverty History as his mandate?

Still: if Geldof does want to take the credit for Gleneagles, maybe we should let him?

Then Geldof turns to how GRATE it is to have FAMOUS PEOPLES involved with campaigns:

Claiming that "all that the combined lobbying might of the total NGO community" failed to ignite public opinion over global poverty, Geldof drew attention to the powerful impact of the Live 8 concerts, which were televised simultaneously to audiences around the world. "They are the vast billions watching," he said. "Brought together around the electric hearth of the TV or computer screen by the Pied Pipers of Rock 'n Roll."

Nobody would deny that putting Coldplay and U2 on the television gets lots of people to watch. But that's putting on a show, it's not actually making poverty history, is it Bob? That's the difficult bit.

I haven't seen the programme myself - obviously, it's not been on yet - but from the sypnosis, part of it's contention seems to be that it's incredibly easy to get lots of people looking at celebrities, but much more difficult to actually turn those crowds from passive lookers into agents of change. Simply going "we got lots of people to watch TV" actually supports the arguments, not destroys them.

And holymotherofallthatisholy, did you really think what a knob you'd look like saying "brought together around the electric hearth of the TV or computer screen by the Pied Pipers of Rock 'n Roll"?

His stupid boat stunt - you'll recall Geldof calling for a second Dunkirk, with people paddling from the continent to Scotland - turns out not have been a toe-curling embarrassment, but instead a stunt:

Fearing that Make Poverty History, a global coalition of development agencies, was failing to galvanise public opinion, he said he embarked on a publicity drive. It included "pretending" that millions of activists were headed to Edinburgh from the continent to "re-enact a sort of Dunkirk", he said.

There's two problems here. First is that MPH wasn't "failing to galvanise" anything - it was doing really well, until it suddenly found its focus shifted away to a lot of fluff about if it was going to lead not to a new deal for the developing world, but whether Status Quo would open a London pop concert.

More importantly, Geldof didn't "pretend" there was a flotilla - he called for it. It just didn't show up. The Age was just one of the papers which carried his original calls:

Speaking at a boatyard, Geldof appealed for English boat owners and even rowers to sail across the Channel for "Sail 8" and pick up thousands of European protesters trying to get to Edinburgh for the demonstration on the opening day of the summit on July 6.

Geldof alluded to events during World War II in 1940 when hundreds of thousands of troops were rescued from the German advance in France by a fleet of privately owned craft sailing across the Channel.

"What we are asking people to do is not re-create D-Day but re-create Dunkirk, which is one of the great national legends of our country where normal people got in their boats to rescue our soldiers, 380,000 of them, who were surrounded and came back to fight another day," Geldof said.

It would be the biggest collection of little boats seen since Dunkirk, he said. "This time we are asking that people take to their boats in their thousands and pick up the people of France for a friendlier invasion. It will be beautiful and amazing . . . I think if you have a little rowing boat that would get across, then jump in it and get as far as you can."

If he had been "pretending" they were coming, that would have been dubious enough - sure, there is much bluff-calling at international summits, but using your poker face to claim that dozens of pedalos and sunbeds are about to arrive on the beach seems to be designed to do nothing other than make yourself and the cause you're fighting for look ridiculous.

Geldof, though, appears to believe that he's so much better than the masses he claims to have been mobilising:

He contrasted the success of the Live 8 initiative with the efforts of anti-poverty demonstrators who "were never mentioned" at the summit, where they wielded "not a single shred of influence".

"The G8 has become a pointless ritual where the marchers and the wankers dressed as clowns (wow! Radical) get to throw stones at cops miles from the decision makers, who can't even hear them, and the cops get to crack some heads," he said, adding that he suspected other campaigners knew that his methods were simply more effective. "I can do rock n roll, they can do marching."

It's true. Dressing up as a clown and standing half a mile from a hotel might do bugger all. Is getting Pete Doherty to sing a duet with Elton John in a totally different country really a better strategy, Bob?

More Band Aid allegations - this morning, from Band Aid

Bob Geldof's furious attack on the quality of BBC journalism following the reports about how some Ethiopian famine relief might have found its way into the hands of civil war fighters gets a sharp slapdown from an unexpected source this morning. the Daily Mail must have decided they dislike Geldof even more than they hate the BBC:

Today, for the first time, the Band Aid man on the ground in Ethiopia speaks out exclusively to The Daily Mail, saying he believes it is possible that up to 20 per cent of donor's money went to fund the rebels.

Furthermore, he told me that he personally sympathised with the rebel cause he calls 'a liberating force', and travelled in convoys he suspected were transporting arms to them.

John James was Band Aid Field Director in Ethiopia from 1985-91 and was awarded an MBE for his charity work. He says: 'I would be surprised if it were any less than 10-20 per cent of funds were diverted to the rebels.

'Did I sympathise with the rebels? Yes. We would not have tolerated any direct assistance in the purchase of arms or condoned it, but just remember it was a highly complex situation.'

James, a farmer who is now 85 and living in Devon, adds: 'I think it is ridiculous for anybody to claim that not one penny of aid money was diverted.

'You couldn't help the hungry in the rebel-held areas without helping the rebels. You have to be realistic about that. It is probable that some money was diverted to buy arms. I believe a just use was made of the money. I think it fulfilled the interests of the donors.'

It's looking increasingly like Geldof's fixation on the one quote in the World Service programme that 95% of aid was misdirected in Tigray is the classic approach of finding one thing wrong, in an attempt to discredit the whole. The sort of tactic that people who don't believe in global warming use.

Bob Geldof still unhappy at Band Aid questions

On Monday, Rageh Omaar wrote a piece for the Guardian saying, in effect, that grown-up people know that in war-torn areas humanitarian efforts sometimes get misdirected. He expressed mild surprise that all the charities involved in the 80s Ethiopian famine had reacted the World Service report by yelling "never", rather than asking to inspect the claims more closely; and said that perhaps we shouldn't treat Band Aid as if it was somehow above criticism.

All very reasonable and balanced. Isn't that right, Bob Geldof?

Rageh Omaar's piece "Even Band Aid is not above criticism" is ridiculous.

Oh.

It is of course not about me, or Band Aid, but rather a defence of journalistic exceptionalism, and the now thoroughly discredited BBC World Service programme that "sexed up" a claim that nigh-on the entire humanitarian relief effort by all aid agencies was diverted to arms in Tigray province in 1985.

If you've been watching the reaction to this story closely, you'll have spotted that Bob has shifted his complaint somewhat. Initially, he insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any money went astray. Now, he's objecting to the claims about the level of money which went astray.

Geldof seems to be most upset not at the idea, but that he was mentioned in the piece:

[Omaar] allies himself with the programme's dubious technique of using a "star" name to attract attention to an otherwise unexceptional or dubious point of view in the hope that it will gather attention.

Except Omaar does no such thing - he mentions Geldof just once in his story, referencing Bob's appearance on the Andrew Marr show. Which was the point where Bob firmly placed himself as the star of the story.

Geldof then goes on to list the sorts of things people have a pop at him for:

So let me first say that far from being above criticism, should Rageh or the World Service colleague he seeks to protect have done the basic journalistic gig of doing a teensy bit of research before they write their stories by, say, doing something basic like maybe Googling my name, he would immediately be overwhelmed by a 35-year torrent of vituperation and condemnation of everything about me – from my suspiciously foreign-sounding name to my shaving and bathing habits, hairstyle (fair enough!), my partners, children, domestic life, temperament, driving habits, political views, attitudes, clothing, style, music, driving and on and on. No, Rageh, rest assured, I am definitely not above criticism – but again, please, for the sake of veracity, and again, I extend this to the wretched Martin Plaut, your fellow journalist, stop venturing palpably untrue statements dressed up as fact.

It's a bit puzzling why Geldof thinks discovering someone online saying Vegetarians Of Love is rubbish somehow has anything to do with a journalist suggesting that Live Aid should be open to public scrutiny.

And how arrogant you are, how self-important, that you should deign to lecture on the implied assumption that you, and by extension all journalists – and specifically in this case the BBC World Service – are above the criticism that you are so busily wagging your finger at me for, and which I (clearly getting above my station) have last weekend meted out to your incompetent mate and his associates at the Beeb.

Omaar never says that journalists should be above criticism, and - given that he feels a need to offer words on Martin Plaut's reputation - if there's any implication about journalism, it's that you should think carefully about if you trust a particular reporter or not.

Get it straight, pal – you are not.

He doesn't appear to think they are.

Either as individuals or organisations.

He doesn't think they are.

It's about time a little humility was allowed into your closed self-regarding little media world. But like the bankers and the MPs these days, you lot just don't get it, do you?

Yeah! You media fuckers in your little media world, you're just like the bankers and MPs in your little media bubble. Thank god an outsider like, erm, the non-executive director of one of the UK's larger indie TV producers will stand up to the media.

As for Band Aid, well, as a trustee said to me, sickened upon seeing the shameful Times cartoon which accepted the BBC story as gospel (of course)...

It's so typical of The Times, that - Murdoch's papers never miss an opportunity to show how much they love the BBC.

...without asking any questions: "We've taken it on the chin for 25 years and never said anything. Not this time."

There's been hardly any criticism of Band/Live Aid since it happened - the odd Chumbawamba album aside - and most of it has focused on how the money was raised, not how it was spent. And if there has been a quarter century of allegations that the organisation has chosen to "take on the chin"... well, that's hardly the BBC's fault.

If it was true, by the way, why now suddenly act all upset? Because it's on the World Service? That seems a little like, ooh, someone using a big name to create a fuss. You know, Bob, the thing you were complaining about a few paragraphs back?

Definitely not this time. The Band Aid Trust is reporting BBC World Service to Ofcom and the BBC board of directors, and we have requested transcripts of all interviews from the show in question from the deputy chairman of the BBC.

Or, you know, you could simply read the From Our Own Correspondent page, where the actual report turns out to be much more measured than you imply; which is more about Plaut's frustration that he never asked these questions back when it mattered and how he was too reliant on the rebel factions himself; where he throws doubt on the veracity of his main source; where he includes a long interview with Max Peberdy - who was in Tigray at the time - and who denies there was any misuse of aid. And where he reveals that he invited Bob Geldof to take part in the programme, and Geldof refused.

But Bob is making up for it now:

As you probably know anyway, but it just doesn't fit into your pompous guff this time, Band Aid has been under the most intensive scrutiny since and most particularly during the mid-80s. Quite rightly, too. We have an obligation to all those who entrusted us with their money and more particularly to those in whose name it was given. That is what I and my fellow trustees have been doing for the last 26 years. Same guys, same trust. And we ain't stopping now. Pretty weird, however, that not one, not a single one of the dozens of journalists of record and others who have travelled with me or covered Band Aid "discovered" Martin Plaut's "story" (and story is indeed what it is). Some feel the press has a right to lie. Rageh, no such right exists.

Does Bob Geldof really think that Rageh Omaar believes the press has a right to lie? I can't decide if it would be more worrying if Geldof did believe that, or if it's more worrying that he just thought making something like that up as a rhetorical device was the right thing to do.

I'm a little confused, as Geldof kicked off saying that the Band Aid trust had ignored all the allegations for the last quarter century - ""We've taken it on the chin for 25 years and never said anything. Not this time." Now he says just a few paragraphs later that the Trust has spent 26 years responding to detailed scrutiny. Can't be both, surely?

As for nobody who "travelled with me" hearing the story that Plaut did, would that be so surprising? Plaut himself says that it never occurred to him to ask the questions before; much less likely that someone on a stage-managed tour with Bob would find themselves face-to-face with a person claiming that they'd been siphoning off aid, would they?

The real story of this sorry saga is the intense systemic failure of the World Service, that cherry on the cake of the BBC's reputation.

An intense systemic failure of a cherry. A cherry on a cake.

It's a rotten old cherry these days.

The World Service is rotten cherry. And old. A rotting, old cherry.

And I am as bereft as a jilted lover. Of all the taxes I pay, I pay only one gladly – my licence fee. I am Mr World Service.

You realise that the licence fee doesn't pay for the World Service, don't you, Mr. World Service?

(And does that make you Mr Rotting Old Cherry?)

I have done ads promoting the BBC, I have written and spoken in its defence, it is indeed the BBC who started me and others on this African journey; I believe it must, at all costs, be retained very similar to what it is now, albeit cutting away the deadwood and slack. But basically: "I Want My BBC!"

One programme raises some fair questions, you refuse to take part, and all of a sudden it's systemic?

But this BBC story was neither about me nor Band Aid. By disingenuously posturing as "serious" reporting, it pretended the total failure and negligence of all the great humanitarian workers and their organisations in the worst famine in modern times, and how miraculously not one of them spotted that no one was getting food despite everyone supplying it!

This does suggest, again, that the report was insisting that 95% of all aid was redirected; confusing a quotation in the report with the thrust of the report.

It beggars belief that anyone would take that seriously.

Ah, so your threats of legal action are going to fail as you don't think anyone could have believed the reports?

Where were all the dead people then? If no one was getting food, why was nobody dying? That would have been one of the first questions I'd have asked. But they weren't dying because they were getting help, and massive amounts of it. But of course no one did ask where the bodies were at the World Service. That and many, many, other unasked questions.

Yes. Of course, had you decided to talk to the programme, instead of not, you could have helped shape the general direction of it. And, really, Plaut's report actually explains that, if there were deals with bad people, it was done with the intention of stopping people dying; to get the grain to them, not to stop it. Plaut writes:

Although I was now finally following the trail of the money and the rebel guns, I am only too aware that I was making these enquiries 20 years too late.

The aid workers who did so much to help those suffering back then had not asked those questions either. But perhaps they would not have saved so many lives if they had.

You might have to do deals with devil for the greater good - that was what the report was suggesting.

Geldof then bangs on intemperately for a few paragraphs about how terrible the World Service is. Although even if the story had been what he seems to have heard (rather than the programme everyone else tuned in to), and even if it isn't true, one tale hardly leaves a seventy year tradition in tatters. Even if it is Bob Geldof who has taken exception to the programme.

Where were the producers and editors and seniors? Why was Plaut allowed to go mad on his pre- and post- media interview circus around the world with bonkers wild accusations? Just to get an audience? Did he and the World Service for one second comprehend the enormous damage and danger he immediately put every humanitarian worker in? Particularly the huge, brave and brilliant Red Cross? Did he not consider, for one microsecond, the consequences of accusing them, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that they had handed over 95% of their cash to purchase arms?

Sigh. Plaut didn't accuse them of that. Aregawi Berhe made the accusation of 95%.

It literally beggars belief at the enormity of the consequence had his lie not been nailed immediately and with as much vehemence as could be mustered. How appalling the utter and total disregard or incomprehension of the result of his actions. What if the Red Cross, now compromised in their neutrality, were ordered away from war zones, or forbidden access to the deepest dungeons, or concentration camps? What then, Rageh Omaar and Martin Plaut? What then of your smug certitudes and thin pieties? Then you could report on the blood on your own hands rather than falsely smear it over the hands of others. How dare you, Rageh Omaar, attempt to defend the awful indefensible. Just for that alone, Plaut should be fired. You people, you self-important mediators of "news", should wise up and accept a little humility rather than attack the aid agencies and their workers for being above criticism and ask yourself, as I do, who the hell are you to lecture?

Wow. Naturally, Bob will now back up his rant by pointing to the places where this edition of From Our Own Correspondent has caused this sort of problem for the Red Cross.

Oh, actually he doesn't.

But then, these sort of allegations have been floating about for 25 years, claims Bob (except when he's claiming they haven't); they'd presumably have filtered back to the more paranoid and bellicose at the frontlines of conflict by now?

Just as the Ross-Brand affair exposed the systemic weaknesses of the BBC in the area of entertainment, so this now does in the news sector of the World Service – albeit with far more drastic consequences. Where were the editors, subs and producers? As the Independent rightly asked, "Did the bells not go off" early on in this sorry tale? Where were the checks, balances, neutrality, even-handedness? They all failed at the World Service. Worse, they inconsistently and continuously contradicted themselves in their ludicrously pompous Rorke's Drift-type face-saving insistence on "sticking by their story". Well, they were right in the use of the word "story".

Bob has been around the media long enough to understand that From Our Own Correspondent is a signed piece; that the programme did include other viewpoints and raised eyebrows. And banging on about Ross/Brand really pegs this as little more than a high-class version of a Daily Mail reader's comment.

Despite the on-the record refutation of everything in Plaut's report by very senior White House advisers, high-level UN delegates, senior British ex-ambassadors and diplomats, all the aid agencies, the leader of rest the Tigrayan relief group at the time, the prime minister of Ethiopia and rebel leader at the time, and me, and without a single shred of evidence, not one iota of evidence, they cannot bear to acknowledge the grim reality, the actual truth – that they were wrong. The BBC World Service is so far off the rails it quite literally cannot recognise or acknowledge truth when it encounters it.

Perhaps the allegations are untrue. However, Plaut and his wife were in Ethiopia at the time of the famine, and so he isn't some comfy-trousered UK based writer who doesn't understand the issues or the personalities involved. And he's spoken to people who have made serious allegations - is Geldof saying that he should have ignored them?

Why didn't someone from Geldof's team speak to the programme when it was being made? Why wait until the programme was broadcast, and kick up a stink afterwards - a stink which has drawn far more attention to the allegations than the original programme did?

Do They Know What The Money's For At All?

The BBC World Service has claimed that millions of dollars intended for Ethiopian famine relief in the mid 80s was siphoned off to keep the popular civil war in weapons:

One rebel leader estimated $95m (£63m) - from Western governments and charities including Band Aid - was channelled into the rebel fight.

The CIA, in a 1985 assessment entitled Ethiopia: Political and Security Impact of the Drought, also alleged aid money was being misused.

Its report concluded: "Some funds that insurgent organisations are raising for relief operations, as a result of increased world publicity, are almost certainly being diverted for military purposes."

Bob Geldof has denied it:

Mr Geldof told BBC One's Andrew Marr show he would personally sue the Ethiopian government and spend the money on aid if any evidence was produced.

He said: "Produce me one shred of evidence and I promise you I will professionally investigate it, I will professionally report it, and if there is any money missing I will sue the Ethiopian government for that money back and I will spend it on aid.

"There is not a single shred of evidence that Band Aid or Live Aid money was diverted in any sense, it could not have been."

Apparently the 1985 CIA assessment doesn't, for these purposes, count as "one shred of evidence".

Various charities are preparing to take complaints about the report to the BBC Trust and Ofcom.

Talking to The Independent, Geldof describes the report as "a Ross/Brand moment for me" - an interesting way of describing it, as that was a disproportionate fuss over a silly misjudgement. Is Bob saying that he's kicking up a stink that isn't warranted, or that the BBC was a little bit rubbish?

The Independent report ends with this, erm, "support" for the aid agencies:

A former British ambassador to Ethiopia, Myles Wickstead, added weight to the aid agencies' condemnation last night. "I'd give no credibility whatsoever to the idea that 95 per cent of aid to Tigray was diverted," he concluded.

"It was too highly monitored, most particularly that of Live Aid. Some money may well have gone astray in Ethiopia in 1985. But nowhere nearly on the scale which the BBC has alleged."

I'm not sure that saying "ooh, nowhere near as much as 95% was diverted" is quite the same as the agencies insistence that everything was accounted for.

Given the terrible state the country was in at the time, you'd have been surprised if some of the aid didn't go awry, no matter how well-intentioned the agencies distributing it were; no matter how well-considered their systems were. Personally, I'm more worried by Bob and the charities insisting that nothing was misplaced than I am by the BBC claims of massive amounts vanishing. Even Wal-Mart can't stop shrinkage to theft, and Wal-Mart are evil.

Bob Geldof invites advertisers of unneccessary shit to salve consciences with tiny logo

Bob Geldof and - tonight playing the role of someone who you'd hope would know better - Kofi Annan have flown to Cannes in a bid to try and stop stop climate change by, erm, putting a small logo on their adverts:

In fact, Annan and Geldof want this to be more than a campaign. They want a climate justice movement to be born amid the acres of polished marble and €15 vodka and tonics of the French Riviera and launched an appeal to ad agencies and their clients to place Tck Tck Tck logos on their advertisements. Consumers can then upload their own individual "Tcks" to the campaign website, representing the seconds counting down to Copenhagen and the immediacy of the issue at hand.

I suppose if this was tuts rather than tcks, it might be appropriate - a vague, disapproving but detached noise.

Any similarity between this and Bob's colleague-cum-competitor-for-sainthood Bono's Red campaign, which also somehow tried to make the purchasing of luxury goods seem like a positive act, is entire.

Kofi tries to explain why this is actually going to make a difference and isn't just some tatty greenwash:

"I can't imagine a company that would put a Tck Tck Tck on its ad campaign or website, and continue to operate without [being greener]. Its own staff, its own workers will be reminded what are we doing here."

That's funny. You'd have thought that a half-decade of running an organisation where the least contentious ideas turn into the focus of pointless posturing and sabre-truth tiger-rattling rows would have made Kofi a bit more cynical, or perhaps realistic. But given how oil companies are quite happy to pump cash both into persuading Congress to let them drill in areas of beauty and running ads stressing how green they are, I don't think I can share Annan's hopes.

Bookmarks: Some stuff to read on the internet: Bono and Bob

G2 meets Dambisa Moyo, who provides one of the sharpest critiques of what's wrong with Bono I've read in a while:

Partly, of course, it's about power, and purse-strings; partly, she believes, it's a PR issue, "there are many well-spoken, smart African leaders who should be on the global stage"; very largely, given that so far not many are, it's a case of who gets to do the talking, and increasingly, it is people like Bob Geldof and Bono, the most visible representatives of what she calls, in a thrillingly withering manner, "glamour aid".

"There are African policymakers who are charged with the responsibility of creating policy, and implementing policy. That's their job. Long, long lines of people have stood in the sun to vote for a president who is effectively impotent because of donors or because glamour aid has decided to speak on behalf of a continent.

How would British people feel if tomorrow Michael Jackson started telling them how they should get out of the housing crisis? Or if Amy Winehouse started to give the US government advice about the credit crunch? And was listened to? I think they would be perturbed, and worried. I mean, they've completely disenfranchised the very people we've actually elected!"

The price of suffering

Bob Geldof found some time in his busy schedule to fly to Asutralia and deliver a speech about world poverty at the eighth annual Diversity@Work business awards at Crown Palladium in Melbourne.

It's unquestionably inspiring to raise the issue of those who have so little, and only slightly undermined by reports in the Herald Sun that Geldof took an AUS$100,000 fee.

It's possible, of course, that Geldof took the money and passed it on those in poverty without making a song and dance about it. What's curious, though, is that Tim Costello of World Vision, who shared the platform, says that he didn't get a fee. All rather odd.

Peaches bruised

I'm not sure the News Of The World can quite claim an exclusive that Peaches Geldof is divorcing - isn't that like claiming an exclusive on 'water runs downhill' or something?

So, then, who got 96 days in the sweepstake?

The Screws turns at this difficult time to "a pal" to provide some comfort and support:

A pal of Peaches, 19, told us: "She realised it was all a mistake - and her dad Sir Bob is delighted."

That's exactly what a friend would say - "her dad Sir Bob" - for don't we all not only explain who relatives might be, but also give them (erroneously) their title? Still, we're betting her Dad, Sir Bob, must be thrilled at the costs and horrors of a very public ill-conceived marriage and a tatty old divorce. Thrilled beyond belief.