Pro Bono: singer gets his hat back
 

After a hotly contested battle in Dublin's High Court, the U2 frontman has won the right to get his cowboy hat back ...
http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/sto...948337,00.html

christ, for someone who advocates giving charity quite so loudly, did bono really need to go the expense of taking his old stylist to court over £3,400's worths of hat, metal hooped earings, a green sweatshirt and a pair of black trousers?

would his money not be better used on say, the make poverty history campaign?

it all seems a bit hypocritical to me
x

a bit??? a lot me thinks

did you see he has also moved u2's banking offshore so he doesn't have to pay his taxes? much as i find jon's repeated mentions of the million dollars he gave after katrina annoying, it's nothing on the hypocrisy of bono. and don't get me started on geldof funding that rubbish daughter of his...
i wonder if any u2 fans have anything to say on the matter
x

But dont forget he did name himself after a dog biscuit

hehe

and that's 100% scientific fact
FACT

meh you cant win all the time.

if bono chooses to spend his money on a court case then he can. he's also donated and done more for charity than everyone here combined.

It is ALSO in the make poverty history campaign.

I think the hipocrisy is on your side really... He's not pretending, all the charity he says he does is real. And I don't see how that should forbid him on trialing whoever he thinks he should. Maybe the hat and other accessories mean a lot to him, maybe he planned on putting them up at an auction for charity, ... Don't be so quick to judge him.


Ponrauil

I'm with Ponrauil and Jim - I don't see why Bono wouldn't take Ms. Cashman to trial if she has stolen his items. Just because he can afford new ones? So therefore it's ok when people take things that are legally his? Puhlease.

No matter how much money Bono will spend on charity, there will still be a large number of people who won't be satisfied until he's on bread and water and buys his clothes in secondhand stores. Cause otherwise, he'd be a hypocrite :?

Just because he workds for a good cause doesn't mean he has to spend all his money on it.

It's whimsical, yes, but in proportion to the amount of money he must have in the bank it's probably as buying a good dress or something. Or do you give all your money to charity once you have covered the very basics?

fair enough his money's his own- but i think it's incredibly cheeky to not pay his tax when everyone else who can't afford swanky accountants (and lets face it most ordinary people work quite a bit harder than him) have to.

also if he cared that much he could give a whole lot more to charity and still live a very nice life... yeah that's just my opinion; maybe if i was in his economic position i would keep more than i imagine i would.
just because i think he's a cheeky sod it doesn't change the fact that i still think it's good that he raises the profile of charities and that his efforts encourage others to give.

personally i would rather Ms Cashman's story was true... i rather like the idea of rock stars distributing hats to their employees whilst wearing only their underwear. i suppose my whimsy has clouded my judgement.
it wouldn't be the first time.