The waste products hit the proverbial fan on Wednesday when JK Rowling decided to donate £1M to the Better Together campaign…only to find out they aren't called that anymore, they are called No Thanks.
What a stupid name for a campaign looking for funds. I wonder if there was any confusion in that conversation?
'Do you want some money?'
Loading article content
'No Thanks. How can I help?'
'No thanks? You don't want my money?'
'No Thanks? Hello?'
The abuse she's received since has been ridiculous. Most of the vitriolic nastiness was out of order but sadly isn't unusual. The internet and social media thrive on interaction through comments.
It's wrong to assume it's the work of random iPad bampots and crazed cybernats. Most times there's an agenda, a surprisingly very in-depth and detailed level of knowledge, sometimes you'd think they were briefed.
They skilfully engage in debate or shout down, bully and rubbish. It's naive to assume that there isn't an agenda and a strategy behind some of the stuff that's discussed.
I'd be surprised if an experienced media operator like JK Rowling, someone who has made her fortune through understanding the human condition, would be shocked.
'Talent' doesn't make a decision lightly without running through the ramifications with her advisers, managers, lawyers and agents and at that level probably the owners too. This wouldn't be a spur of the moment decision but a cool calculated decision.
As long as you understand it's hurtful, the rules of the playground bully and my dad's bigger than your dad, then you're fine. It's a race from one set of delusional people to gain the high moral ground from the other before someone from the other side gets it.
She's earned the money; she can spend it in whatever way she chooses. There's no difference between JK Rowling in 2014 or Aristophanes in 410BC. It's all comes down to what Oscar Wilde said: 'The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.'
(Of course some of the plot and comedic devices Aristophanes used would still sound fresh today if incorporated into a sitcom. Not so sure if the same can be said for a magical wizard in 2500 years.)
My issue isn't over anyone being generous to charity or choosing to spend their money they've rightly earned. I happen to believe it's mindlessly futile and incredibly stupid to give political campaigns funding. I include Colin and Chris Weir's Yes wedge here too.
If for some weird reason my books (Nirvana: A Tour Diary, The Creation of Oasis and the spoof political memoir of Sandy Trout: The Long Walk to Brechin) started to sell and movies were being made and suddenly I found I was richer than some small countries, I would love to think I would be magnanimous and kind-hearted.
I would try to do it on my own terms without thinking about PR. The last people I'd give money to would be political parties.
Here's 10 things I would do:
Buy a Greggs franchise and use it as a food kitchen, distribute free steak bakes, sandwiches and nice treats.
Randomly share out 500,000 lottery tickets.
Buy 500,000 double nuggets for the weans off the icy.
Spread love and happiness. Distribute 100,000 free new (still wrapped) nude books
Give Albion Rovers half a million.
Give Airdrie half a million.
Buy a nice old hall, get a big modern kitchen, get volunteers to renovate it and house and feed homeless people. Its 2014, people shouldn't be going hungry or sleeping rough.
Buy Boris Johnson's water-cannons just to annoy him and turn it into a piece of art. Maybe fill them with Champagne…
Put £100 into 100,000 envelopes and plank them all over the nation.
Start a credit union bank next door to a pay day loan company.