Reply to post: Re: their current [charity] (false) flag is a useful tool to peddle their BUSINESS

As pressure builds over .org sell-off, internet governance bodies fall back into familiar pattern: Silence

W.S.Gosset Silver badge

Re: their current [charity] (false) flag is a useful tool to peddle their BUSINESS

Apologies, I blurred 2 things: the Concert, and the ongoing LiveAid institution.

The Concert raised £40m, thereafter all the followup etc raised (iirc) a further £100m+ .

The concert itself ate all its money. The numbers were quite clearly laid out, including the payments for the administration by the LiveAid org.

What happened to the further £100m+ I don't know. You say and Spin says that some of that money got through; I'll take your words for it.

That linked Spin article is excellent, by the way -- I hadn't seen that before; thank you. I parTICularly like the quote from someone at the coalface which underlines the bigger-picture structural parasitism which was OP AC's & my point:

“If they start raising a ruckus or shifting their policy around, they’ll lose their money from the public,” countered a fieldworker, who asked not to be named. “Then their own bread won’t be buttered.”

And underlining my further point that nonmonetary perks are also often major incentives:

In late January and February 1986, Bob Geldof was busy. Lunching with French president Francois Mitterand to discuss new programs for aid to Africa, planning the massive Sport Aid for late May, and pushing School Aid — his program to present young kids a simple picture of the story in Africa. Geldof seems to be working tirelessly and imaginatively to raise more dollars, but he must know by now the dark currency they will become in Ethiopia.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021