Gelfdor only does this every few years as it's the only thing that feeds his addiction to fame. Without this he will just fade to nothing. At Live8 he actually had the nerve to bring his band on and perform which was really taking the pith and an abuse of the position he was in. Lenny Henry is much the same with Comic Relief - charity is great when used the right way but also open to abuse by fame-hungry folk who can't accept their time is up. Probably.
These multimillionaires may be annoying, but surely we can all see that they are at least doing something to raise awareness and money for the cause, as opposed to the other multimillionaires who do nothing, and yet it is the former who get the flak from us, while the others get away uncastigated. Doesn't seem right somehow.
'SB' ........ You asked for some facts as opposed to approximations, which is fair enough. I was merely putting forward an overview as opposed to actual figures. I had a gut feeling that l had read that with some charities, there overall running cost exceeded 60% ( l think I said 80% or there abouts ) Anyway, the my main focus was the fact that a lot of hard earned dollars go to pay big wages instead of going to the required source. I don't begrudge some monies going to paid people to bring in more donations BUT l the facts indicate that big dollars go to pay big salaries. Here are some Australian details I quickly sourced. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
Cheers Aussie, not that difficult is it? Your figures show that, while there are a few with spectacularly high 'income generation' spending, most spend less than 25% (which is still high compared to the UK, perhaps they have to work extra hard to get your compatriots to put their hands in their pockets). As I said there are always a few dodgy operators in any walk of life. Your sources also contradict each other - the top picture says Guide Dogs NSW spends only 9% of its income on admin, the second chart puts it at 25%.
