Quote:
Originally Posted by katex
Eeew hek, the 'yes's' are going up more .. that you Andrew ?
Well, must be a lot of people out there who understand it .. feeling inadequate  (or not .. just voting 'cause they support Cllr. Dobson).. your explanation is no different than the Observer.
I will not vote on this until I have the full details of whether that £ 90,000 is a truistic figure, and not embroiled in 'slightly embroidered' spin. |
Yes it's me, I'm avidly running around family homes voting to save face.
£90,000 was raised in total. £10,000 was raised by conventional methods. The other £80,000 was raised by charities, and then given back to them with an additional 10% (from the £10,000 conventional methods).
The 'controversial' part being that the charities have been given an incentive to raise their own money, where as in the past only the conventional method was used, with the money going to a nominated charity.
Is this any clearer? If not which bit is it that I am still covering with mud.
