^ use this link.
I've edited my post to contain 100% less Telegraph.
( ,
Mon 27 Sep 2010, 21:31,
archived)
Aww
I just typed a reply as well before I noticed your shenanigans
I appreciate it's the Torygraph but it that seemed like quite a reasonable article
Was that figure of 1.2% or whatever it was, for real?
( ,
Mon 27 Sep 2010, 21:35,
archived)
I appreciate it's the Torygraph but it that seemed like quite a reasonable article
Was that figure of 1.2% or whatever it was, for real?
It's repeated in the Grauniad article
which itself is a restatement of a NY Times article.
In conclusion: probably, but who really knows :)
( ,
Mon 27 Sep 2010, 21:38,
archived)
In conclusion: probably, but who really knows :)
"This isn’t gossip. The Post’s figures are taken directly from the organisation’s 2008 tax return, the latest year for which records are available"
Says a Telegraph blog.
www.nypost.com/p/news/national/poor_idea_bono_bsUzJMfT2mBJbqyXgp6YoO
( ,
Mon 27 Sep 2010, 21:42,
archived)
www.nypost.com/p/news/national/poor_idea_bono_bsUzJMfT2mBJbqyXgp6YoO
Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy. -Book of Bokonon 1:5
( ,
Mon 27 Sep 2010, 21:56,
archived)
If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon.
( ,
Mon 27 Sep 2010, 22:18,
archived)
Fuck me
"The Bono nonprofit took in $14,993,873 in public donations in 2008, the latest year for which tax records are available.
Of that, $184,732 was distributed to three charities, according to the IRS filing.
Meanwhile, more than $8 million was spent on executive and employee salaries"
( ,
Mon 27 Sep 2010, 21:50,
archived)
Of that, $184,732 was distributed to three charities, according to the IRS filing.
Meanwhile, more than $8 million was spent on executive and employee salaries"