Skip to content

Fake charity watch

Well, at least one organisation seems to have realised that the money from the taxpayers has run out.

9 thoughts on “Fake charity watch”

  1. Well, bondholders get a lovely certificate and a chance to meet other loonies for breakfast a couple of times a year. That’s well worth a monkey.

  2. Yes but no but

    Every trade on the CME is classified as either speculative or hedging/commercial. That’s why the exchange can publish figures for gross and net speculative positions despite the fact the the total of all the position always sum to zero.

  3. Surely they are misrepresenting. A bond is normally paper that has face value, offers a coupon*, has a date of redemption…

    Ah, I forgot, with the NEF, there is no redemption.

    * sometimes a zero coupon is offered, the paper being sold at below face value but redeemed for face.

  4. A ‘bond’ – it sounds like something quite economics-y. Like a proper financial thing.

    But…”Bonds are non-refundable (you will not get your money back) and do not provide any financial return.”

    So it’s not really what it pretends to be, it’s just a straightforward demand for a handout, dressed up as something more sophisticated.

    It is very ‘nef’ isn’t it?

  5. The bit where they say you can invest in a bond is particularly odious. They use the word ‘invest’ like Gordon Brown always did – in a total and utter perversion of the English language.

    They say that the ‘bonds’ are mandatorily converted into support for nef, but that they are ‘due 30 June 2011’. Does that mean nef sits on the money for a year, or does it mean they will be back with their hands out in a year’s time for another ‘bond’?

    Shouldn’t they be calling them ‘conds’ instead?

  6. Or maybe just “nobs”?

    @FCA – yes, this perversion is so typical of the Fabian way. But to them, money for what they want to do is an investment, for them and not for the person paying. The only thing I think they regret is not having the ability to force us to buy them – then their pleasure would be compleat.

    @John Lettuce – one is.

  7. I am reminded of the Python sketch in which John Cleese, the merchant banker, has a bit of a problem with the whole concept of “giving to the orphans”.

    Naf, sorry, nef, appear to have rejigged the script and used it as a prospectus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *