Report comment

“one of our most loyal supporters ... is anonymous and wishes to remain so indefinitely. It is perfectly normal in the philanthropy and charity sectors for funders to stipulate anonymity for a variety of different reasons..."

Does anyone else find this as sinister as I do? Perhaps when public money is involved, full disclosure of vested interests should be manditory.

I would also argue that the GBT has always and continues to stretch the definition of 'Charity' and 'Philanthropy' to further this vanity project.

This report was concerned with the primary issue of value for money. It is demonstrably not value for money, and the competitive process was objectively a sham. In his letter, Mervyn Davies fails to offer a decent defence of these issues, relying instead on accusing Dame Hodge of partisanship.