Report comment

According to the piece in the FT, the vast majority of the shenanigans complained of took place at an after party attended by far fewer guests than the main event, There's no surprise then that most of the people who went to the main event denied any knowledge of any wrongdoing.

It also sounds like everybody, including most of the hostesses, had far too much to drink. Not an excuse but a bit of mitigation.

What I don't get though is why a charity would turn down the money collected for it. Surely the money belongs to the beneficiaries of the charity, not the sanctimonious desk jockeys running it. Were the beneficiaries asked if they wanted to give their money away?