REGARDING Comic Relief’s investments (Money, 15 December), I fail to see anything unethical in raising money from tobacco, alcohol or arms companies, and certainly nothing immoral in applying such revenue to alleviating human distress in any form. Would outright donations from these sources be rejected?
These industries are all legal commercial enterprises manufacturing universally marketable products which are routinely criticised less because of their use than for their misuse by certain purchasers. Extremism is no valid basis for judgment in any aspect of life.
How does holding shares in weapons manufacturing affect Comic Relief’s helping people affected by conflict? £630,000 is in any case a widow’s mite to the massive armaments industry and would never be missed. Why not take any available advantage from it? How many recipients would reject it on ethical or any other grounds?
Actually, I’m shocked by the very idea of investing funds raised to alleviate current human needs. Interest or dividend revenues can amount to only a minor fraction of the total; the same ratio must apply to the numbers of needy people and projects receiving – or still awaiting – assistance from the fund.
This is certainly enough to discourage me from ever donating to the charity.
With no idea how the administrators decide which worthy causes to support or when, I venture to suggest that there will certainly be enough at any time to use up every penny of funds raised. Why make them wait?
Robert Dow, Tranent