Let's be generous and say that 2.3 million would be lost (since you're providing no data to back your own argument I'll inject some fantasy numbers).
That's still 1 million towards the shortfall in their UK operations.
So unless your position is that virtually all of the donations would be lost (in which case you could use some supporting data yourself) then I'm still not sure what your point it.
Here's a number that's less than 3.3 million: 3.29 million.
Here's a number that's great than 0: 0.00000000000000001.
See what I'm getting at? With no data yourself you are speculating. You're assuming numbers which meat your viewpoint/argument, when you clearly have no actual data.
Ergo, guesswork.
I have consistently backed this (that i don't have exact figures, none of us do).
I am making the point that my position has far more validity than yours.
Your whole anger over this, is the assumption that they would have had all that money anyway. All the evidence points to this not being the case.
Therefore your position is entirely guesswork also, but guesswork that goes against the evidence presented before you.
Last edited: