Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
itsnotoutthere

The drag artist who was handed £215,000

Recommended Posts

itsnotoutthere

The body which allocates grants to venues hit hard by the pandemic has given £215,000 to a drag queen called Le Gateau Chocolat.

While snubbing popular cash-strapped venues applying for a share of its £500 million pot, Arts Council England gave the huge grant to George Ikediashi – who describes himself as ‘fat, black and bearded’.

The sum – which is more than seven times the average national salary – came despite the act never grossing even half that sum in a year. Other acts and venues, such as Manchester’s renowned comedy club, The Frog and Bucket, have had their grant applications rejected.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8870099/Drag-artist-Le-Gateau-Chocolat-handed-215k-coronavirus-culture-fund.html

Speechless.:hmm:

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
OverSword

The Frog and Bucket should have put on a dress.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere
11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The Frog and Bucket should have put on a dress.

And gained 100lb.

Edited by itsnotoutthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

He'll (or is it she?) make a dump on the scene, and will get another £215,000. (Performance "Don't dump in your pants!")

Kinda sad, when r people are treated like some geniuses, "one of the kind"... Its just.. just sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere
46 minutes ago, Setton said:

Me too! 

No way I guessed that article would be the daily mail!

Oh I don't know, this'll probably be in the Guardian 'arts' section soon for all the wrong reasons.

Edited by itsnotoutthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
14 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Oh I don't know, this'll probably be in the Guardian 'arts' section soon for all the wrong reasons.

Those wrong reasons being....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere
3 minutes ago, Setton said:

Those wrong reasons being....?

To signal their virtue. He ticks a lot of their boxes.

Edited by itsnotoutthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 minute ago, itsnotoutthere said:

To signal their virtue. He ticks a lot of their boxes.

Whereas the daily mail reports on this because....

Actually, I'll wait for you to finish that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere

Perhaps because like me their readers can think of a thousand better ways to spend £215,000 of tax payers money, hundreds of real arts venues and theatres out there that actually employ people struggling at the moment.

Quote The body which allocates grants to venues hit hard by the pandemic

Edited by itsnotoutthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
25 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Perhaps because like me their readers can think of a thousand better ways to spend £215,000 of tax payers money, hundreds of real arts venues and theatres out there struggling at the moment.

What makes this not 'real arts'?

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
stevewinn
15 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Perhaps because like me their readers can think of a thousand better ways to spend £215,000 of tax payers money, hundreds of real arts venues and theatres out there that actually employ people struggling at the moment.

bonkers. no doubt a box that HAD to was ticked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
5 minutes ago, Setton said:

What makes this not a 'real arts venue'?

Unless I'm reading the article wrong, it looks like they gave the grant to an individual instead of an actual venue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
5 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Unless I'm reading the article wrong, it looks like they gave the grant to an individual instead of an actual venue. 

Ok, sure he doesn't constitute a venue. 

Wasn't really the key bit of that quote though, was it? Edited for clarity.

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.