Bin Ladens' bestie Charles

[BoldonLad]

He’s a ridiculously wealthy man so I’d say any ‘donation’ is suspicious.

If the donations are supposedly for one or more of the charities the prince supports and not his personal gain, why not make the donation direct to the charity and leave him out of it?

Yes, I agree with all that…

Not a Royalist or a fan of Saudi Arabia.

Just if a dividing line is to be drawn, between (say) my £10 donation and a £1,000,000 donation, where is the line, and, is it fuzzy or a nice clean cutoff?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

where is the line, and, is it fuzzy or a nice clean cutoff?

I’d say any ‘donation’ is suspicious

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm sure it was all above board, perfectly legal etc. But was it advisable? It's been nearly ten years so shouldn't be too hard to check if the Bin Laden's have had any favours returned.

My own guess would be that they might have been hoping that once Charles was king he might be persuaded to show support for Saudi Arabia. Royal tour or something. Of course who could have predicted that the dear old Queen would still be around and Charlie would still not be on the throne 10 years later.

 

[BoldonLad]

I'm sure it was all above board, perfectly legal etc. But was it advisable? It's been nearly ten years so shouldn't be too hard to check if the Bin Laden's have had any favours returned.

My own guess would be that they might have been hoping that once Charles was king he might be persuaded to show support for Saudi Arabia. Royal tour or something. Of course who could have predicted that the dear old Queen would still be around and Charlie would still not be on the throne 10 years later.

Fair enough, I like a nice clear, unambiguous rule, maybe not such good news for charities.

 

[Ian H]

Without commenting at all on whether the donation was legal, ethical or wise, isn't it strange how this surfaces just after Charlie's comment on the government becomes public.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Yes, I agree with all that…

Not a Royalist or a fan of Saudi Arabia.

Just if a dividing line is to be drawn, between (say) my £10 donation and a £1,000,000 donation, where is the line, and, is it fuzzy or a nice clean cutoff?

Are the Royal Family more likely to give you any greater favours as a result of a £1m donation than they would for a £10 donation?

It'll be a nice dirty cutoff rather than a nice clean cutoff...but at probably a lot more than a tenner...and depend on the favour. Try it and let us know how you get on.

 

[BoldonLad]

Without commenting at all on whether the donation was legal, ethical or wise, isn't it strange how this surfaces just after Charlie's comment on the government becomes public.

Indeed, and/or as his elevation looms ever closer.

 

[slowmotion]

Wealthy family donates to charity shocker.

 

[slowmotion]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly season

 

[matticus]

I'm sure it was all above board, perfectly legal etc. But was it advisable?

Have you asked the recipients i.e. the end-users of the money, so to speak?
(Here's an example: https://www.pwcf.org.uk/projects/pips-suicide-prevention )

 

[AuroraSaab]

No, I haven't. I don't doubt that the charity does excellent work but I think you should have a cautious approach when accepting money from certain quarters. Why are such phenomenally wealthy people giving money to a charity headed by royalty? Doesn't it ring any alarm bells at all?

MP's do good work. Should we have any qualms about it when they accept large sums from business donors? I think we should. Researchers who receive large amounts from drug companies - should we question whether that makes their research less independent and unbiased? Newspapers who accept grants from foundations to write favourably about particular issues - doesn't that undermine their journalistic integrity?

I don't think charities should be exempt from the scrutiny we give other institutions. If anything, they have too often been given a free pass.