A suitcase with a million euros in cash given to Charles

[antelopevalley]

The real question is what the Prime Minister was expecting in return.

"The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing a million euros in cash from a former Qatari prime minister, the Sunday Times has reported.
The paper says this was one of three cash donations from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim totalling three million euros.
Clarence House said donations from the sheikh were passed immediately to one of the prince's charities and all the correct processes were followed.
There is no suggestion the payments were illegal.
According to the Sunday Times, Prince Charles received the three cash donations in person from the former prime minister between 2011 and 2015.
It is claimed that on one occasion the money was handed over in a holdall at a meeting at Clarence House. On another, the paper reported the cash was contained in carrier bags from the department store Fortnum and Mason."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61941113

Ah, yes. Fawcett The Fence.

I'd suggest further reading on the subject of how he came to acquire that nickname and then moving on to count the number of times he's fallen on what would appear to be a rubber sword which has magically bounced him straight back through BP's revolving doors.

Not remotely ignored. After all, that’s the only thing that makes a “no allegation of any wrongdoing, no evidence that this wasn’t a genuine charitable donation” story front page news (as it was in the Sunday Times - they have a paper to flog, after all).

I am confused by this but maybe I a missing something. Why does it make any difference whether it was cash, cheque or transfer? Surely its all legal tender.

If the Sheikh gave money for something in return, why does it matter what form that money took? Charles handed it over to the charity so I can't see the issue. He is an idiot to take cash I agree but I can't see anything fundamentally wrong. If he is using his influence somewhere, he could just as easily do that if he was paid by SWIFT.

Yep.

It's about who he is taking money from & why though isn't it?

I am also unimpressed with the "charity", which according to many newspapers was set up to support his pet projects and to help run his country estate in Scotland 🤔

Think you summed it up and contradicted yourself when you said "we don't know in your reply "
the was my point
you clearly know there was favours so can you please enlighten us to clear it up .

Work on the old logical deductions, like I suggested. Really try.

Work on the old logical deductions, like I suggested. Really try.

You've not got any logical deductions. Just mights and maybes. There's no evidence to support any of it and none of it holds up to scrutiny.

I can't see any reason why this had to be in cash - maybe someone can explain. Why didn't they do a bank transfer?

Interesting fact that nobody talk about. So, is it safe to say without being sued, that he paid himself? If he runs the charity and the money went to the charity, it went to him? Can I say that?
Juan Carlos got money from the Saudis to lobby for them and to improve their image in the west, sounds familiar? We all know how that ended for him...! The Spanish showed him the door!
Juan Carlos was a lot smarter though! He got big bucks compared to Charles! Charles should get a new advisor imho, this one isn't doing a great job. Wait, was his advisor at the time the same guy who got shown the door for lobbying for this other dodgy to get citizenship?

*dodgy guy

I am also unimpressed with the "charity", which according to many newspapers was set up to support his pet projects and to help run his country estate in Scotland

Dumfries House?

I read a while back he personally decided it needed 'saving for the nation' and took out loans to buy it with the intention they'd be repaid with charitable donations. It cost the eye watering sum of £45m so the previous owner who was absolutely rolling did rather nicely out of it.

Quite a pet project.

Laundering

No, you’ve got confused again. Let’s have another go.

The PP complained that the Sunday Times story didn’t have enough ‘facts’ for her liking, although it included plenty. She was unhappy because the story failed to ‘prove’ that Prince Charles had acted at best foolishly and with poor judgment.

At first she misunderstood the issue and thought that the Sunday Times story was attempting to establish that Prince Charles had stolen the EUR 3m. Then after that had been explained to her, she complained that the story as it stood, which made some pretty strong inferences about the wisdom of Charles’ behaviour, had failed to prove unequivocally that Charles had not acted in a manner suitable for an unelected monarch in waiting. No, the story was written in such a manner that the reader uses their own grey matter to draw inferences. Which the PP found insupportable. Why can’t everything be made black and white for her benefit? Why should she have to think? It’s just not fair.

More than that, how dare anyone form a negative view of Prince Charles’ behaviour unless given incontrovertible proof of his wrongdoing? I wonder what that would look like? Prince Charles on Tik Tok saying, “hey guys, I’ve been a bit of an idiot. My mate the sheikh bunged me a million euros in a Fortnum and Mason carrier bag and I accepted it from him because, er, well, it was for my charities, OK? And I didn’t want to break the code of the royal bros. I didn’t think about how iffy it looked, especially in light of the dodgy Saudi cash for honours thing my mate Michael Fawcett was sorting out for me and which he resigned over to take the heat off me. I did it three times! What am I like, eh? I am a naughty heir to the throne. I’m sorry.”

Face it. You’re never going to see any absolute proof. That’s why you have to analyse the evidence for yourself. Journalism would be very different if newspapers weren’t allowed to run stories of this nature. Perhaps you’d prefer that. Nobody allowed to criticise your beloved royal family.

There have already been accusations that Charles too money for his charities in return for honours. Surely in the wake of that you would be extra careful about what you did?

Not if you didn't give a stuff what the common people think of you, and if you know there's absolutely no chance of being held accountable for anything

The cash may or may not have gone "straight to charity" and there may or may not have been an ulterior motive behind it - we'll never know - but as ever with the RF it's about how thing look
And to me it looks like yet another example of appalling judgement

Remember the threads attacking Meghan for a necklace sources claimed came from a dictator (that the Palace received on her behalf)

And to me it looks like yet another example of appalling judgement

That, and the representation of a very specific regional interest in all of these interactions.

What a grubby mess. How much more of this will it take for something to stick on this shameless family and shake everybody out of their collective thrall?

No doubt the whole pretty dress distraction technique will be ramped up in the next few days to distract us again. Bread and circuses.

With an amoral government, a self-serving monarchy and an increasingly poorer population that props them all up, I despair.

Bellevu
I hadn't seen the front page of that paper but even the headline on this story has been handpicked to please the powers that be! According to the news in the rest of Europe (CNN comes to mind) he got a million dollars in a shopping bag, yes he did, BUT he also got two more! So, while technically true he got ONE (1) bag, with ONE million euros, it would have been more accurate to say he got THREE (3) millions euros in three shopping bags. Words matter and, as seen on this thread, some people have trouble understanding even simple ones. A reporter's job is to report accurately not half-truths.

With an amoral government, a self-serving monarchy and an increasingly poorer population that props them all up, I despair

This is how it is, I am afraid, wherever you go. Apparently, a great leader - that is, a leader who genuinely cares about their country and population - comes every hundred years. Personally, I think it's never.

Never having had lots of money..but been though customs, don't we have to declare large amounts of money? Or is this another rule that the royals don't have to adhere to?

Fascinating - and notable that the problems were said to be "systemic"

Presumably, at least when travelling on official business, royals would have diplomatic status and so be exempt from such matters?

I hate to rain on your parade, but every bank of any size in the UK of any size (and loads of smaller ones too) has been fined by the FCA for “systemic failings” in some of their controls. They are like speeding fines - issued when institutions don’t meet the rules in some areas to deter others from similar conduct and to raise standards generally.

Check out Barclays’ record if you really want to read fascinating regulatory decisions 😀 (their CEO got fined a huge amount for trying to find out who had blow the whistle on him, among other fines!)