Prince of Wales Charitable Fund accepted donation from Bin Laden family

[SnottyLottie]

POWCF have been caught accepting donations from dodgy people again (this time from Osama Bin Laden’s brothers in 2013).

His advisors reportedly urged Charles to return the money.

Clarence House claim that the money was accepted by the charity’s trustees rather than Charles himself and was done so with due diligence and research.

news.sky.com/story/the-prince-of-wales-charitable-fund-accepted-donation-from-osama-bin-ladens-family-12662569

Discussing this with you is slightly exasperating. You are the one who posted a quote claiming Dumfries House was a Save Britain Heritage Campaign where the quote said the house would belong to Save Britain Heritage. So clearly that was the initial plan, or the quote you posted was wrong?

Right back at you, to be honest - you are so utterly determined to see this as something dodgy, is that it? And you so fond of preaching critical thinking - consideration of the timeline would help here, rather than just approaching this with hindsight.

This quote “preservationists…organised a campaign intending to buy the house and hold it in trust under the Save Britain's Heritage organisation” describes the situation before Prince Charles’ involvement. At that point in time, when the house and its contents had literally been put up for sale with Saville’s and Christies, this was the plan - raise the funds to buy the house and for Save Britain’s Heritage to hold it in trust. At the 11th hour Prince Charles became involved and not only was he able to raise the funds to buy the property from the family, but he was also able to come up with a different plan for its future use.

So the quote isn’t wrong, but rather correctly described the situation as it was when the house was put up for sale. At that stage the campaign was headed by Save Britain’s Heritage. When Prince Charles came on board the plan changed. Since it resulted in the house and contents being saved, restored, opened to the public and used for an educational facility, I can’t imagine anyone but you has a problem with that.

Maybe start a new thread about Sarah Ferguson? I can't be arsed. No amount of chat on here will eliminate corruption.

You missed out that you stated Save Britains Heritage can not own a house as they are a campaigning organisation. And yet the initial plan was for them to own the house.
Then Charles comes swooping in and says no, my charity will own this £42 million house but neither I nor my charity will put a penny towards buying it.

Of course, Charles getting others to pay to buy Dumfries House and then give it to his charity foundation is a scandal. It is a white elephant.

You don’t even appear to understand how charities work here. “Getting others to pay for” actually means “getting [the Scottish government/the Arts Fund/other benefactors] to donate money for a cause they supported”. The loan was fully paid off by 2012 also, so the any profits the House makes over and above its operating costs will go back to fund the projects it is running.

Under a trust the trustee only has nominal ownership of the assets, they hold it on trust for the benefit of others. That’s the whole point of a trust (and a charity). Given the charity is also a separately constituted body with independent management.

You clearly see it as a white elephant - on the basis of what, it’s not clear. There are plenty of similar venues and buildings through the UK that are owned by a trust and operated for the benefit of community or artistic activities. It’s also clear not everyone agrees with you.

And yet the initial plan was for them to own the house.

No, as the actual words fo the quote says the initial plan was for them to “hold it in trust”. That is different to owning it. They may have had individuals who sit on their Board appointed as trustees of a trust created to hold and operate it, but that is quite different.

Holding in trust is a form of ownership. It means they own it but can not sell it for financial gain. A perfectly ordinary stipulation for a charity owning a historic house.
Getting others to pay for it means Charles did not pay a penny towards it. It is usual for charities to seek donations and grants, it is also usual for wealthy patrons to put some money into a project such as this. You are the one who does not appear to understand how these things usually work.
The Queen turning up and opening something or appearing at a donors event would not be expected to financially contribute. But a wealthy individual like Charles actively involved in this campaign would be expected to.
But Charles continually gets himself into trouble because he will not dip into his own pockets so ends up having to solicit from various dodgy individuals to fund his projects. From cash in suitcases and carrier bags to alleged cash for honour scandals.

Prince Charles had private meetings Sheikh Hamad in private, with no other officials present, at which meeting he accepted bags of cash containing more than £2 million.

Sheik Hamad conducted a coup against his own father in order to seize power. Qatar is a dictatorship that uses human slaves and executes anyone who criticises Hamad. He has personally been accused of and creditably linked to human rights abuse, as well as funding Al Qaeda, and he has publicly announced major donations to the terrorist organisation Hamas. He's also named in the Panama Papers.

Prince Charles is utterly corrupt and unfit to rule. All this guff about whether some house provides naice grounds for impoverished youth to gambol is just a transparent distraction tactic. Prince Charles takes blood money from dictators who fund terrorism. He is not fit to rule and his reign will destroy the monarchy.

I have to say the RF's obsession with ME oligarchs and dodgy characters baffles me. There's Charles, and then Andrew's love of despots and dodgy arms dealers is second to none.
Even Sophie Wessex cosied up to a Sheikh. Let alone Sarah trying to sell access to her husband, to one.

Why do they have anything to do with these characters? I find it baffling.

From an article...
BRITISH ROYALS MET TYRANNICAL MIDDLE EAST MONARCHIES OVER 200 TIMES SINCE ARAB SPRING
Britain’s royal family has met members of autocratic Middle Eastern monarchies nearly once a fortnight since the crackdown on ‘Arab Spring’ protests began 10 years ago this month. Their visits have often coincided with human rights abuses in the Gulf, where pro-democracy activists are punished for criticising the Windsor ties to regimes.

Here's the article. It's shocking.

And yet we're supposed to look up to them..

The loan was fully paid off by 2012

And here we are getting more and more unsavoury detail about how that happened.

any profits the House makes over and above its operating costs will go back to fund the projects it is running

The place is a money-pit. I think it would be most surprising if profits fully covered the operating costs and indeed the most recent accounts filed prior to the pandemic (2020) reflect this. The Princes Foundation has been propping up the Dumfries House Trust which begs the question of how these projects are being funded.

Why do they have anything to do with these characters?

Because these characters tend to have a hell of a lot of money, and as a consequence of the way they've often made it, they're not always too bothered about "the rules"

Given the RF's own attitude to various rules (viz: too many scandals to count) that will probably suit them only too well

Absolutely.

And what does that tell us about our Royal Family?

And why do people still kowtow to them?

It's beyond me

well put.
but some people would rather believe rubbish than acquaint themselves with the facts.

Prince Charles personally solicited the donation and was advised by his own aides to hand the donation back. He refused.
(In Times article)

It’s also been reported that the Charity’s board sought advice at the time from the Foreign Office, who cleared them to accept it.

Have you got a link to that information @Serenster

Just googled. An unnamed "source" says the donation was cleared by the Foreign Office. I will wait until the Foreign Office confirms this. At the moment it is simply hearsay and may be a pile of rubbish.

At the moment it is simply hearsay and may be a pile of rubbish.

Whereas everything in the papers that supports your point of view is of course wholly reliable… 😂

Here is the quote from the chair of the charity who actually conducted the due diligence and made the decision to accept the donation, confirming that that government was consulted. This, as I’m sure you will agree is first-person testimony and therefore not hearsay:

“However, Sir Ian Cheshire, chairman of PWCF, told the newspaper that the 2013 donation was agreed "carefully considered" by the five trustees at the time.
"Due diligence was conducted, with information sought from a wide range of sources, including government," Sir Ian added.
"The decision to accept the donation was taken wholly by the trustees. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is misleading and inaccurate."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62366487

The bottom line is... yes the trustees agreed to it. No, his Advisers didn't agree to it, and advised him to have no part of it.
And he went with his Trustees and took the donation which begs the question, why have Advisers. I think I said this at the beginning of the thread.

And now we have a huge donation and pledges of more from a Russian oligarch whose name was on a 'Putin list' even before Charles held out his sticky little mitts:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-charity-accepts-3million-27673070

@Serenster From the government, not the Home Office. He could have spoken to Boris Johnson about it who would have cleared whoever the donation came from.

And as Rousette says Charles advisers told him not to accept the donation and to return it. Maybe as advisers they understand this issue more?

@CathyorClaire This is just a drip drip drip of financial scandals involving Prince Charles. One could be excused as a mistake, but it is clear Charles does not care who donates vast sums of money, as long as they give the money.

Good old Norman Baker, former Privy Council member and Minister, at least, holds the RF to account. (for anyone who doesn't know of his book "And what do you do?" .... read it. It's an eye opener)

Former Lib Dem minister Norman Baker told The Mail: "The Prince’s Foundation has a long history of accepting money from unsavoury characters. It now turns out that you add to the list an oligarch with ties to Vladimir Putin.
"Either the Prince’s Foundation failed to carry out due diligence or it simply doesn’t care."

The donating parties will always get more out of the interaction than Charles, or we, ever will, and they get it for pennies. I always think how it must look to them, that they can buy the PoW, and interests in the UK, for a meagre mill here and there. They must be laughing at him, and us, all the way to the suitcase shop.

The donating parties will always get more out of the interaction than Charles, or we, ever will, and they get it for pennies

Absolutely.

I doubt they're doing it for a night's private dinner, B&B at Dumfries.

Interestingly enough Charles maintains a bedroom there for his own use no doubt free of the charges levied on other guests and strictly off limits to them anyway.

There are intriguing parallels to be drawn in the way the Castle of Mey was stuck into a trust lumbering said trust with the costs of maintaining it while Charles gets to close it down to the public for ten or so days a year while he holidays in it.

Oh look at this entire page of royal fans completely flat out ignoring a post stating proven links and financial deals between Charles and a dictator who funds terrorism and commits human rights abuse.

Astounding. It's honestly Orwellian the way Royal fans invent their own version of reality and pretend anything that doesn't fit their narrative simply doesn't exist by stonewalling. Very sinister.

Serenster, the chairman of the Charity Committee, the man responsible for deciding that the Charity Commission wouldn't investigate Charles' deals, is himself currently facing allegations of corruption and conflict of interest, since the Times revealed that he was handpicked for the role by ... The Princes Trust! And that his wife has known Prince Charles her entire life from childhood and was even a bridesmaid at his wedding.

So basically Charles's mate who Charles picked said that Charles didn't do anything wrong and that the Charity Commission set up to investigate charities won't even investigate Charles' charity.