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

Goodness, Stolenwillowtree, what vitriol. Where to start? 😀

Well, firstly, with basic corporate governance. You can look up all of the Charity Commission’s online, as it is a public authority. It is not the Chair of the Commission (Orlando Fraser, who you are so keen to smear) who personally makes decisions around whether action will be taken against any particular charity, but rather the Board of the Charity Commisison. Fraser is not even the CEO, who might be considered to have more personal involvement in big decisions - the exercise of the Commission’s legal powers to take action against charities are expressly reserved to the CEO. The most even the Times says is that the decision was made “on his watch” - while he’s Chair of the Board everything the organisation does is “on his watch” though. (Of course if you have evidence that the personally made the decision, completely contrary to the Commission’s corporate governance, I am sure you will share it with us).

Secondly, a fact mentioned in the Times article. - the fact that the role is a political appointment. I hate to disappoint you, but all senior leadership roles in regulatory bodies are political appointments, and (even worse!) almost all of them are drawn from the establishment.

Thirdly, I don’t have much truck with people who assume that everyone who is well connected and wealthy is dishonest, corrupt, or lacking in integrity as you appear to be saying. There are plenty of crooks out there of course, but there are plenty of crooks at all levels of society, I have found. As as a senior QC of many years standing the new chair of the Charity Commission would normally be considered to have a n excellent reputation and high personal integrity, but I’m sure you know better.

Thirdly, as I have said many, many times, the fact that a transaction raises flags means it needs to be checked (which this apparently was). It doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it. If a regulatory authority asks someone they regulate to demonstrate they took all steps they were required to do, and they can, no public interest is served by spending taxpayers money in investigating further just to satisfy those who aren’t fond of the charity involved. Not the answer you are looking for, but true.

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.

Not sinister or astounding in the least. Have you only come to this information? Some of us have been following it for a very long time. What you say applies equally to royals, politicians, bureaucrats and other leading 'players' the world over. What you describe isn't exclusive to royalty - and, here's the rub - there is nothing we can do about it. If we get rid of the royals, other corrupt characters will pop up to take their place, just under a different title. So, we take what we can get and come on here to let off steam. There are few other places anyone would choose to live so options are rather limited.

Every time you think the bottom of Charles' much silted barrel has been scraped, a new trapdoor emerges.

Goodness, Stolenwillowtree, what vitriol.

That old tactic. Royal fans know they have no comeback so they're reduced to hurling insults around.

Not sinister or astounding in the least. Have you only come to this information? Some of us have been following it for a very long time.

This is a thread about Charles accepting dodgy money, and most of the posters are bending over backwards to come up with ways to defend him. It's very relevant to the subject of the thread. What's sinister is the way Royal fans use all these different tactics and manipulations. If you're going to debate then debate fair. Making personal attacks on other posters and stonewalling by simply pretending anything that contradicts you didn't happen is not debating fair and royal fans do it all the time. And often it's the same posters who repeat every single malicious rumour about Meghan and and constantly harp on minor things that happened years ago like her wearing tights.

No. You lot don't get to use anonymous gossip blogs as sources then attack other posters for using the Times as a source. You lot don't get to repeatedly dredge up things like Meghan's wedding guest list and her wearing tights years later then attack other posters for mentioning things of national political significance on the grounds they're not recent. It's extraordinary hypocrisy.

Orlando Fraser, who you are so keen to smear

Pointing out the fact that Fraser is currently facing allegations of conflict of interest is not a "smear" and it isn't me who is "smearing" him, it's a major national broadsheet paper. Why are you so desperate to defend him? You wouldn't even know his name was if he wasn't mates with your beloved Royals.

So, we take what we can get and come on here to let off steam.
Yet when posters "let off steam" they're attacked by those who worship royals and won't hear any criticism of them.

The Charity Commission had major cuts to their funding. They explicitly say they only get involved in the most serious cases of wrongdoing by charities now. They do not have the resources to do anything else.
To investigate the charities Charles is soliciting and accepting donations for would take a lot of resources and even if they find against Charles, they know nothing would happen.

I agree. There are lots of personal attacks against anyone critical of the Royal Family. And those who are avid supporters of the Royal Family often make up facts. I have provided evidence again and again that what is being stated in defence of the Royal Family is simply untrue.
Support for the Royal Family is falling.

Yet when posters "let off steam" they're attacked by those who worship royals and won't hear any criticism of them

There are many posters on here who are critical of the whole lot of them and even the posters who like the royals appear to be remarkably terant of those who dont. H & M are still raw because of their appalling behaviour but as their star fades, others' appalling behaviour will become the subject of discussion once again. H & M left the RF, which is a rather unusual event in itself, and therefore worthy of discussion. Not only that but, by the looks of things, they entirely self-sabotaged, which makes them interesting - for now.

@MaulPerton Prince Andrew and Charles appalling behaviour is even more recent. And yet it is constantly denied or minimised by some posters.

@antelopevalley Totally agree. Why on earth are we concentrating on a couple who are thousands of miles away, who we don't pay for, rather than those who are right under our noses.

If it all goes wrong for H&M, well... it's up to them isn't it? If someone in the RF is doing something they shouldn't, we should be shouting it from the rooftops. That doesn't happen at all.

I would like to know what recent appalling behaviour of H&M we should be talking about? MaulPerton
Hint... there isn't any. It's over two and a half years since they left, let them get on with it. If Meghan smiles or says anything, there's an outcry on here.

And in that period since they left, we've had Andrew/Epstein and £7million pay off to a woman, endless Charles scandals cash for honours, dubious charity donations that degrade the monarchy... but do we hear much on that? No. It's not H&M.
Is anyone interested in where SF found £5million to buy a luxury pad in Mayfair? Nope. Don't say... start a thread, I know it would be sparsely populated, there's no point and the answer always is... we all agree they're grubby so there's no point talking about them. Well... there is! What apathy. There's lots going on about it but no one's interested. It's not H&M.

I find it pathetic that a lot of posters don't seem to care a fig about what our RF do. They love them whatever they do and won't countenance criticism.

even if they find against Charles, they know nothing would happen

I wonder if this is why the investigation into the transfer of charitable donations into Harry's private limited company was so conveniently wrapped up.

The CC did manage to find the resources to investigate Andrew who had been paying the ex-private secretary sacked after Newsnight to be a trustee of his charity.

If someone in the RF is doing something they shouldn't, we should be shouting it from the rooftops. That doesn't happen at all

I wouldn't quite have said "at all", Roussette. Especially because he'll be the next king, some of us have raised his less pleasant aspects and behaviour time and again, and that's without all our other comments about the rest of the ghastly crew

I agree, though, that there's much less interest in these, and that some appear to focus only on H&M

The attacks on Harry and Meghan started years before they left, if anything there was far less hate and obsession after they left than when they were engaged and newlywed. The hate and obsession only ramped up again this year because they were invited back for the Jubilee and are clearly on okay terms with the Queen which disappointed the haters who wanted to believe they were outcasts forever and would vanish into obscurity.

It's revisionist history to claim it has anything to do with them leaving. There were dozens of vitriolic threads about Meghan wearing nail varnish, Meghan having scented candles at the wedding, Meghan wearing black, at the same time threads about Andrew were full of posters playing the "innocent until proven guilty" card and calling Virginia Giuffre an attention-seeking liar and saying teenage girls know what they're doing when they target wealthy older men.

How could the attacks have started 'years before they left' - they weren't together for years! Met 2016, married 2018, Archie born 2019 and they scarpered before the end of that year.

Are you operating on Pluto time? In the real world, 2016-2020 is 4 years.

They had at bare minimum a solid couple of years of hate before they "scarpered" as you so charmingly put it.

What a surprise, someone points out that royal stans on Mumsnet defended a rapist and attacked a trafficked teenage girl, and like always when the bad behaviour of any other royal is mentioned, the response is Meghan Meghan Meghan Meghan. What would the RF do without Meghan as a scapegoat and distraction?

There was a lot of awful threads before they were even engaged and it ramped up a LOT after the engagement.
And never stopped

The fact is that Meghan was still sharing a house with Cory, the Chef, in Toronto in July 2016, and they left the UK in November 2019. As has been acknowledged, their relationship developed quickly with them getting engaged in late 2017, at which point Meghan began getting involved in RF work. So two years at most, a chunk of which was maternity leave surrounding the arrival of Archie.

Whilst factually two years could be described as 'years', it is not the general understanding of that phrase. Years normally implies more than four years, less than that people would normally be specific, unless they were trying (for whatever reason) to imply that a longer period was involved.

Does it matter? No.

I met and married my DH far quicker than that, and here we still are.

So did I - 15 months after meeting and here we are nearly 40 years later!

The point I was making is that people refer to attacks on them 'years before they left', when the reality is that they were working royals for less than two years.

Good to hear aj... it seems like yesterday to me, where have those years gone!

LOOOL.

When the amount of venom for those who have paid off a women they've never met for £12 million, exchanged money for CBE's, taken money off Russian oligarchs, taken money from Bin Laden's family,

begins to MATCH that spewed against Meghan.

I will take threads like this seriously.

Also what is this self-sabotage from H&M business? Last I checked, Harry was just invited by Mandela's family to speak at the UN. Meghan is due her podcast this fall, Heart of Invictus footage secured [Netflix show] and in post production.

They live in a lovely home, pay for their own security and raise their kids. I think they're doing perfectly fine.

I wonder how that Scotland Yard investigation into Prince Charles' foundation is going...

Last I checked, some authorities in the US still want to have a little chat with Andrew 🙃

Oh well.

The investigation into Prince Charles Foundation is going nowhere. The police have not even spoken to Michael Fawcett. It is always the same, the top brass stop the officers from properly investigating them.
Andrew was never properly investigated either as he refused to be interviewed. Instead just paying £12 million to get rid of the accusation - money that came from the Queen via the taxpayer.
This is a family that people used to be told they should look up to. The average family on my working-class street behaves way better than many of them do even if they would sneer at us for using the wrong knife to butter our bread.

Who the fuck is Cory, and why would anyone be so overinvested as to research and memorise Meghan's dating history from before she met Harry? Obsessed much?

They announced they were leaving in 2020, and the extreme hate started in, well say Nov 2017 the engagement date as the absolute latest. So two and a half years minimum.

Trying to derail the thread into a pedantic debate about the exact meaning of "years" - and making nasty goady hinty attacks on other posters - and nasty goady hinty references to Meghan's previous boyfriends - are transparent tactics to detract attention from the objective facts: they suffered at least a couple of years hate before they left, ergo the hate clearly is not the result of them leaving.

It's been forever on here.

November 2017 thread title..
"I'm fucking sick of Harry & Meghan already"

This was when they got engaged, before they were married. A load of revolting posts about Meghan, still there, apart from the deleted ones. They hadn't even got married at this stage!

The hate was about her, and in turn, him. Nothing to do with them leaving. And from that point on, it never stopped on MN. Literally hundreds of threads. At one point, there were over 600 with Meghan in the title, so let's not pretend it's all to do with them leaving, or the Oprah interview. It's disdain and dislike from the minute she came on the scene.

(Disclaimer... obviously that is not everybody feeling like that)

Not over-invested - simply trying to separate gossip from fact.

Cory was Meghan's live in boyfriend before Harry - didn't need to research, I have a great memory!

They left the UK for an extended vacation in 2019 and never returned to live.

Neither nasty nor goading, just simple facts, some of which seem to irritate people - possibly because they don't go along with the pro-Meghan narrative.

Incidentally, I was not part of any anti-Meghan threads in 2017, I genuinely hoped that he'd found the love of his life, and that the addition of a bi-racial woman to the RF could only be a good thing. It's the subsequent actions that I've had an issue with.