[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i wonder how much of the cash ended up in back pockets on the way to the bank

Good Point.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I don’t understand why he would take it in that way, he can’t be short of cash plus it was in euros

It does all seem odd. Apparently any donations are allowed but should be in the form of a cheque. It just seems a bit dodgy.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

It does all seem odd. Apparently any donations are allowed but should be in the form of a cheque. It just seems a bit dodgy.

Yes it did look dodgy….and a crass way of doing business.

[jet]

I admit I would have accepted it too - a massive amount of money to benefit the people that needed it from his charities. I truly believe Charles would not have had a thought of pocketing any of it. There has not been any suggestion that he might have.

[bots]

people seem to be under the misconception that charities and public figures are averse to sticking their head in the trough

[jet]

It says the money was counted by 2 trusted courtiers before a person from Coutts bank collected it to deposit.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

You post this like it's some sort of excuse, it's not. It doesn't seem you find it all that foolish if you're aware of this going on and yet still support Charles.

Where did I say I supported Charles?….I simply said this stuff goes on between countries….gifting each other…it’s nothing new. The fact cash was handed over looked crass and open to suspicion which is why I said it was foolish.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by jet

It says the money was counted by 2 trusted courtiers before a person from Coutts bank collected it to deposit.

Doesn't mean nothing was trimmed from it. Its wasn't declared through the proper channels, why is that?

I don't think Charles has his fingers in the till but definitely looks underhand, particularly being cash and the way it was passed. Its odd.

Obviously any money to charity is welcomed but it must be accounted for properly, otherwise it just seems underhand and seedy.

[bots]

money laundering and illicit activity are the usual reasons that cash is used. We all know that, so why are people trying to think up excuses to justify it

[jet]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Doesn't mean nothing was trimmed from it. Its wasn't declared through the proper channels, why is that?

I don't think Charles has his fingers in the till but definitely looks underhand, particularly being cash and the way it was passed. Its odd.

Obviously any money to charity is welcomed but it must be accounted for properly, otherwise it just seems underhand and seedy.

https://inews.co.uk/news/prince-char...se-row-1713735

……“[The money] was passed immediately to his charities and it was his charities who decided to accept the money – that is a decision for them. And they did so, and as they confirmed, it followed all the right processes, and the auditors looked at it.


“The Prince of Wales operates on advice. Situations, contexts change over the years.”
Clarence House said it had received assurances from the prince’s charity that the donations, first reported by The Sunday Times, had been the subject of “all the correct processes”.

In a statement, it said: “Charitable donations received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim were passed immediately to one of the prince’s charities, who carried out the appropriate governance and have assured us that all the correct processes were followed.
……..
It is said Charles will never again accept cash donations, (which was not illegal) and hasn’t for some years, lessons have been learned, so it’s a bit like beating a dead donkey. If it surfaces that there was indeed dodgy dealings going on, with Charles's knowledge, then that would be a different matter.

[Zizu]

Yawn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

If this was Boris or one of his underlings the media would have Boris in the stocks or calling for his head ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jet]

When it comes to Charles, my take is that the Queen is an almost impossible act to follow, she was 'perfect' really. Charles hasn't been perfect, like most of us aren't. But he has done wonderful work for his charities, and while I'm not a particular fan and never have been, he deserves his chance even if he has made mistakes in the past. Haven't we all, without the spotlight always on our every move.

[bots]

that still doesn't mean that the whole thing wasn't dodgy. Passed immediately to the charities. Were they present when the money was given to the prince or were they in a completely different continent. The auditors just verify what they have been told, so again that means nothing

Money laundering has been banned in the UK for decades

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

money laundering and illicit activity are the usual reasons that cash is used. We all know that, so why are people trying to think up excuses to justify it

Because they’re bootlickers, it’s really simple as that

[jet]

Originally Posted by Zizu

If this was Boris or one of his underlings the media would have Boris in the stocks or calling for his head ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The media have both Boris and Charles in their sights at the moment. Give them both a break, that's what I say.

[jet]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

that still doesn't mean that the whole thing wasn't dodgy. Passed immediately to the charities. Were they present when the money was given to the prince or were they in a completely different continent. The auditors just verify what they have been told, so again that means nothing

Money laundering has been banned in the UK for decades

I admit I'm ignorant about money laundering and such, haven't a clue.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

money laundering and illicit activity are the usual reasons that cash is used. We all know that, so why are people trying to think up excuses to justify it

Justify what exactly..a charitable gift that just happened to be paid in cash, its a very popular and normal way for the Saudis to do things.

Hows about everyone justifies their unproven and malicious rumour mongering about charles filing his pockets with it...

[jet]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Justify what exactly..a charitable gift that just happened to be paid in cash, its a very popular and normal way for the Saudis to do things.

Hows about everyone justifies their unproven and malicious rumour mongering about charles filing his pockets with it...

Well said Parmy.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by jet

Well said Parmy.

Its right though!

Why should people have to justify what has been said happened byt he people who know and the charities involved.

It should be up to all the gossip mongers to justify their pathetic unfounded claims.

They also need to justify why they are so against a charity receiving this gift.

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by jet

The media have both Boris and Charles in their sights at the moment. Give them both a break, that's what I say.

the media are quite vicious when they find and easy and profitable target aren't they.

[bots]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Justify what exactly..a charitable gift that just happened to be paid in cash, its a very popular and normal way for the Saudis to do things.

Hows about everyone justifies their unproven and malicious rumour mongering about charles filing his pockets with it...

if charles received the money in an appropriate way there would be no need for an investigation, would there? Its not malicious to want to know the truth

[Beso]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

if charles received the money in an appropriate way there would be no need for an investigation, would there? Its not malicious to want to know the truth

No, s'pose it's not.



But its malicious to assume him guilty of any wrongdoings, like people have in this thread.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by parmnion

No, s'pose it's not.



But its malicious to assume him guilty of any wrongdoings, like people have in this thread.

Yeah it’s not as though he cheated on Di before and after they were wed .. and it’s not as though his brother isn’t a wrong ‘un

Plus he’s been talking to plants for the last 30 years ...

Why should we doubt him in the slightest ..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Yeah it’s not as though he cheated on Di before and after they were wed .. and it’s not as though his brother isn’t a wrong ‘un

Plus he’s been talking to plants for the last 30 years ...

Why should we doubt him in the slightest ..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

so true zizu, his character isn't exactly squeaky clean, hence assumptions will be made.