UK Charity Commission asked to investigate transfe... - Page 2

wildcat fan · ‎03-23-2010

@Mlsg wrote:
Theweek UK article about it. Special last paragraph.

Thanks for sharing that @Mlsg. I've never been to that website. That was a much more detailed article than what I read in Newsweek. This quote from the TheWeek UK article by Harry's representative stood out to me:

“To this point, it is deeply offensive to today see false claims made about the Duke of Sussex and his charitable work. It is both defamatory and insulting to all the outstanding organisations and people he has partnered with,” the representative said.

If they keep it up, I wonder if Harry will file his own lawsuit for defamation of character.

Mlsg · ‎07-29-2015

@wildcat fan

Thank you.! Yes I guess I read in the article. Lawyers look in it now about action. Something like this. This should be in the same article

This story goes around 4 days. Don't remember where I read that Royal team asks for apology. If not they consider lawsuits. Not sure what gonna be.

Silver Lining · ‎04-16-2010

I read about it in a Facebook article and saw a picture of Harry with a Travalyst ad.

shoesnbags · ‎03-10-2010

@wildcat fan wrote:
A few websites have reported the UK Charity Commission has been asked to investigate $366,000 funds moved between the Royal Foundation and two of Harry's projects, Sussex Royal (which has been closed) and Travalyst (described as "non-profit" by Harry's team and a "limited company" by others).

Anti-monarchy Republic claims the relationship between William and Harry was placed above the interests of the Royal Foundation and Sussex Royal, and they are guilty of conflict of interest and mismanaging funds. Graham Smith, chief executive of the Republic, stated, "People donate money to a charity expecting it to be used to fund the charity's objectives, not to be given away to support a patron's other projects."

A spokesperson from the Royal Foundation stated, "All grants have been made impartially and objectively, fully in line with governence requirements, and have been reported transparently in full accordance with regulations."

Do you think anything inappropriate has occured, or is it much ado about nothing?

(Above quotes came from a Newsweek article.)

I couldn't possibly have an opinion one way or the other without a lot more details about what went on.

"Breathe in, breathe out, move on." Jimmy Buffett

Sooner · ‎03-10-2010

I don't think anyone who has been an elected or appointed government official should have a charity or foundation. It is well known that a lot of them live like kings off the charity they sponsor.

It pays for most of their living and travel expenses and it is how other countries buy favors. They rake in the dough when they leave office.

Venezia · ‎03-09-2010

@Sooner wrote:
I don't think anyone who has been an elected or appointed government official should have a charity or foundation. It is well known that a lot of them live like kings off the charity they sponsor.

It pays for most of their living and travel expenses and it is how other countries buy favors. They rake in the dough when they leave office.

@Sooner Do you have any sources or facts to back that statement up, because it's a pretty sweeping statement. I'd like to check it out for myself.

I don't see anything wrong with someone, regardless of his/her previous career, wanting to set up a charitable foundation. It should be subject to regulation like any other, if it's non-profit. (I doubt Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter are living "like kings" on the money from their charity, just to name one example.)

Sites like Charity Navigotor would be able to provide information about how much of the total donations are spent on the charitable mission and how much on administration and other expenses.

As to abuse of charitable donations, we can see plenty of that from people who have never held a government position.

"" A little learning is a dangerous thing."-Alexander Pope

Sooner · ‎03-10-2010

@Venezia wrote:
@Sooner wrote:
I don't think anyone who has been an elected or appointed government official should have a charity or foundation. It is well known that a lot of them live like kings off the charity they sponsor.

It pays for most of their living and travel expenses and it is how other countries buy favors. They rake in the dough when they leave office.
@Sooner Do you have any sources or facts to back that statement up, because it's a pretty sweeping statement. I'd like to check it out for myself.

I don't see anything wrong with someone, regardless of his/her previous career, wanting to set up a charitable foundation. It should be subject to regulation like any other, if it's non-profit. (I doubt Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter are living "like kings" on the money from their charity, just to name one example.)

Sites like Charity Navigotor would be able to provide information about how much of the total donations are spent on the charitable mission and how much on administration and other expenses.

As to abuse of charitable donations, we can see plenty of that from people who have never held a government position.

@Venezia If you are interested, look it up and read reliable sources. It is well documented and not new. And I am not talking about sources whose business is to keep charities in business. BIG business. Foundations especially are a way to make use of cash that comes in.

Venezia · ‎03-09-2010

@Sooner - So no special sources then? I do check on any charity I contribute to through multiple sources.

I just don't like sweeping generalizations that condemn the truly charitable with those who abuse others' generosity.

"Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes"?

"" A little learning is a dangerous thing."-Alexander Pope

Sooner · ‎03-10-2010

@Venezia wrote:
@Sooner - So no special sources then? I do check on any charity I contribute to through multiple sources.

I just don't like sweeping generalizations that condemn the truly charitable with those who abuse others' generosity.

"Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes"?

@Venezia I am a very bright person and have read and read and read excellent sources over the years. I've read all the major biographies and autobiographies of every president AND first lady since Eisenhower, and also the first ones up to AQ Adams.

I do not have to provide an abstract or footnotes for an opinion on a bulletin board. But I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to the way wealthy "celebrities" use money that is basically washed through charities and foundations.

It's all information that is easily researched should you really care to learn about it and it's shocking. It is the way the world works. A lot of what is taken in as foundation funds is used for things that are actually personal use and benefit.

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@dulwich wrote:
I was reading about this evidently almost 300,000 pounds has been lost on a Harry’s ‘ pet projects and his own charity is now closing down and it appears trying to take charity monies with him to his private Travalyst company.

Point is I think the transferring of charity money to Harry’s Travalyst private’s company of which he owns 75% and that is why all the questions arising.

Never smoke without fire - so goes the old saying - and Harry does seem to open and close so many ‘charities’ cannot keep up.

It amazes me how these very wealthy people make a living off ‘charities’ where we all have to get a job and work!

Definitely. We had a famous one here - that seems to have folded now.