The ultimate legacy dilemma 5

Fundraising | Suzie Who | 15 Apr 2010

The dilemma facing GirlGuiding Scotland is fascinating.

We are all used to watching charities struggle with whether or not to accept donations from certain companies whose motivations may not be entirely honourable, but it is rare to see this kind of debate over legacy pledges.

GirlGuiding Scotland are one of three charities to be left significant sums by a convicted paedophile.

Leaving his own daughter out of his will the now deceased Reginald Forester-Smith has split his estate between two cancer charities and GirlGuiding – a charity that aims to ‘enable girls and young women to fulfil their potential and to take an active and responsible role in society’.

The dilemma is clear. Like all charities GirlGuiding have a responsibility to maximise their income and after all, the legator could been motivated by remorse to leave a gift to help other young girls have a more positive life.

However, maybe he just wants to ensure that more young girls have the chance to wear navy uniforms as well as Primark bikinis… The fact that a more sinister motive underlies the gift seems possible given that the donation was originally directed to a specific branch of Girl Guides rather than the charity in general.

The potential for negative publicity that could be hugely damaging is clear.

However, despite the legator being dead and it therefore being impossible to assess his motivations – there could be a way forward.

If GirlGuiding were to meet with the daughter of Mr Forester-Smith and understand her views it may lead to a positive solution. Although we all value the fact that legacy income is unrestricted, perhaps in this situation the charity could consider setting up a specific fund to undertake projects agreed with the legator’s family.

In this way they can fulfil their obligation to maximise their income, put to good use a significant sum of money that would otherwise return to the state, and also draw the family of the deceased into a positive process of enabling change for other young women and girls.

Directory: Girlguiding UK

Place a comment

Jonathan Sillett
-
-
15 Apr 2010

"However, maybe he just wants to ensure that more young girls have the chance to wear navy uniforms"

If young girls wearing navy uniforms if a problem then perhaps Girlguiding should change their uniform policy!

The man is dead now. He will benefit in no way from Girlguiding taking the money. Paedophilia will not be encouraged any more than it is by the fact that girlguiding exists. So forget about any high horses and take it!

[Reply]

J A Venters
Assistant Guide Guider
Girlguiding
29 Apr 2010
Response to [Jonathan Sillett]

This correspondent is obviously not up to date with current uniform for Guides. If you met a group of Guides in the street, there is absolutely no guarantee that you would recognize them for what they are.

Whether or not this is a good move is open to question but certainly there are very few young girls who 'wear navy uniforms' these days.

[Reply]

Anon
anon
anon
15 Apr 2010

You come across as a bigot.

The man in question is described as a convicted paedophile. You seem to have overlooked the importance of the word “convicted” and focussed purely on the abhorrent act he committed. Convicted to me suggests that he paid his debt to society as the court presumably issued some punishment.

You are narrow minded to suggest the charity should do anything other than accept this money with open arms. After all, it was the man that was tainted and there is nothing to suggest that the cash he has left will do anything but good.

It is fantastic that this money has been left in the hands of a charity that will help children and if there is bad press, that is simply the media trying to create a story where there really isn’t one. An intelligent response from the charity’s spokespeople will convert that attempt to positive PR

Or perhaps you are suggesting that anyone with a criminal record may not donate and if they do, charities should reject it?

[Reply]

Anon 2

15 Apr 2010
Response to [ anon]

I have to vigorously oppose the previous comment - also under the cloak of anonymity.

The idea that the comments in this blog are bigoted is absurd.

Charities cannot just accepted any money whenever and from whoever it comes from. In the case of GirlGuiding, their aim is to help develop young girls into young women - whereas this donor has been involved in preventing that development in a very extreme way. Suzie isn't proposing that it rejects the money outright, but in a case like this there is sensitivity required.

Otherwise anyone can whitewash their past by donating to a charity that may have helped their victims. Charities can not be seen to facilitate this. And what of their other donors who might be maligned?

I'm afraid anon (1) you've taken too simplistic a view of this issue.

[Reply]

Anon (1)
anon
anon
15 Apr 2010
Response to [ Anon 2]

I did not suggest that he could whitewash his past by donating, those are your words. I suggested that he has paid his debt to society and therefore his money is no different to anyone elses.

Ask a charity working with ex-offenders what they think of this man's right to donate and a charity's right to accept his money. I am confident that they will not be happy that you judge this man differently (hence bigot) and that they would gladly accept such a legacy in order that they might do some good with the money.

It seems you and Suzie Who would rather cut off nose to spite face...

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.