paedo gives 400k to girl guideshttp://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100413/tuk-girl-guides-ponder-400k-gift-from-pa-45dbed5.html

Surely his money is as good as anyone elses!!!

And yet I'm sure nobody would object if a law was made allowing the government to seize the assets of wealthy paedophiles when they died (or when they're alive, for that matter) and redistribute the cash to the girl guides or the NSPCC.

Perhaps employees at News International should refuse to be paid on the grounds that a lot of Murdoch's cash originates from the profits the Sun made when it was publishing topless photographs of 16 year old kids?

He reportedly rejected her accusations

That's a strange sentence to be used by people who do the reporting. Either he rejected her claims or he didn't. If he did, say he did. That doesn't mean the reporters are supporting his claim, just that they are reporting on it.

Personally I've never heard of this man, but I'm sure the money isn't infected with "Paedo" dust, nor will their acceptance of it make them accomplices to any crimes he might have committed, so the guides may as well accept it and put it to good use.

robbiex wrote:
paedo gives 400k to girl guideshttp://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100413/tuk-girl-guides-ponder-400k-gift-from-pa-45dbed5.html

Surely his money is as good as anyone elses!!!

An overly simplistic view, I'm afraid. Were the NSDAP to offer a percentage of the proceeds from the harvesting of possessions, body fat and skin which routinely took place in the camps would their money "be as good as anyone elses"? Are the "earnings" of Afghan poppy farmers "as good as anyone elses"? How about the income enjoyed by those people traffickers who only a short while ago you were condemning so loudly here? There are times when money is simply filthy. And to suggest otherwise is, perhaps, more than a little insensitive. If this guy wanted to do good with his money perhaps he might have chosen a cause less likely to be the beneficiary of quite as much publicity. As it is it looks a little too much like conscience washing to me. Toddle off into a quiet little corner and think about this for a while.

An overly simplistic view, I'm afraid. Were the NSDAP to offer a percentage of the proceeds from the harvesting of possessions, body fat and skin which routinely took place in the camps would their money "be as good as anyone elses"? Are the "earnings" of Afghan poppy farmers "as good as anyone elses"? How about the income enjoyed by those people traffickers who only a short while ago you were condemning so loudly here? There are times when money is simply filthy. And to suggest otherwise is, perhaps, more than a little insensitive. If this guy wanted to do good with his money perhaps he might have chosen a cause less likely to be the beneficiary of quite as much publicity. As it is it looks a little too much like conscience washing to me. Toddle off into a quiet little corner and think about this for a while.

The difference here my friend is that this guy didn't earn his money from been a paedophile, unlike those poppy farmers who earned their money from selling drugs, or those people traffickers (whom I still condemn) earned their money from trafficking people. I'm sure if this post was made by anyone else, you would be in full support of it.

@lockedout

that's surely a false analogy. If this guy had made that £400,000 through taking nude photographs of the children he had abused, everybody would see the dilemma and those comparisons you're drawing would be valid.

His money is as good as everybody elses. The girl guides are not condoning or promoting anything he did during his life by accepting it. Nobody is giving him a pardon in return for the money. Something good for children is coming out of this man's life after all. How can anyone have a problem with that? Would you be o.k. with the money going to his victims, or would they be guilty of accepting tainted pedo dust cash too?

robbiex wrote:
[quote]
The difference here my friend is that this guy didn't earn his money from been {sic} a paedophile, unlike those poppy farmers who earned their money from selling drugs, or those people traffickers (whom I still condemn) earned their money from trafficking people. I'm sure if this post was made by anyone else, you would be in full support of it.

I posted what I posted because I disagreed with what you said, and I drew illustrations as to why I disagreed with it. And you're wrong. I'd have disagreed with it had anyone posted it.

As JK might say 'it's a good story' ...there's sex and torture behind it.

Mad if they don't take it (and I bet they do after a suitable period of pondering). It was money honestly earned and left for a good reason.

It isn't 'blood money'.

... services rendered ?