Zonk, you are so right and I agree with much of what you say, but please permit me to make a few points:
Are you inferring that Sarah knows only a handful of people with reputations beyond reproach (Sir Richard Branson being one of them)? Do you know everyone that Sarah knows or are we making an assumption based on the bad ones? .
Oddly enough, I do know a good deal about the British-based people of very high net financial worth, who are public supporters of charities. [I have limited information about those people who make private donations] This is probably because in the UK there are relatively few such people. When compared with US benefactors, in
general UK donors are felt to be significantly less generous than American benefactors. Historically, this has been put down to two main reasons, which may or may not still be true: 1. Less favourable tax relief schemes for UK taxpayers 2. The richest UK citizens [see the various UK wealth lists - the Sunday Times Rich List is regarded as being one of the 'market leaders' in this respect] contain many 'old money' names whereas most large charitable donations come from the more-recently rich. This may be something to do with the fact that again, because of the UK tax regimes, our very wealthy families tend to be 'income poor' [although of course I am speaking 'relatively] as much of their wealth is tied up in Family Trusts, again to keep it out of the hands of the predatory tax man.
One assumption that I am making however, is to concentrate on potential large donors: i.e. wealthy individuals making large donations, not just small donations. I take this view in the light of what members have said above, particularly Russo, i.e. that we are looking at Sarah using her connections to raise LARGE sums of money from individuals.
Anyway, having glanced through the rich list and the top names, I can certainly see a few who know Sarah [not all are friends] and I have to say, truthfully, that I cannot see anyone who I would regard as likely contributors to this latest trafficking charitable venture. For example, the Queen features, along with the Duke of Westminster, Viscount Cowdray, Robert Miller, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Richard Branson, The Beckhams, Roman Abramovich, Richard Branson, Lakshmi Mittal, Galen Weston.... in this list, Sarah's acquaintances are limited to the Queen, Richard Branson, Viscount Cowdray. [Viscount Cowdray, although very wealthy, has NO history of philanthropic giving.] Galen Weston knew Sarah through polo but I have discounted him because he is a very close friend of the Prince of Wales and I am sure his own charitable foundation would choose to support one of Prince Charles' causes. The Beckhams are more closesly associated with Prince William [and any way, I do not rate them as very philanthropic]
Another point: it is unfortunate that in the UK, there are some people who adopt particular charities in order to benefit themselves socially. It is also a fact that some unscrupulous people get involved in charitable works with more than half an eye to an advantageous appearance in the Honours lists. One way to try to ensure your appearance therein is to link yourself with prominent charities, often with a royal patron. Excellence of the cause is not their prime motivator. I must make it clear that I am not citing those individuals that I have mentioned above as being guilty of this sort of behaviour. But, believe you me, there are people with money who want to make donations where it will do THEM most good. I am not sure that Sarah's current charitable interests would come into that category. Please note that I am not saying that 'NOT FOR SALE' is not a worthy cause - it is. It's just that there are other causes which are seen as more 'suitable' to one's social advancement. This sort of behaviour is actually found through all income levels in the UK: case in point: I see lots of people VERY keen on Riding for the Disabled, Save the Children etc. The possibility of being present during a Royal Visit is a very strong incentive for some people to get involved in charity.......... [this is of course nothing to do with any fault, perceived or otherwise, on the part of Sarah of course]
Furthermore, if everyone who had money limited their charitable donations to just charities based in their home country than the world will be a sadder place than it already is. .
Zonk, I so agree. Particuarly as I also take the view that we are all global citizens. Of course it is right that everyone takes an interest in the problems of the world. And even setting aside global problems such as hunger, AIDs, trafficking come to that, it's right to point out that many rich American philanthropists actually fund UK institutions very generously - The Royal Academy for starters. And the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives millions of dollars [pounds] a year to fund students in the UK.
I guess foundations that work to feed the starving children of Africa, or work to negate the affect of malaria on underdeveloped and poor countries shouldn't solicit anyone outside their home country..
Zonk, the point that I am making is a serious one but about a completely different aspect: I am not commenting on the worthiness of the cause...what I am saying is that I do not sincerely believe that Sarah has enough 'pulling power' to bring in donations from wealthy UK donors. Which is an entirely different point from what you are making.
I know Sarah has certainly made some bad decisions, and as someone who has liked Sarah in the past, and has questioned some of her recent actions, I must say it is sad (very sad indeed) that every action, thought, look and comment that Sarah makes is viewed by such a negative outlook.
I mean seriously...we are questioning on whether or not Sarah is not sincere about reducing and/or bringing attention to human trafficking? Because she joined the party late in the game? What is the criteria that determines sincerity? Whether or not, she is going to use the charity for her own personal financial gain? Did I miss something...has Sarah been accused and/or charged of using charity money for her own personal use? Surely the Daily Mail wouldn't have missed that story!
Don't get me wrong...with the issues/mistakes/mishaps (whatever you want to call them) that Sarah has made throughout the years its very easy to look at Sarah with a jaundiced eye but I think its is very unfair to make broad assumptions.
And from my point of view, the problem is just as you have described. I am afraid that the reason that I - and perhaps others here - look upon Sarah with 'a jaundiced eye' is because she
repeatedly has given us cause to do just that. She does not seem to learn from her mistakes. Ever. Indeed, forum members here who bravely struggled through 'Finding Sarah' have told us that the contents seem to be little different from her various bleatings in her previous books... And I have to say that I am not entirely sure that being labelled a 'people-pleaser' is really helpful - it just seems to be an convenient excuse to try to find a label to 'excuse the inexcusable'...
For me, the bottom line is that Sarah now desperately needs something to do. I have said above that in my humble opinion, Sarah has not got a history of altrustic behaviour for its own end: to me, she needs 'charity' to keep in the public eye. She needs charity to - well, if I can put it blunty - to allow her to travel the world etc. In the very recent past, Sarah has had both honesty issues and has also confessed that she has no idea about financial matters. She has continued to make remarks that impact negatively on the BRF even though they have been good - and generous for that matter - to Sarah in the past [I always shudder when I read posts by people here - surely some of the most well-informed royal experts in the world - about how Sarah 'only received a pittance of £15,000 for her divorce settlement' etc etc] and in the latest clips posted by members, we see Sarah on TV yet again complaining [because that is what it is] about her failure to be invited to the wedding of William and Catherine, leading to more criticism of the BRF. Sarah needs something to rehabilitate her tarnished image, she needs something to give her a public role [whch she seems to beleive that she is entitled to..] She seems to have no romantic love interest [from a wealthy man at any rate]. If she is sincere about this new charity venture, then I am both pleased for her and sorry that I have maligned her. But to me, I feel that Sarah needs this charity far more than it really needs her.............
Just my thoughts, which are of course not meant to offfend,
Alex
She looks very serious.
