We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
I voted for taking the cash.
However there is always ifs and buts which questions like this do not take into account.
That dictorial regime could add conditions to such a gift and taking the cash without ensuring it is unconditional would be foolish.
Also such regimes sometimes have embargoes whereby taking money could actually be illegal.
The charity could lose more beneficiaries than they gain by taking that money.
There are always ifs and buts..
Take money which will definitely save lives or refuse it because of a potential problem in the future? I would say take the money and cross the next bridge if you ever come to it. Basic logic would seem to dictate that a real threat to life should be prioritised over a theoretical one.
I like the supposed quotes by General William Booth, Founder of the Salvation Army.
In the movement's early days (late 1800s) some people questioned whether they should accept donations from morally dubious people (see George Bernard Shaw's 'Major Barbara' for a fictional example).
He's recorded as saying: 'Tainted money? The only problem is, 'tain't enough!' Another retort was: We will wash it in the tears of the widows and orphans, and lay it on the altar of humanity.'
