]Based on this story:


A convicted paedophile who raped his own daughter has left £400,000 in his will to the Girl Guides



Disgraced former society photographer Reginald Forester-Smith died last July aged 77.

Guide leaders in Scotland were now mulling over the difficulty decision of accepting the money or returning it to his estate.

Wealthy Forester-Smith made his name in the 1970s photographing celebrities and royalty.

But in 1999 he was jailed for eight years at the High Court in Edinburgh for sexually abusing three girls over a 20-year period.

One of the children he abused was his own daughter, Tori.

She waived her right to anonymity and published a book about the abuse she suffered from her father.

He reportedly rejected her accusations - claiming she lied.

In his will Forester-Smith left more than £1m to charities, including £312,291 each to the Macmillan Nurses Cancer Association and Cancer Research UK - but nothing to his daughter.

Both organisations have yet to decide if they will accept the money.

But the largest bequest was to the Girlguiding movement in memory of his wife Sheena who was a keen supporter of the Guides and Brownies. She died in 2001.

In a statement Girlguiding Scotland said: "We are aware of the legacy left to Guiding, in memory of Mrs Forester-Smith.

"The matter is currently in the hands of the executors going through the legal administrative process and as such it would be inappropriate for us to comment."

Interesting dilemma. I suppose he didn't make the money from anything illegal (as far as is known). And the story states it wasn't in his interests that he left it but his wifes love of the organization. So why let the money go to waste when people can benefit from it. I'm not saying he should be honored or a plauqe be put up in his name, just take the money and use it without giving him any recognition at all. If no one takes it i'm pretty sure the government will find a way to get their grubby little mits on it, and i'm sure they won't be arsed as to where or who it came from.

I agree, give them the money, they don't need to be eternally grateful, he's dead it won't get him any glory and neither should he get it!

Why let the government collect?

The girl guide issue is supposedly on his wife's behalf anyway, I'm sure that had he of died first and the money left to his wife, the thought wouldn't have even crossed anyone's mind when she passed away and handed it over!

They should just accept the money. The guy was scum for abusing his daughter, but he apparently he loved his wife enough to give a large sum of money to her favourite cause. And it's not like the Girl Guides couldn't use the money. They can enrich the lives of thousands of girls or more with that much cash. And maybe, just maybe that could make up for some of the wrong this man did while he was alive. 
And generally, I would say that charities should accept the money regardless of where it comes from. Why? because:1- they always complain people aren't giving enough money... so it would look exceptionally bad for them not to accept it once money does come their way. Something about beggars not being choosers right?2- The money has already been made and whatever illegal activity it was connected with is more or less irrelevant now (unless the money is part of an active investigation... ) 3- They could definitely use the money to help their cause.4- They don't have to say who gave the money (or they could make it say it was from an anonymous source... of course disclosing the real identity to the government if needed.) This way they don't have to thought to have been taking money from criminals.

Most think it is amockery and continued abuse ifyou accept monies from those persons or companies who are embaring on abuse or criminal activity.

Greenpeace would no longer accept donations from a Japnese whaler, saying that it probably would. Same goes for animal rights they would refuse donations from those in the fur trade its just asmack in the mouth insult.

It makes it seem as if that type of person wants to try and buy saintity . I think that the charities should refuse to condone a persons acts even if they could do with the money .

Sadly its viewd as you have sided with the donator by accepting the money. Stains like that don't go away.

Like said, some donate to buy themselves some absoultion of blame. They gave money, therefore they are a good person. That philosophy is sadly considered the norm.

Money buys you aboslution, therefore gains you forgiveness and ultimately you have paid for your penance and have atoned for your wrong-doing.

Can any charity ever accept money, to put to good use with that sting attached?

This is why I said that charities should not accept the money . It is the easy way out for a wrong doer. If he or she worked hard by offering their services to the community on a freewill basis then this would , in my view , be more acceptable.

I had no idea money could do all that ... it's almost magical ... no wonder it's central to modern life.