Wealthy Forester-Smith, who died last July aged 77, made his name in the 1970s snapping the likes of racing driver Sir Jackie Stewart and The Queen. Then in 1999 he was jailed for eight years for sexually abusing three girls over nearly two decades. One of them was his own daughter Tori. She bravely waived her anonymity after Forester-Smith’s trial at the High Court in Edinburgh, writing a book in which she told of his abuse.
A relative said of his will: “This is a toxic bequest from a man who has been tried and convicted of abusing his daughter. To leave it to the Girl Guides is nothing but a sick gesture.”
Forester-Smith’s wife Sheena, who died in 2001, was a keen supporter of the Guides and Brownies, allowing the organisation to use the family’s estate near Annan, Dumfriesshire, for summer camps. In the will the bequest is made “on behalf of the memory and in celebration of the life of my late wife Sheena”. A spokesman for the Guides said: “The matter is in the hands of the executors. As such it would be inappropriate for us to comment.”
10 comments:
Why on earth would they refuse the money? What difference does it make that the money comes from a dead pedophile? Is this "toxic" pedophile money somehow unfit to be used for the good of children? It dissolves if you try to use it to buy new uniforms or hire professionals to work with children or whatever the Guides actually do? Does refusing the money somehow benefit the children in general and the Girl Guides in particular more than what this £400,000 would be able to buy? Am I missing something? Am I being too practical? Did the late Mr Forester-Smith think his tupee fooled anyone?
I do understand where they're coming from, but that money can do a lot of good. I hope they accept it.
Exactly my thought insolitus. Just be cause they respect the money, doesnt mean they should respect its previous owners.
They should give it to charity if they're that concerned.
Isn't that money already given to charity when it goes to the Girl Guides?
They should use the money for safety classes or self-defense or something. That would be apropriate.
I agree that they should accept the money. But whereas a bequest like this normally is reciprocated by some sort of honour for the benefactor (such as naming rights to a building or a program or a fund -- "The So-and-So Memorial Thingamebob"), this kind of recirpocation should obviously be foregone here. Perhaps they could, as Miss C. suggests, use the funds for prevention work -- or perhaps some kind of counselling for victims. And perhaps they could name the fund/program after the guy's daughter, to honour her courage.
I think it's important, also, to keep in mind that people are complicated. There are no "monstrous," although there are many monstrous acts. People who do unspeakable evil and people who show incredible generosity are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups. So it's possible that the bequest, although coming from someone who had abused girls so badly, was made honestly out of love for his wife and maybe even in a spirit of apology.
<span>I agree that they should accept the money. But whereas a bequest like this normally is reciprocated by some sort of honour for the benefactor (such as naming rights to a building or a program or a fund -- "The So-and-So Memorial Thingamebob"), this kind of recirpocation should obviously be foregone here. Perhaps they could, as Miss C. suggests, use the funds for prevention work -- or perhaps some kind of counselling for victims. And perhaps they could name the fund/program after the guy's daughter, to honour her courage.
I think it's important, also, to keep in mind that people are complicated. There are no "monster," although there are many monstrous acts. People who do unspeakable evil and people who show incredible generosity are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups. So it's possible that the bequest, although coming from someone who had abused girls so badly, was made honestly out of love for his wife and maybe even in a spirit of apology.</span>
<span><span>I agree that they should accept the money. But whereas a bequest like this normally is reciprocated by some sort of honour for the benefactor (such as naming rights to a building or a program or a fund -- "The So-and-So Memorial Thingamebob"), this kind of recirpocation should obviously be foregone here. Perhaps they could, as Miss C. suggests, use the funds for prevention work -- or perhaps some kind of counselling for victims. And perhaps they could name the fund/program after the guy's daughter, to honour her courage.
I think it's important, also, to keep in mind that people are complicated. There are no "monsters," although there are many monstrous acts. People who do unspeakable evil and people who show incredible generosity are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups. So it's possible that the bequest, although coming from someone who had abused girls so badly, was made honestly out of love for his wife and maybe even in a spirit of apology.</span></span>
<span><span><span>I agree that they should accept the money. But whereas a bequest like this normally is reciprocated by some sort of honour for the benefactor (such as naming rights to a building or a program or a fund -- "The So-and-So Memorial Thingamebob"), this kind of recirpocation should obviously be foregone here. Perhaps they could, as Miss C. suggests, use the funds for prevention work -- or perhaps some kind of counselling for victims. And perhaps they could name the fund/program after the guy's daughter, to honour her courage.
I think it's important, also, to keep in mind that people are complicated. There are no "monsters," although there are people who commit monstrous acts. The same people who commit these acts are also capable of great kindness. So it's possible that the bequest, although coming from someone who had abused girls so badly, was made honestly out of love for his wife and maybe a sense of guilt for his crimes.
</span></span></span>
Post a Comment