Thanks, Tracey. There’s much to ponder on here and I’m sure your musings will prompt some interesting responses:
There were allegations that the money went to a terrorist organisation. These were never substantiated. Mainly because no paperwork was available to show where the money went. All the money, every single penny, was transferred to one person. The money was unaccounted for after that.
The odd thing is, persecution of orphans whose parents opposed the current regime is not something I’ve ever heard of being a particular anti opposition tactic of the Iranian authorities. And the Iranian authorities get up to a lot of awful stuff. Lots of people fled Iran in the revolution anyway, or were abroad and didn’t go back. Lots more left in the years since. And I like reading legal cases ALOT. No mention in asylum country guidance where country experts get to present evidence and lengthy papers to the court to establish the plight of Iranians, nothing. Never seen it being raised in an appeal against refusal of refugee status. The FCO was not aware of the charity operating in Iran, neither were other charities. I know quite a few Iranians too. This sort of thing, sins of the long dead father following a child, isn’t exactly the norm. The regime is both worse in some ways, and better in other ways than most people think. It is even nominally a democracy of sorts. I’ve not seen it mentioned in cases in Canada or Australia. People may actually flee when the whole family falls under suspicion because of the supposed anti regime actions of one member. I’ve never heard of that happening due to someone long dead.
The other odd thing is Belinda claims to have remortgaged her house to cover the charity’s outgoings, but the charity actually still exists and has no where near the income it did. But Belinda claims to get money to cover the mortgage repayments. Where on earth is this money coming from? It was £75million the charity raised all in all. One of the ex Iran Aid people is with the new charity too.
I wonder what Belinda’s husband’s name is?
I don’t know how someone can say with a straight face that the money didn’t go to a terrorist organisation when it cannot be accounted for. Even when the inquiry heard from the charity about how much they could account for, they said 10% couldn’t be accounted for. In addition, lost records can be recreated by getting duplicates. They didn’t and I don’t think they wanted to.
I just wonder at the people who take her at face value. There’s a lot more going on there. And I don’t mean secret squirrel stuff.