Comments by "Sammy B" (@sammyb1651) on "Piers Morgan Uncensored" channel.

  1. The thing is, even if you can make a technical defence of it (citing whatever exculpatory nonsense they have done), the greater point is people were motivated to GIVE/PURCHASE due to charitable inclinations. It is the harm they've done to charitable giving generally that is their horrible legacy in all of this. People will be way more suspicious of "good" causes in future. By it's nature, that harm is incalculable. We will never know. But you can guarantee they've been a force for bad rather than good. Trust is what is eroded. PS Piers' involuntary wink at 1:33 is caught on camera. To get his "exclusive" he's obviously agreed to prime the family about the questions beforehand and had their responses in advance so he can soft ball them through it. You can see him encouraging her as she gives the prepared answer to the question she was expecting. They've neglected to edit it out. Lol. Suffice to say they're opportunists and were never fit and proper people to occupy the roles.
    9
  2. The thing is, even if you can make a technical defence of it (citing whatever exculpatory nonsense they have done), the greater point is people were motivated to GIVE/PURCHASE due to charitable inclinations. It is the harm they've done to charitable giving generally that is their horrible legacy in all of this. People will be way more suspicious of "good" causes in future. By it's nature, that harm is incalculable. We will never know. But you can guarantee they've been a force for bad rather than good. Trust is what is eroded. PS Piers' involuntary wink at 1:33 is caught on camera. To get his "exclusive" he's obviously agreed to prime the family about the questions beforehand and had their responses in advance so he can soft ball them through it. You can see him encouraging her as she gives the prepared answer to the question she was expecting. They've neglected to edit it out. Lol. Suffice to say they're opportunists and were never fit and proper people to occupy the roles.
    7
  3. The thing is, even if you can make a technical defence of it (citing whatever exculpatory nonsense they have done), the greater point is people were motivated to GIVE/PURCHASE due to charitable inclinations. It is the harm they've done to charitable giving generally that is their horrible legacy in all of this. People will be way more suspicious of "good" causes in future. By it's nature, that harm is incalculable. We will never know. But you can guarantee they've been a force for bad rather than good. Trust is what is eroded. PS Piers' involuntary wink at 1:33 is caught on camera. To get his "exclusive" he's obviously agreed to prime the family about the questions beforehand and had their responses in advance so he can soft ball them through it. You can see him encouraging her as she gives the prepared answer to the question she was expecting. They've neglected to edit it out. Lol. Suffice to say they're opportunists and were never fit and proper people to occupy the roles.
    4
  4. The thing is, even if you can make a technical defence of it (citing whatever exculpatory nonsense they have done), the greater point is people were motivated to GIVE/PURCHASE due to charitable inclinations. It is the harm they've done to charitable giving generally that is their horrible legacy in all of this. People will be way more suspicious of "good" causes in future. By it's nature, that harm is incalculable. We will never know. But you can guarantee they've been a force for bad rather than good. Trust is what is eroded. PS Piers' involuntary wink at 1:33 is caught on camera. To get his "exclusive" he's obviously agreed to prime the family about the questions beforehand and had their responses in advance so he can soft ball them through it. You can see him encouraging her as she gives the prepared answer to the question she was expecting. They've neglected to edit it out. Lol. Suffice to say they're opportunists and were never fit and proper people to occupy the roles.
    3
  5. The thing is, even if you can make a technical defence of it (citing whatever exculpatory nonsense they have done), the greater point is people were motivated to GIVE/PURCHASE due to charitable inclinations. It is the harm they've done to charitable giving generally that is their horrible legacy in all of this. People will be way more suspicious of "good" causes in future. By it's nature, that harm is incalculable. We will never know. But you can guarantee they've been a force for bad rather than good. Trust is what is eroded. PS Piers' involuntary wink at 1:33 is caught on camera. To get his "exclusive" he's obviously agreed to prime the family about the questions beforehand and had their responses in advance so he can soft ball them through it. You can see him encouraging her as she gives the prepared answer to the question she was expecting. They've neglected to edit it out. Lol. Suffice to say they're opportunists and were never fit and proper people to occupy the roles.
    3
  6.  @MatgoStyles  The material point is that FAR too many of them have overheads they simply don't need however. Including (in many cases) vanity head office buildings in major cities. Sadly the human instinct involved in running charities is to stay in business, rather than what it should be, which is to be so effective as to put themselves out of business. In some cases (horrifically) the objective is actually to GROW their business by ever expanding mission creep and activism.
    2
  7.  @brucetillerson3329  The thing is, even if you can make a technical defence of it (citing whatever exculpatory nonsense they have done), the greater point is people were motivated to GIVE/PURCHASE due to charitable inclinations. It is the harm they've done to charitable giving generally that is their horrible legacy in all of this. People will be way more suspicious of "good" causes in future. By it's nature, that harm is incalculable. We will never know. But you can guarantee they've been a force for bad rather than good. Trust is what is eroded. PS Piers' involuntary wink at 1:33 is caught on camera. To get his "exclusive" he's obviously agreed to prime the family about the questions beforehand and had their responses in advance so he can soft ball them through it. You can see him encouraging her as she gives the prepared answer to the question she was expecting. They've neglected to edit it out. Lol. Suffice to say they're opportunists and were never fit and proper people to occupy the roles.
    2
  8. 🤣
    2
  9. The thing is, even if you can make a technical defence of it (citing whatever exculpatory nonsense they have done), the greater point is people were motivated to GIVE/PURCHASE due to charitable inclinations. It is the harm they've done to charitable giving generally that is their horrible legacy in all of this. People will be way more suspicious of "good" causes in future. By it's nature, that harm is incalculable. We will never know. But you can guarantee they've been a force for bad rather than good. Trust is what is eroded. PS Piers' involuntary wink at 1:33 is caught on camera. To get his "exclusive" he's obviously agreed to prime the family about the questions beforehand and had their responses in advance so he can soft ball them through it. You can see him encouraging her as she gives the prepared answer to the question she was expecting. They've neglected to edit it out. Lol. Suffice to say they're opportunists and were never fit and proper people to occupy the roles.
    2
  10.  @daisychain9713  The thing is, even if you can make a technical defence of it (citing whatever exculpatory nonsense they have done), the greater point is people were motivated to GIVE/PURCHASE due to charitable inclinations. It is the harm they've done to charitable giving generally that is their horrible legacy in all of this. People will be way more suspicious of "good" causes in future. By it's nature, that harm is incalculable. We will never know. But you can guarantee they've been a force for bad rather than good. Trust is what is eroded. PS Piers' involuntary wink at 1:33 is caught on camera. To get his "exclusive" he's obviously agreed to prime the family about the questions beforehand and had their responses in advance so he can soft ball them through it. You can see him encouraging her as she gives the prepared answer to the question she was expecting. They've neglected to edit it out. Lol. Suffice to say they're opportunists and were never fit and proper people to occupy the roles.
    1
  11. The thing is, even if you can make a technical defence of it (citing whatever exculpatory nonsense they have done), the greater point is people were motivated to GIVE/PURCHASE due to charitable inclinations. It is the harm they've done to charitable giving generally that is their horrible legacy in all of this. People will be way more suspicious of "good" causes in future. By it's nature, that harm is incalculable. We will never know. But you can guarantee they've been a force for bad rather than good. Trust is what is eroded. PS Piers' involuntary wink at 1:33 is caught on camera. To get his "exclusive" he's obviously agreed to prime the family about the questions beforehand and had their responses in advance so he can soft ball them through it. You can see him encouraging her as she gives the prepared answer to the question she was expecting. They've neglected to edit it out. Lol. Suffice to say they're opportunists and were never fit and proper people to occupy the roles.
    1
  12.  @Phoenix_cataclysm_in_2040  I'm pretty sure its a wink. A subconscious one that escapes him. Both eyes close-I understand that-but theres a definite emphasis there.
    1