Harry and Meghan doing alright in the US, continuing their universal service

[notanotheroneagain]

Have heard a few comments from panellists and commenters thinking that Harry somehow wants to come back to the UK?

I highly doubt this. I think they are doing more than ok in the US.

A pity a positive thread has been deleted regarding the podcasts, maybe the positive conversation can continue here?

In particularly I wanted to highlight the announcement that they will be recipients for the Robert J Kennedy Human Rights award.

“When The Duke and Duchess accepted our award laureate invitation back in March, we were thrilled. The couple has always stood out for their willingness to speak up and change the narrative on racial justice and mental health around the world,” Kerry Kennedy, president of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, and Robert F. Kennedy's daughter, said in a statement shared today. “They embody the type of moral courage that my father once called the ‘one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.’”

But why create so many negative threads about the same people discussing the same topic ad nauseam!
The site is called Mumsnet - why is Meghan targeted and dehumanised here, she is also another mum who has suffered immense bullying from the press and social media. MN becomes complicit in bullying if they allow this to carry on.

Let's be reasonable here - there aren't 1000s of threads about other RF members - who are shrouded by scandal. Many of them over the last few months including the King himself.
How many threads haranguing and denigrating Meghan do you want on this website?

@Coucous I'll bet my house that the uncivil posts that Hope MN was mostly talking about is mostly posts to other posters. They have a duty of care first and foremost to their users.

Nice that you're respectful of how Meghan Markle is written about.

Concerning that your first or even close second thought isn't respect for your fellow posters.

I was one of those attacked on the deleted threads - yes I reported as it's unacceptable. Not a single poster came to my rescue. Who are you asking me to look out for? I think I did my job for the community by reporting the bad behaviour which was dealt with by MN in a way they saw fit.

You think so? It honestly is more like 95:5 with 95 being anti-meghan which is just awful how this woman gets trashed here. Just awful. There are 2 things she does not have in common with the rest of the RF. It makes MN looks so bad and a lot of it is unpalatable. I suspect this is why most posters stay out and do not post.

Coucous

I don't agree with your summary but don't want to get into it.

I suggest you re-read the message from HopeMumsnet and what she says about not attacking posters on the other 'side' to you.

I am not attacking anyone - I am saying I was attacked in the previous post. I wasn't even addressing my question to you when I initially posted I asked HopeMN - you addressed me and accused me of not caring about other posters. Isn't this what she was saying in her post.
We don't have to agree - we can all be civil and have a discussion without attacking, calling names, telling others they don't care about the well being etc etc. Can people not just post without tagging people and accusing them of something.

I am only asking that all posts be treated the same. I don't know what happens in the background with fake posters etc. It would just be nice if this Mum's forum wasn't allowing targeting and bullying of another woman 24/7 - it's never ending.

Coucous: Attacked in the previous post? No you weren't. Please be extra careful with your wording when making allegations like that.

I really don't get this huge issue people have with tagging. I've done it like once maybe twice max on this thread and still I'm getting ticked off about it.

@Coucous

But why create so many negative threads about the same people discussing the same topic ad nauseam!

Maybe it’s because some posters think she repeatedly does stuff in the public arena that merits a negative response?

You could say the same thing about Liz Truss’s govt at this exact point. Or Holly Willoughby and Philip Schofield during HMQ’s funeral.

You seem to be suggesting that Meghan Markle should be off limits, beyond criticism (as, actually, I personally think she would like to be!). To further your argument you compare her positively to Eg Charles or Andrew (I think?). Here’s my take on things: what those two men have done is serious, high-level immorality and maybe criminality. It’s serious shit that a chat forum like MN can’t do justice to. Reams of reporting goes on and serious conversations take place. To me, and this is my opinion, Meghan Markle just dabbles in gossip-level public life: she hasn’t done anywhere near as much harm as her uncles in law have, but she’s like every single SIL-thread on MM combined AND she keeps providing more and more fodder for people to comment on.

MN can be a site for serious discussion at times. MM isn’t significant enough for that. She falls squarely into the gossip and chit chat sections. And there’s a lot of bitching. What do you expect? That no poster should ever say anything negative about anyone? Or just not about Meghan Markle?

Sorry, also meant to comment on not just Couscous but other posters (in numerous previous threads) being accused of bullying Meghan Markle.

How is that even possible? Do you know she’s here and reading these? How can someone be bullied in absentia? Can a schoolchild bully a stranger other child in their absence? I’d like to understand this accusation because it makes no sense to me.

Yes I was attacked and false accusations made - MN deleted the post when I reported it. Of course it's not there for us to see. You can't tell me what happened when I posted and reported. Yes people should stop tagging people and accusing them of one thing or another. My post was never directed at you, but you have made this an argument. I shall leave this thread - I really don't have time - and I don't want to be involved in anything with posters here, but hopefully MN understands that the bullying should stop.

I am more than happy to post here or elsewhere if the discussions are civil and not reduced to what they usually are. I am not engaging anymore I don't have time. I don't know why people are so fired up. I really don't think MN used to be like this before. I wonder what happened!

Not at all
I am not suggesting anyone is off limits. Count the negative threads about MM and then those about PC/KC both have been in the news this year for different things.
There's a VERY high standard set for her in comparison and the posts are constant - daily. Great for this site of course because they make money via traffic. All round awful looking from outside or even as a poster.

Anyway no point even posting this

Good points oneuptwodown

Your schoolchild analogy doesn't quite work though imo.

I think targeted abuse of a child by another child(ren) you don't know is still bullying. The ages are also highly relevant - they're children.

What's different with Meghan Markle is that she is a public figure and a member of our royal family and is going to be discussed. She's being discussed within that context.

Or to put it another way, there's a reason and so a context why MM or any royal being is being discussed.

Obviously some of the comments aren't great. But even many that are bitchy are not bullying. To call it that is infantilising and over-exaggeration. It makes me wonder why that approach is taken about Meghan specifically.

As to why there are negative comments about her? Well she does a lot of hypocritical stuff in my view and says things that contradict the truth. She is purposefully promoting herself and always has done, why get a PR firm if you're not.

She can't be completely compared to the Royal Family because she was a reasonably well-known actress first. There was gossip about her before she even met Harry. That's not the case with people like Kate Middleton who would not have been talked about publicly if she hadn't met William.

Looks like One Young World are being investigated by the Charities Commission due to the level of remuneration of their senior staff.

I'm really uncomfortable with charity status for organisations that spend the majority of their funding on non-charitable expenses.

M&H should perhaps be more careful about which organisations they choose to associate closely with.

Unfortunately any charity or organisation associated with Harry or Meghan now comes under scrutiny. I can't imagine that this bodes well for them; many foundations/charities/non profits/not for profit etc. aren't as they seem and won't appreciate the scrutiny.

The thing is, though, what charitable aim does this charity have, or what action does it achieve. What is charitable about young people paying to listen to lectures?

I'm really uncomfortable with charity status for organisations that spend the majority of their funding on non-charitable expenses.

Other than a few thousand spent on sponsorship out of a turnover of millions, I cant see what they spend their money on other than wages and running their conferences.

Yes I was attacked and false accusations made - MN deleted the post when I reported it. Of course it's not there for us to see. You can't tell me what happened when I posted and reported.

You didn't read my post properly Coucous or else you didn't understand it. I asked you to be careful of your words because you made a mistake. "Attacked in a previous post" implies you were attacked in a previous post on this thread.

What you meant, I think, is previous thread not post.

I responded to your post to Hope because to me you were misunderstanding what Hope said and I wanted to address it. As I'm allowed to do.

                                                        <strong>*</strong>

@HopeMumsnet a thought: can MNHQ please let posters know when they've had a post deleted? Because I've seen posters claim that didn't have posts deleted when they were. So giving them the benefit of the doubt, I don't know if they get notifications.

what charitable aim does this charity have, or what action does it achieve

It seems, Marsha, that they focus on "social value", claiming that their ambassadors deliver $16 worth of it for every $1 invested

Unfortunately what this "social value" means is unclear, leaving the impression that their highly paid management can tag a value of choice onto practically whatever they want while cloaking it all in the kind of word salad which tends to convince the gullible

What the Charity Commission will make of it remains to be seen, but I expect they're hoping to avoid another farce like Kids Company - that is if it's not already too late

Thank you yes that's what I meant - thread rather than post. Apologies.

I questioned this "social value" before,and when I managed to trace it through, it seems like when the employers of the attendees of these conferences do a project and include social value, the charity claim it as theirs. So all uk govt project contracts offered to tender must have social value attached. So if an attendee works for a company that gets the tender, even though the social value is a governmental stipulation, the attendee reports that back and the charity claim the credit.
At least that's how it read to me. Because the charity don't seem to do anything other than arrange a conference once a year so they themselves aren't creating social value.
The Charity Commission isn't querying that this shouldn't be a charity or isn't succeeding in its charitable remit (?). So it does make me wonder exactly how many charities are set up to create money without actually benefitting people in need or good causes.

So it does make me wonder exactly how many charities are set up to create money without actually benefitting people in need or good causes.

I’ve wondered this too.

I just want to clarify, though, that my criticism is of the charity and nothing to do with Meghan. If Mary Robinson and Bob Geldhof aren't asking questions, and they're practically professionals in the field of charity (!), but instead taking money, then it's unfair that a low list actress (as she was at the time) would be expected to see anything wrong. My interest is that as someone who worked a long time in charity and had to argue for every expenditure, it just makes me mad that millions seem to be swashing around here.

it seems like when the employers of the attendees of these conferences do a project and include social value, the charity claim it as theirs

Sounds about right - another example of something being co-opted according to whatever suits
This also ties in with publicly funded contracts needing a (usually fashionable) concept to be satisfied, which IME is all too often done without any real intent except securing the money, and enabled by the kind of mind which struggles to see the bigger picture beyond those concepts

@MarshaMelrose I do remember you making a point about this in a previous thread, to your credit!

my criticism is of the charity and nothing to do with Meghan

So was mine, Marsha, because I'm talking here of principles rather than personalities even if actual practice drags personalities into it

I also missed commenting on your remark about how many "charities" exist to create money rather than actual benefits, and from long experience I'd suggest it's rather more than we might hope