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.’”

I reported my post to get it removed. I’m going to go enjoy my day and step away from this. It feels toxic and I wish I had not shared.

@oneuptwodown

You've hit the nail on the head.

It's the fact that they go on and on about how charitable they are and set themselves up as leading global philanthropists, and then have their 'charity' registered somewhere that enforces no transparency on spends and legitimately allows them to spend 95% on expenses - eg. Funding their personal PR, paying the salaries of their staff, flying about on private jets.

Of course it's legal, but it's do as I say not do as I do. If they really were as altruistic as they claim, they'd be ensuring that their expenses were kept to a minimum, and they'd be happy to be transparent about their accounts in the same way that charities have to be transparent in the UK. The reality is that the foundation is just a cover for them to pose as charitable bigwigs and get their sizeable bills picked up by the non profit while their commercial ventures keep costs to a minimum so they can maximise return.

Absolutely legal, but moral? No. And in direct contradiction to the values that they preach.

Maybe her husband should do a AMA thread

I wonder the tax implications of receiving an inheritance into a foundation in Delaware?

if the queen left money, couldn’t they put in in, pay themselves 95% and give 5% to charity ? If only there was someone we could ask

You don’t think this is bullying, do you?

Or this?

Just grown up productive conversation, right? Not petty, not childish, not meant to make me never want to post here again?
Right @Ohnonevermind

Oh sorry, you asked me not to quote you after I pulled up your post saying there was nothing to talk about on the podcast thread. Posted just about 30 minutes before you posted a bunch of nonsense on the podcast thread.

H&M have raised awareness of the whole foundation/charity issue in the States and people are interested

Looking at the Robert Kennedy foundation I saw a ‘beneficial interest in a trust’ of 23m, I wondered if this is the way that wealthy American’s shield their money from tax by creating ‘charitable foundations’ who can pay their kids money ‘salaries’ and transfer 5% to charity as an effective tax

we have ama threads where people in differ work industries/have life experiences etc start AMA threads about topics people might be interested. Most of us would be interested in the way rich people arrange these affairs

Asking questions about how the rich arrange their affairs isn’t bullying, no one has been tagged or copied. This seems a logical flow to the conversation, I think I might do some research

@MarshaMelrose

Tom Cruise played a tax lawyer in ‘the firm’, minimising taxes using trusts and offshore accounts perhaps you have valuable insights too

@Ohnonevermind

I’m sure any of the UK based posters on this thread could do your fascinating AMA about charity law in the US or whatever you are on about. After all, you’ve got the internet there, right? I’m sure it would be really popular here, too. Brilliant idea, you.

Once you are done with your “research” let me know! I can help you advertise for get clients here in the US. 😂

Work harder on your plausible deniability act.

Funnily enough, plausible deniability is a big reason why companies and charitable organisations incorporate in Delaware.

Look @HannaHanna you were quick to call this thread 'toxic' after people were correcting your mistakes and discussing the topic of incorporating in Delaware rather than shutting up about it. This is before your admittedly unsavory exchange with one poster above, where it does seem personal - on both sides but much more openly from you to the other poster.

You are doing precisely what @HopeMumsnet asked us all not to do earlier in this thread: bringing in past battles with the other 'side' instead of reporting and personally attacking posters. Report instead, she said.

Don't play victim when that is obviously not the case and it's you trying to shut down a general conversation about how charitable foundations can operate.

@EchoPark I don’t mind the conversation at all and don’t want to stop it, I seriously don’t have any real dog in the fight, just seeing so many inaccuracies.

Someone posted above that you would “register on your own town.” No, there’s no such thing. Business registration is always at the state level.

There is also info conflating state regulation of charitable orgs with business registration/incorporation or whatever you want to call it. That’s two very different things.

I am not some crusader for H&M. Outside of MN I don’t even read about them. I’ve said it before, under my old user name, actually about the pro MM’s, it’s just fascinating to see what goes on here on the RF threads.

When someone is mocking me for mentioning my husband, they are going to get it back. I’m not hiding it nor trying to deny it. Why not treat people the way they treat you and others? I’ve had plenty of civil conversations with people of all opinions on this thread.

Can we talk about this, as I’d like to hear more.

Funnily enough, plausible deniability is a big reason why companies and charitable organisations incorporate in Delaware.

I have worked long-term for two different global, publicly traded companies in the past and at least one small business incorporated there. Do you think they are trying to hide something? Because the only reason I ever heard was the lack of state tax and that it’s just less regulated.

In my state you can register a business under a fictitious name, with only the board members listed. Still many chose to register in Delaware.

The non-profit I volunteered with (and was on the board) was a women’s organization and we were registered there. Do you think it was intended to hide something? I wasn’t there when it was established so not privy to the decision and suspect the attorney who filed for us just did it this way without a discussion. So I really don’t know. But saw nothing suspicious for the 4 years I was involved with the board.

Good to know you don't want to stop the conversation Hanna.

FWIW my take from the outside is that ohnevermind was taking the piss with the comment about your husband doing an AMA - yes it's mocking rather than affectionate but it's not bullying. It's the sort of gently snide but droll humour that MN is known for and that happens across the site.

But as you think it's bullying, I hope you reported to MNHQ as they requested.

A friendly heads-up: I have not reported anything here on this thread (yet! never say never!) but I can see posts by you that imo clearly contravene Talk Guidelines, more clearly than those by anyone else.

Echo, I can’t really see how my own posts are any worse if that’s the culture here. Gentle ribbing or whatever, right, not bullying then. I’m sure she’s a big girl and can take it.

I mentioned another thread, but that’s become commonplace in the past few days and has gone unchecked. For me, to be told not to quote someone and then have them directly referencing me in a mocking way was reason enough to refer back to the obvious reason.

It’s weird to mock someone then complain about their reaction. (Or to defend said mocker but gloss over their behavior.) No victims here and certainly not that one.

Your logic is fatally flawed.

I bought two copies of Courtiers from Barnes & Noble which were in perfect condition. My next door neighbor bought two copies of Courtiers from the very same Barnes & Noble which had unflattering pages deliberately ripped out. Are you suggesting that my copies of Courtiers also have unflattering pages deliberately ripped out, because I can tell you they don't and you can't deny my truth because I have them in my hands and they're 100% complete. If you challenge my truth, you'd be bullying me and this entire thread would be toxic.

Surely you can see why this makes no sense?

I understood the logic proposed in the first place to be: x charity is registered in Delaware and therefore they are hiding something.

I am saying that’s not evidence of anything suspicious. That’s all. I have no way to know if they are doing other suspicious things. My only contention is that this is not one of them.

I don’t think the questions are bullying to the non-profit. Weird focus but then here I am, apparently, also.

And Hanna some of what you wrote to ohnevermind is not "gentle ribbing" as you put it, eg this comment:

Typical from you. Very transparent. Work harder on your plausible deniability act.

Kindly don't insult my intelligence or yours by pretending it is.

Ah, that's where the issue comes from.

Yes, the thrust of the assertion is that Archewell is registered in Delaware and that therefore they are hiding something AND THAT THIS IS LEGAL, HABITUAL, AND LOTS OF OTHER ORGANISATIONS CHOOSE DELAWARE OVER OTHER STATES SPECIFICALLY TO AVAIL OF DELAWARE'S FAVOURABLE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT.

I don't think anyone has given or suggested that there is evidence of anything suspicious going on with Archewell. There can't be any such evidence, because of Delaware's laws - that's the whole point! BUT, if you WANTED to pay high taxes and give full disclosure of your dealings, Delaware isn't the state you'd choose to incorporate.

Bullying talk wasn't wrt the non-profit, but how you felt you were being treated on this thread (I think, sorry on my phone and can't scroll all the way on this sodding new website). Two people can be saying totally different things and BOTH be right.