Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

Did she @Thedom?
then she’s been very clever using the “ whistleblower “

as far as I know ndas are not enforceable against whistleblower’s!

She's an unpaid volunteer, not an employee, and she's still the chair. No NDA could bind her as there's no consideration.

This is all very interesting.

I have to say though, I dislike SC using racism and misogyny as attacks without giving any clear examples of that.
I'm tired of that type of unsubstantiated attack being used.

But H &M have used the same tactical slurs themselves so it does feel like karma.

It would be strange if the board of trustees didn't have NDA's, no? considering the Sussex's widespread use of them.

I googled it and @Jeffgoldblum is right, the whistleblowing protects her.

In the UK, an NDA cannot prevent someone from making a protected disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (whistleblowing), and any clause attempting to do so is void.

So once Harry let the cat out of the bag by going to the media and announcing she had taken out an injunction, I guess if she had an NDA it would have been voided.

Serenster and Words can probably throw more light on this.

Yes it is so very ironic and would be highly amusing were it not such a serious subject.

She's an unpaid volunteer, not an employee, and she's still the chair. No NDA could bind her as there's no consideration.

If I remember correctly, volunteers and participants at Invictus have to sign NDA's, so being a volunteer doesn't preclude you from having to sign an NDA.

Board trustees are often required to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to protect confidential information, especially when they have access to sensitive data or are involved in sensitive discussions.

I think Emily Maitlis's style of interviewing would work better for Harry than Trevor Philips'.

Well there's signing an NDA and the thing actually being enforceable. And NDA is enforceable if there is consideration - ie something bargained for and received that creates a binding promise. In an employer/employee situation, the consideration is the job. It would be interesting to know what is being classed as consideration for a volunteer, ie, what are they receiving in exchange for their unpaid, volunteer time? If consideration is not clear, the NDA will not be binding. They are also not binding to protect illegal acts, something so broad as to be unenforceable or something that's not actually a secret (the latter may apply to a charity that has public filings).

I’ve always thought their extensive use of ndas very telling @Thedom, afterall why the need if you haven’t got something to hide?
it’s not like they are dealing with secret government information that would harm a country!

While I do not agree with the Sussex Squad accusation that Rawlinson is a Prince William plant, I do wonder if he got involved through loyalty to PW and the wider Royal family in order to limit the damage, and will be quietly updating them behind the scenes. There are three options. The charity can be saved, it can be re-estalished, or it will have to be shut down. It is doing good work and I hope it can be saved. Yet again, the combination of dim, entitled, besotted Harry and greedy, self-obsessed Meghan proves disastrous for Harry

Very much with you on that, @IdaGlossop, and yes it's realistic that Rawlison may well feed back to the RF, which would doubtless drive Harry frantic

However when a perfectly good cause is being compromised like this there's a case for wiser, steadier heads being brought in to stablise things, and if that involves noses being put of of joint I'd say it's worth it for the sake of the beneficiaries

I'd pay good money to see that Ida - especially Harry saying "I think that went rather well" sotto voce afterwards 😂

I can't see her signing an NDA. She's a lawyer and also not prepared to be silent or silenced.

I agree and it is very often used on here by posters trying to shut down discussion. Who are we though to question her authentic lived life? 😉 I suspect that her role and her sex is particularly disliked in certain sectors in the charity. Anyone with sense knows that black women especially in Africa are regarded by some as not being worthy of public office or regard. This opens up another whole ballgame.

It would enable Harry to tell his truth through a feminist lens.

Thank you, you definitely know more about it than my basic google skills do.

Didn't Harvey Weinstein use NDA's in the UK to silence the victims he sexually assaulted, even though those were illegal acts is it because the NDAs' came with a payment? is that what you mean by consideration, ie something bargained for?

So, for example, if Sophie had resigned as requested and they had paid her off, her NDA would have been enforceable?

Or am I totally misunderstanding.

Harry couldn't deal with Sorkin's interview never mind one about this.

That is exactly how I feel.

I suspect those examples are in the report she made to the charity commission and will be investigated.

Part of the problem is that H&M burned their boats with many of their traditional donors/sponsors in the UK in and around polo circles.

I also think that Harry turning polo into a reality show also went down badly with his UK contacts - very few of his old chums seemed to turn out to the 2023 event.

I think the West Coast US might have been a good fundraising idea but for 3 problems

1. It's a very crowded market - everyone and their dog has a charitable foundation - so Harry would have needed to hustle and I don't get the impression he does that. He is used the the palace doing all the heavy lifting so that he only needs to turn up with people happy to donate to meet a prince. But in LA people are less impressed with this. They tried a few charity things when he played with the Santa Barbera Polo Club - a match and afternoon tea with H&M - but the A listers didn't turn out and there was that other awkward moment when she refused to concede the centre of the photo to the team and tried to grab the prize of a young player.
2. Harry allowed his charity work to become the Meghan show - especially Invictus making sponsors back away as they know they will get no acknowledgement. Does anyone even remember who the main sponsor of Invictus last month was?
3. The overlap between Harry's money making activities and charity work. SC has spoken about Harry just casually announcing that he was bringing a Netflix crew. This cost Senetable additional money after the venue donor backed out, new contracts had to be done, logistics rejigged etc etc. Did Harry even donate any of the NF money to cover the additional costs of the disruption?

Is she allowed to publicly give specific examples and evidence if there is an ongoing investigation going on? I thought that’s why she was talking about the furore around the resignations and Harry going to the media rather than the actual reasons why it’s all gone to pot.

Like you said, I find it hard to feel sorry for him when this is what they have both done since 2020, publicly accusing family members of being racists/having unconscious bias.

I just watched the interview. Thanks for the link from @AtIusvue and @RandyRedHumpback .

I thought Trevor Phillips was very tough with his questions and SC responded well. I'm hoping that this gets the actions of the Sussex Squad out to the general public.

Iain Rawlinson has a great financial background and experience with charities. To me, he came across as calm and well- informed.

https://www.themarque.com/profile/iain-rawlinson

Here in the US, we have the phrase "diarrhea of the mouth". I think that is Harry's problem. I'm wondering how happy the new PR person is right now.

I've no idea if Ms Chandauka signed an NDA or not, though it seems clear that positioning herself as a "whistleblower" would have got round this, but on the wider point I'd be very surprised if H&M have any real understanding of these things beyond "It'll stop people saying nasty things about us"

It's the difference, really, between doing good works out of genuine care for a cause and doing them as an attempt to bolster an image
They both become obvious in time, but while we all make mistakes they tend to be more forgivable in tthe first scenario and less in the second

Fruit spreads often contain a lot of sugar but it comes from high concentrate fruit juices (apple, pear, pineapple etc) and are usually made from mashed up fruits rather than chunks or whole fruits in jam. They are a highly processed product but sometimes sold as "healthier" and "all fruit"

There's room for both here! 😁

@Weepixie Scroll down to the bottom of the page to find out more you want to know about FDA food guidelines & fruit spreads:

https://www.smuckers.com/articles/difference-between-jam-and-jelly