Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

I am always surprised by how many people assume that NDAs can prevent information seeping into the public sphere.

Donald Trump, a sitting US President, had an NDA with Stormy Daniels, and yet we all know her name. If Trump could not silence Stormy, how on earth do H&M think they can rely on NDAs to permanently silence burnt out ex-staff.

That interview is damning - SC seems intelligent, calm, credible and well prepared. I’d be surprised if she didn’t have evidence for all her claims. I bet she’s got witness statements, texts, WhatsApp messages, the lot.

I thought that too

I wouldn't worry about the new PR person. As one myself (now retired) I always say that you really earn your crust when things go wrong. The real problem for the PR person is the use of friends to leak and comment in their favour. It means you have an incomplete picture and that your client/employer isn't working with you in the best way.

I think that the BRF are amazing! They allow their dearest children to marry all sorts of fortune hunters, starting from Prince Philip and ending with the Italian gigolo! They are kinder than my sink estate family, who would have shot down all those chancers on approach! Bravo, BRF!

Yes she strikes me as someone who always does her homework and then some. She will have all the evidence neatly organised and she knows what to do with it.

I’d be surprised if she wasn’t given her profession….

I have just watched that video for the first time, it’s excruciatingly embarrassing

I think, if I remember correctly, she said she has the evidence of Harry trying to discredit her with their sponsors.

@Lunde Does anyone even remember who the main sponsor of Invictus last month was?

I promise I didn't google. Was it Boeing? If it was I am Basilisk and I claim my £5. 😂

PS I agreed with your post - sorry to trivialise it.

I don't think specifics and details mean that we're getting the whole story, at all. I am sure Harry and his mates has a side to tell.

Chandauka is undoubtedly being selective to make her case BUT I would agree with you that the specificity is very likely to mean that the anecdotes she is picking are backed up by documentary evidence.

If Chandauka has email trails which show that big donors pulled out because of Harry's perceived toxicity, or which show that Harry tried to turn Sentebale into a commercial enterprise by involving Netflix, or which show that Meghan was able to attempt to interfere in the charity and bend it in the service of her PR machine...well, than Harry is cooked, basically, as far as charity patronage goes.

Cooked, piping hot and sprinkled with dead flowers. It's over, fella.

That would be very sad for him. But crucially it shows what a wise woman the Queen was, despite attempts by antimonarchists through the years to portray her as a brainless, emotionless cipher. She KNEW this shit wouldn't work.

This is why in my culture we're taught to have respect for our elders. Especially elder women. They KNOW shit.

I think they allow people to marry who they choose.

I think H and M need to stop using Invictus just to promote themselves. In particular, it needs to stop being the Meghan fashion show.
Also - African Parks really needs to be investigated, to deal with those very serious claims.

Almost correct. The law was changed a while ago so that whistleblowing disclosures can be made even when an nda is in place. However it is not sufficient just to say you are a whistleblower and be exempt. There are tests which must be applied to the disclosure to establish if it meets the threshold for whistleblowing. So if you say you are whistleblowing and your disclosure falls short of the test you have breached the nda and action can be taken against you for the breach.

The focus is rightly on Harry and Meghan because the specific on record allegations that Chandauka is claiming are:

1. Donors were put off by H&M's perceived toxicity;
2. Harry attempting to blend his charitable work with his commercial enterprises by bringing a Netflix crew to a Sentebale event, which lost them the venue (there are very strict rules for how the media covers charitable fundraising events even down to the type of adverts which are allowed if something's being shown on a commercial channel. There's a number of women on this thread very knowledgeable about UK charity law who I'm sure would explain why mixing charity with business is dodgy from a regulatory perspective);
3. Meghan attempted to force Chandauka to do PR work for Meghan.

These are serious allegations that need answering.

I would also add that Harry's fightback thus far has been poor. Getting your octogenarian Tory peer mate to jump on the phone with The Times and case personal slurs about Sophie Chandauka was not a great look, which is why it landed so badly.

His team are going to have to work harder and come up with a proper narrative to seize back control of the narrative.

https://www.mvfarmmarket.com/blogs/news/16861488-whats-the-difference-between-jams-jellies-preserves-spreads-and-butters

That is true, but enforcing the NDA here would be an empty threat, since it would presumably be the previous board of Sentabale who would want to do so. But they have all resigned, so no longer have any standing to act on behalf of Sentabale to try and enforce obligations owed to the charity. The new Board presumably are happy to back Ms Chandauka.

Also, it would be an empty threat any way. The very last thing the previous Board would presumably want is a public court hearing with Ms Chandauka able to present whatever evidence she has and cross-examine Prince Harry and everyone else to establish whether or not the issues that concerned her were serious enough to make her a whistleblower. I imagine Ms Chandauka would say “Bring it on” to that kind of proposal!

So even is she was subject to an NDA, I don’t think anything will now happen in relation to it.

Just because someone is Italian doesn't mean that they are a gigolo. I thought that stereotype went out last century with Henry James. If you are referring to Beatrice's husband, he seems like a nice guy and a good father.

Prince Philip, although somewhat controversial, was an extremely intelligent guy and devoted to the monarchy. He did very effective charity work.

Unfortunately no one in the RF has the ability to gaze into a crystal ball and select the perfect mate.

Cooked, piping hot and sprinkled with dead flowers. It's over, fella.
😂
`

(and Prince Philip was a Greek Prince - it was his son who broke with tradition in marrying Lady Diana Spencer who was not European Royalty)

If Dr C approached Rawlinson to become a trustee, it was a sharp move on her part. Presumably, as the only person left as a trustee, she could appoint him unilaterally.

I wonder if they’re having roast goose for a tasty tea tonight.

Very good 🪿

Prince Phillip was also a decorated war hero.

Yes, you are right, the word gigolo is outdated and it went out with the popularity of H.James, yet this fortune-hunting behaviour remains prevalent among social alpinists (including wisteria sisters - with only one prize slipping the hook) that married into the BRF. So what Prince Philip was intelligent - do you think there were no intelligent and SOLVENT royal princes in Europe for HM to marry? Her equals, I mean, not penniless refugees (like Prince Philip) who would never forgive her higher status and would forever punish her with affairs? As for the Italian gigolo - I don't even have the right word for him - what do you call a man who abandons his 'partner' and their young child and runs after a royal princess to better his status?

You are right, nobody owns a crystal ball and can predict the future, but surely one of the most basic rules is to marry your equal (intellectually, financially, socially, religiously) to avoid the inevitable thoughts of 'ah, she/he married up/down, for money/status/whatever'. Unequal alliances never end well, even if they are tolerated for decades - why do you think Prince Philip's will will be kept top secret for 100 years to protect the dignity of the Queen (official wording)?