Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

Yes, I think so. As articulate and convincing as SC sounded, I would wait for investigation and findings.

If by “Not the full shilling” you mean “Not all she appears” I think that’s a fair assumption

^ @Ohpleeeease yea thats exactly what I meant! 🙏

The way that Megxit was enacted makes me think that Harry is exactly the sort of person that will flounce and not think through the fully implications.

I honestly think H&M thought that the RF would be begging them to come back after a few months but that they would get to keep the Netflix and Spotify money on top. Then when that didn't happen they went scorched earth with Oprah, Finding Freedom, Spare, Netflix etc etc

Normally I would agree with all this , but sadly it’s been drummed so successfully Into me over the past 5 years , that questioning the word of a black woman on racism, and expecting proof , is actually racist in of itself!
the m and h supporters have made this their argument and shouted it from the rooftops.
it’s too late now to back peddle.

And my personal favourite: ball-busting.

I don't think this thread has been angry and mental - I've found it very interesting.

I've been a charity trustee, including for a charity which had a case of founder's syndrome. I know how difficult it is to be involved with a cause you believe in, but where you are swimming against a tide of "this is always how it's been done".

Trustees have a legal duty to act in the charity's best interests - including dealing with conflicts of interest - and to ensure the charity's accountability. If they fail to do so then they can be held liable. Anyone involved with the governance of a charity who self-reports to the CC, is only doing so if they are damn sure they have tangible evidence to support their concerns.

I agree, it's been interesting. Also measured and calm. I'm very interested in your last point.

I think you can read this in a number of ways.

Simply factual - the donations dropped after he chose to leave the BRF without any implication that he should not have done so.

Or perhaps consider that manner in which he left was a factor in the donations drying up as it was this that led to the alleged “toxicity” of the brand.

As has been said many times here, H&M wanting a different life was never the issue. It was the tantruming after they were told by HMQ they couldn’t keep all the benefits without doing the work. Remember it was ONLY after this that they started shitting on his family and putting out a victim narrative.

Had they moved to the US and not done all the negative interviews/book/documentary etc and remained on good terms with his family, I think they would be in a very different place right now re: their “brand”.

The problem is that they thought they were interesting/influential in their own right and “bigger” than the institution from which they derived their status - hence lacking the insight that burning their bridge was ultimately an act of self sabotage rather than (as per the narrative they wanted to gain traction) one of self preservation.

As the saying goes, it bodes well to treat people with kindness and decency when you are on top, because you never know whose support you may need in the future when/if your fortune hits a downward spiral.

CNN picking up on the story

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/30/world/prince-harry-accused-harasssment-bullying-sentebale-intl/index.html

Wise words, @BreadInCaptivity 👍

If multiple people are saying you’re a wanker, then you’re a wanker.

Sorry for the delayed reply, I have been out and about. I'm certainly no expert either, but know a little law and have my own experience signing one of these.

Re someone like Weinstein, an allegation of a criminal act is not the same as proof of one or a verdict in a criminal court that one has occurred. You have someone with an accusation who has to make a big decision to pursue a criminal case (and potentially lose). And win or lose, they have a good chance of destroying their career, because who wants to employ a potential troublemaker.

So the consideration for an NDA with a person alleging abuse is likely to be something along the lines of enhanced monetary compensation for termination of employment - enhanced in exchange for a gagging order on discussing or pursuing anything that happened during the term of that employment; or something similar that falls well short of any admission of criminal liability or other wrongdoing. Enough money to match, eg, civil damages for an equivalent injury and enough to bribe them to shut them up and go away, essentially, knowing that if they open up that can of worms they may lose what they have gained (bargained for).

Is it enforceable? Well you don't know until you test it by breaking it. But who is going to risk breaking it? Unless they know for certain they can have the Weinstein-esque person banged up, are they going to risk putting themselves through a criminal or civil court case and potentially losing? Killing off their career in the process? Having to pay back the compensation they received under the NDA if they lose? Just because Weinstein is a proven criminal, doesn't mean he doesn't still have friends in the industry who can kill off your career - plenty of powerful people never condemned him (cough, Oprah, cough). Taking on a big time Hollywood producer is probably as scary as taking on the Mafia. You won't get killed with a machine gun, but you may well end up as good as dead. It takes many people coming forward to open the floodgates and face the consequences to take on a man like him.

I think you mentioned Invictus volunteers signing NDAs. I don't know what the consideration would be, but possibly it's "payment" in the form of tickets, family benefits, merchandise, that type of thing.

If Sophie had resigned as requested from an unpaid, voluntary job, they couldn't force her to sign an NDA unless they were offering her compensation, ie offering her a bargain she wasn't already entitled to automatically. If she'd accepted a pay off and signed an NDA, then breaking it would be down to her arguing that it was unenforceable either because its terms were too broad, that they wanted to cover up an illegality committed against her or others of that she qualifies as a whistleblower.

An NDA may be partially valid and partially invalid too. So it might be enforceable with regard to keeping trade secrets, but not with regard to keeping the secret that the company forged share certificates or something else illegal.

I think another pp said they are a very over-used tool, and whilst I am no expert, I certainly get the sense that this is the case, and that they are proffered left, right and centre to bamboozle the less powerful party into thinking they have to sign them in order to form or end a working relationship.

Oh yes, of course it's all a big cover up and 'script' designed to protect H and M...😂

The meaning of full shilling:

The phrase "not the full shilling" means 'not fully sane or mentally competent.' When someone is described as "not the full shilling", it suggests that they may be lacking mental clarity or have some level of cognitive impairment.

I wouldn’t call any thread ‘one of those mental angry threads’ either but each to their own.

That interview was fascinating. It’s actually fortunate for the charity that SC came along. Otherwise I expect it would have stagnated. It makes me wonder what goes on at Invictus.

This was my understanding too!

Thank you, that's exactly the meaning. Mentally deficient.
I'm struggling to see how anyone can possibly see this as a "mental angry thread" either. I think it's been very calm, measured, informative and good humoured.

CNN picking up on the story

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/30/world/prince-harry-accused-harasssment-bullying-sentebale-intl/index.html

I'm very late to the party but have just listened to the interview, Sophie said that Meghan had invited guests and hadn't told/asked anyone if it was ok to do so, resulting in too many people being on the podium and the very awkward 'choreography' of who should stand where.

If you compare with Princess Madeleine of Sweden who stepped back from being a working royal and moved to Florida with her husband and kids - it could have been the blueprint for H&M. They didn't badmouth the family in any way and were welcomed at events and summer holidays etc. She used to do some charity work for her mother's foundation that supports children vulnerable to exploitation.

She also has a few commercial enterprises - she recently signed a skincare deal with Weleda. But she doesn't use her titles for her commercial deals so she's Madeleine Bernadotte and not Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland.

This is the problem for H&M - they wanted the commercial deals but were not prepared to do them as Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor and/or Markle. Plus they decided to sell the family information and private conversations so nobody really trusts them anymore

And the New York Times

archive.ph/vFB8i

Wow, there’s no hiding from it

Re: Sentable this situation may actually end up being very positive for them.

It's certainly garnered a lot of coverage about the charity and also their strategic pivot away from the original aims and drive for local management.

It also has the potential for former donors/potential donors who may have had concerns about H to get back on board to keep the charity afloat now he’s backed away from it.

The charity would have had to spend a fortune to get the level of global coverage they now have under different circumstances.

If SC has the receipts then her push back could be a masterstroke in reinvigorating the charity’s fortunes - especially from donors who are invested in supporting the pivot to local management and away from the whiff of charitable colonialism.

Something is certainly not adding up in this story.
From my understanding there are questions and investigations going on around the charity's funds management. Why diverge the attention to the Sussexes when a number of board members resigned as a result of her not stepping down?

I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt last week that she was just a poor leader who didn't know how to recalibrate, but her statements seem targeted at PH, and she has almost nothing to say about the other founder who also resigned(the Prince of Losotho).

She also stated that PH stepping down was an attempt to make the charity fail without his patronage - why would he want a charity which was his pride and joy to fail. It doesn't make sense.

It makes more sense that H and co left for self- protection.

If this lady has been doing things that are ill-adviced

and/or unethical , the board and the patrons would not want to be seen supporting or condoning her activities, or to be held liable in anyway. They supposedly requested her resignation, she refused, and they left.

Again, as reported by the CNN, she gave a false statement to the UK tabloids and other media outlets about getting an induction, did she also lie to the trustees and fundraiser about this? Hopefully the Charity Commission Investigation will uncover the facts and hopefully audits publishing her expenses will come out soon

It's rather like when you leave any job, you leave with dignity and you don't badmouth colleagues because you never know when you might need another job there at some point!

@MayaKovskaya Gov.uk has a good overview guide of a trustee's responsibilities (there's a separate version from OSCR which is the regulator in Scotland): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-essential-trustee-what-you-need-to-know-cc3/the-essential-trustee-what-you-need-to-know-what-you-need-to-do

Section 10 covers liability - it's not that common for this to be applied and usually quite a high bar, as the government does not want to discourage people from wanting to be charity trustees. However it does occasionally happen - a good example being Naomi Campbell being disqualified as a trustee, as the CC found evidence of her using charity funds for her own personal use (although note that she has said she is contesting these findings).

If you sign up to become a trustee then you are doing so knowing that you are going to be subject to standards and requirements. Therefore if a trustee decides to self-report (aka whistleblow) to the CC, it would suggest very serious concerns about the charity's management - as doing so is inviting the regulator in to examine everyone's behaviour and decision-making, including your own. It would be extremely unlikely (not to mention silly) to self-report if you as a trustee had been complicit or involved in any of the wrong-doing you were concerned about.

As a lawyer Sophie Chandauka would know this very well. The fact that she's pursued this course of action is very telling. It's also worth noting that charities are obliged to report 'serious incidents', the list of which includes harm to the charity's work or reputation. Failure to do this is likely to constitute mismanagement and can result in further action by the CC.