Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

Only in that he married the woman he did.

where us your evidence she is" dodgy"

Not the full shilling is a derogatory term for those who have some kind of learning difference resulting in a low IQ.

Given her legal background, which is where I know her from, I don't believe she would say anything that she can't prove to at least some degree.

She is very poised in the interview and I have no doubt the questions were provided in advance, which is standard.

I'm not surprised that she chose to meet it head on and speak proactively. She is correct that a board should be objective and operate independently of its patrons or founders. There were a few instances where I felt perhaps she didn't sound as convincing as in other places but that's entirely my interpretation from afar with no knowledge of the situation.

The mismanagement started with Harry flouncing out of his own charity and publicly slating her. Rather than staying put and dealing with whatever the problems are. Up until that point, there was nothing in the public discourse to say anything was wrong.

Yes I’ve mentioned this too, last minute accounts are usually quite a red flag. Fortunately the payment or not of consultancy fees is a matter of fact and not part of the pr battle currently ongoing.

Ohh thanks! 👍😀

Sorry are you also posting as @Rhaidimiddim ? - as it was that poster I replied to

This argument doesn't hold water. She talked about the Sussexes when she needed to do so in order to answer the questions she was asked. Her examples were factual and did not include emotive language.

As I understand it, this was all being handled fairly quietly until Prince Harry made his statement. At that point, Sophie Chandauka didn't really have much choice - either come out fighting and hope that it attracts questions, or stay silent in the face of innuendo and accusations. If you are confident in your argument and evidence, then people asking questions is a good thing, as it draws attention to what you are trying to achieve.

I don't think @Rhaidimiddim thinks she's dodgy. She's just setting out the talking points of the new MN "script" being deployed by Sussex supporters.

What is the endgame here?

It’s quite possible that what Ms Chandauka wanted was to have the governance issues at Sentabale investigated by the appropriate regulatory body. Then she took steps to preserve her own position after the Board tried to dismiss her (which is illegal if she is classified as a whistleblower, remember, and something that could properly found a claim for an injunction to prevent it).Then, faced with concerted public action by the Board and patrons to undermine her, decided to fight back rather than roll over.

If Harry and the Board had genuine concerns about her behaviour, presumably it would have been better to let the charity commission investigate (assuming they have nothing to hide) and then go through a formal and proper process to dismiss her when the investigation was concluded with either no findings, or with findings against Ms Chandauka. Trying to sack her when she could claim to be a whistleblower was a bad option (did they not take advice?) and all resigning in concert was a nuclear option.

Sorry @Lunde my response should have included @Rhaidimiddim's as too was replying to her.

oh sorry. I can't keep up !

As I have said previously, a clear auditing of how these funds were managed will potentially provide a clearer picture of what went down and what really prompted a whole Board of trustees to resign.

But you asserted in a pervious post that SC had done something wrong re allocation of funds. Please can you set out what that is.

I wouldn’t bother !
that poster is a selfconfessed Sussex super fan , who has mentioned how much joy and love they bring her , obviously she will have trouble taking this new information at face value.

Ok, you used the wrong phrase and corrected it because being 'mentally incompetent' was not what you meant.

Then you went on and used the word 'mental' to describe this thread.

That doesn't really help your argument that your initial phrase selection was an error.🤷‍♀️

Oh and I'm not a man 😵‍💫

Charities have ten months to submit their accounts. Accounts for the Y/E 31 August 2024 would be due in June 2025

She's setting out the Sussex supporters' "script" on the matter of Sophie C.

Yes I know, but I realised that the poster meant something else. Was trying to be helpful!

There have been suggestions by former trustees that Dr C spent US$500,000 on consultants to research alternative funding sources, and that the money was not well spent.

Oh Ok

I don’t actually think the penny will ever drop. He’s put all his eggs in one basket. He’s not going to admit the basket has a hole in it.

Money not well spent is not the same thing as financial mismanagement. And presumably the trustees agreed to the appointment of the consultancy and the expenditure?