Page 34 | Sentebale #2

Rhaidimiddim · 30/03/2025 21:34

Lunde · 30/03/2025 20:42

Which charities are you referring to?

There have been a lot of rumblings at Invictus with some countries pulling funding and high profile sackings of critical voices.

Africa Parks is mired in problems with accusations of rape against employees.

Archewell seems very murky - strangely few donors and no real transparency - and no explanation of why it only gets $4K in interest from £10-13 million in capital. Also set up as a Foundation in Delaware with notoriously lax rules. So the actual list of donors is not public and H&M are legally allowed to spend only 5% on charity and 95% in expenses.

I admit I haven't heard anything negative about Well Child.

Show quote history

And Germany has dissassociated from Invictus over grift claims.

myrtleWilson · 30/03/2025 21:36

Hats off to @LipglossAlly for doggedly rising to the defence of the man who gives her joy. Her confidence in the previous board of trustees and her focus on the children/beneficiaries is only slightly undermined by her apparent uncertainty of the charity's name with multiple variations across her posts

BreadInCaptivity · 30/03/2025 21:36

Lunde · 30/03/2025 20:14

Not really clear.

Harry has burned his bridges with the UK polo set. I know someone adjacent to that community.

They tried taking it international in 2023 when they held the event in Singapore. It will be interesting to see what the numbers for 2024 in Florida when the accounts come out next month - especially with all they issues they had with Harry losing them the donated venue.

It's hard to know what the long term impact will be especially with Harry using the 2024 event to film a reality show. Many of the uber rich who play polo would not want to be associated with that sort of circus even if they have supported Harry in the past.

Show quote history

Whats the story with the UK Polo set?

My guess would be they a cosy with the RF and (fellow polo playing royal), William?

BemusedAmerican · 30/03/2025 21:39

If it turns out that one of the consultants was BetterUp I'll die laughing.

smilesy · 30/03/2025 21:41

myrtleWilson · 30/03/2025 21:36

Hats off to @LipglossAlly for doggedly rising to the defence of the man who gives her joy. Her confidence in the previous board of trustees and her focus on the children/beneficiaries is only slightly undermined by her apparent uncertainty of the charity's name with multiple variations across her posts

I was wondering if “Santabale” is in fact a charity that will pay for Father Christmas when he decides to retire 🤔😆

Rhaidimiddim · 30/03/2025 21:41

Profhilodisaster · 30/03/2025 21:15

I'm no lawyer but even I would think twice before making the accusations that Sophie Chandauka has without solid evidence . I will happily eat my hat if she is wrong.
Given that Harry is partial to suing people, could he take her to court for slander ?

I'd crowdfund that. It would be better entertainment than anything H&M have produced for NF.

IAmATorturedPoet · 30/03/2025 21:43

BemusedAmerican · 30/03/2025 21:39

If it turns out that one of the consultants was BetterUp I'll die laughing.

😮😂

Baital · 30/03/2025 21:45

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 21:24

I think more details around the concerns they had with her managing the funding and behind the ENTIRE board resigning will eventually come out.

Edited

Well, another explanation is that the ENTIRE Board were prioritising Harry over the charity beneficiaries, which is against the law. They are obliged to prioritise the aims of the charity. And when challenged on their position realised it was indefensible.

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 21:46

I am also just wondering why her main issues, seems to be with PH and not the board. A founder parting ways with the charity is unusual, but having an entire board turning against you is almost unheard of(again the only precedence I can think of is Elisabeth Holmes).

Rhaidimiddim · 30/03/2025 21:47

It occurs to me, reading the contributions if some posters to this thread, that artificial intelligence can be real stupid.

NewAgeNewMe · 30/03/2025 21:48

@LipglossAlly again this wouldn’t be in the public domain if Harry hadn’t put it there by issuing the statement he did. SC is entitled to defend herself vigorously against his accusations unless you think she should be silenced? Frankly good for her for standing up to the Sussexes.

Baital · 30/03/2025 21:55

If the other Board members are Harry's mates, and prioritising his interests over the charity beneficiaries then I can understand why they resigned when challenged. Because they were breaking the law and that would have consequences (largely reputational, sadly).

Legally charity trustees - the Board - must prioritise the legally defined beneficiaries. Even if that offends the Patron. Because the reason charity gets its tax breaks is because it serves the beneficiaries, not the Patron.

Weepixie · 30/03/2025 21:55

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 21:04

As I have said, if SC comes out smelling like a rose that means that the children are receiving the amount of money that they should.

Again, somebody will still have to explain why an ENTIRE board was not happy with her work and why the other founder also decided to leave. What is the reason?
This does not involve only PH.

Edited

No matter how many times you ask a different version of the same question you’re not going to get the answer you want and the greater majority of people will just scroll on by when they see a post from you.

You’re trying to make a point and the only thing you’re succeeding in is sounding like a broken record.

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 21:56

I think she should explain why the other founder and an entire board decided to step down as a result of her not doing so. Harry (and not the Sussex as a duo) is just a little piece of this puzzle despite the media focusing on him
Now let examine the remaining pieces of the puzzle - what issues did the other founder and the board have with her? (We seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room ).

I believe the issue they had with her could potentially be a major one to prompt this type of reaction. I find it weird that this is not being fully addressed. At least for now.

LemonLeaves · 30/03/2025 21:56

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 21:46

I am also just wondering why her main issues, seems to be with PH and not the board. A founder parting ways with the charity is unusual, but having an entire board turning against you is almost unheard of(again the only precedence I can think of is Elisabeth Holmes).

Edited

Prince Harry put out a statement criticising her. Are you really struggling to understand why she would name him in her response to that criticism?

Weepixie · 30/03/2025 21:57

Rhaidimiddim · 30/03/2025 21:47

It occurs to me, reading the contributions if some posters to this thread, that artificial intelligence can be real stupid.

I don’t know the first thing about artificial intelligence but there is something going on here, isn’t there?

Baital · 30/03/2025 21:59

As I said, maybe the ENTIRE Board and other Patron treated the charity as Harry,s possession/playground, when under UK charity law they were obliged to prioritise the legal beneficiaries.

When challenged by SC they got caught between being Harry's friend and their legal obligations.

Edited for sp

TheNeedyKhakiPanda · 30/03/2025 22:00

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 21:56

I think she should explain why the other founder and an entire board decided to step down as a result of her not doing so. Harry (and not the Sussex as a duo) is just a little piece of this puzzle despite the media focusing on him
Now let examine the remaining pieces of the puzzle - what issues did the other founder and the board have with her? (We seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room ).

I believe the issue they had with her could potentially be a major one to prompt this type of reaction. I find it weird that this is not being fully addressed. At least for now.

Yeah, and as if you'd believe her, your ignoring what people are telling you on purpose because it doesn't suit your agenda, that poor Harry is the victim in this.

AtIusvue · 30/03/2025 22:01

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 21:56

I think she should explain why the other founder and an entire board decided to step down as a result of her not doing so. Harry (and not the Sussex as a duo) is just a little piece of this puzzle despite the media focusing on him
Now let examine the remaining pieces of the puzzle - what issues did the other founder and the board have with her? (We seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room ).

I believe the issue they had with her could potentially be a major one to prompt this type of reaction. I find it weird that this is not being fully addressed. At least for now.

Rinse. Repeat.

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 22:03

Or maybe not.
Maybe they simply noticed things they weren't happy with, raised a concern and then eventually decided to leave as they were uncomfortable with the direction the charity was taking and decided to publicly distance themselves.

LemonLeaves · 30/03/2025 22:04

We should all wait for the investigation results and not pre judge. But simultaneously Sophie Chandauka should also tell us everything now because something is wrong dammit!

The inconsistency and ever changing talking points are interesting....

Baital · 30/03/2025 22:10

It's interesting that Sentebale is being seen as Harry's possession.

How much time and effort has he put into it?

Compared to people like SC (a trustee for several years), and its staff.

Yes, he turned up occasionally for photo shoots, or to play polo.

Why does that give him ownership over people who have invested far more time, energy and sacrifice?

StartupRepair · 30/03/2025 22:10

The focus is on Harry because the culture of the Board and organisation is to serve him and his image. This is what she is whistle blowing about.
Who would have thought giving a sulky teenager a charity as a project might end badly?

Baital · 30/03/2025 22:10

White saviourism gone mad...

PippistrelleBat · 30/03/2025 22:18

SC is entitled to defend herself vigorously against his accusations unless you think she should be silenced?

She is not entitled to defend herself where doing either reveals confidential information obtained as a trustee or where doing so is to the detriment of the charity.

Having to remain silent despite knowing information that would clear you should not be a new concept to a lawyer or senior businesswoman. It may be incredible frustrating but that can be the nature of the work.