Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

Maybe the board resigned because the whole thing is an absolute mess and they are relieved to have an excuse to get out?

The CC is investigating governance irregularities. Tgere are indications of what these might be. What we have learnt from Dr C over the weekend is that there was a dramatic drop in funding from 2020 onwards and that the board took no action to address this (based on board minutes) because confronting Harry about the toxicity of his brand being a disincentive to potential funders was too difficult (based on Dr C conversations with Trustees). The trustees have been on the board for 8+ years. My hypothesis is that they resigned because the referral by Dr C as new chair showed them the writing was on the wall and the two patrons stood down because it doesn't suit them to work with a charity who Chair of trustees will put a stop to them treating it as their personal plaything.

The focus is on Harry because he is a celebrity, King’s son and caused so much strife with Spare. No one knows the trustees so aren’t interested in them.

There are identical arguments all over social media, almost like there's some kind of talking point list somewhere.

🙄

So how do you know that was her first response? 🤔 do you kice with her to know what her first response was?

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.

What are you basing this assertion on? Is it a law or regulation?

What confidential information has she revealed?

So if the charity or its personnel has harmed her in some way, she is not allowed to defend herself or speak about it in case it harms the charity? Just her, or other people in other charities? If, say, an employee of Oxfam is bullied in her job, should she be required to be quiet so as not to harm the reputation of Oxfam?

Does not also apply to the Patron and other trustees? They’ve not been backwards in making allegations here.

A charity stands for more than 10 years without major issues( note that H&M left the RF 5 years ago). The board resign due to concerns over how funds are being handled by this lady and THEN the founders step down from the charity in a public way.

Analysing each of this events chronologically may well lead to think that the issues may be this lady. It is simply something that cannot be excluded.

Or maybe some people rather wait for the results of the investigation to see what they facts are rather than comment on whatever mud slinging seems to be taking place.

If you opened your other eye, you might see that other possible accounts of what has happened are available. The facts are disputed.

If the board have concerns about how funding was handled, then you cannot simply exclude their dereliction of duty in not reporting these concerns to the regulatory body. If the board thought something was wrong, the board was legally required to report it. So why didn't they?

Mudslinging is terrible, but that's what H and M did for years on leaving the RF.
For money.

You can repeat the same rationale time and time again, but you cannot make people fail to notice that:

1. If the trustees had concerns why did they not raise them with the Charity Commission so that an independent investigation could be undertaken?
2. If they had concerns and failed to raise them with the CC this would be a dereliction of their duty. So either they had concerns and ignored them to the detriment of the charity or they didn’t have any concerns (or concerns that would they though the CC would investigate/find in their favour).
3. That it was SC reported to the CC. Why would she do this if she did not think there was a case to answer? After all she could simply have walked away (as the trustees and patrons have - why would you do this if you felt strongly your position was in the best interests of the charity?).
4. Finally that it was H’s statement that brought this issue to Global press attention. SC by contrast was using due process and had not spoken about this issue publicly, until she chose to respond to the pretty incendiary press release from H.
5. As I have posted above, that whilst the full picture is not clear, when you compare the credibility of SC vs H (and M) the latter have spent the last few years eroding any shred of gravitas and integrity they may have possessed by having a relationship with the truth that tenuous at best. Unfortunately when a reliance on “my truth that suits my narrative at this point in time” has become an established MO you are naive if surprised that the immediate response from most people is to question the veracity of any of your claims.

@BreadInCaptivity I assume that the shared Google document of scripted talking points doesn't provide any guidance on how to address this pesky logical argument 😂

Well, for a start, the charity had trustees that had been there since the charity was founded nearly 20 years ago. That's not a sign of everything being hunky dory - it's contrary to the the Charity Governance Code which recommends a maximum of nine years!
The charity's income had dropped since 2020 (not under SC's chair). Is that not an issue?
You say " no major issues" others would say "the board just maintained the status quo" when the world had changed!

I think we can safely assume not….

Rather it operates on an Orwellian premise that if you are told to see 5 fingers enough times when H is holding up 4, that the public's cognitive functioning and critical reasoning skills will implode though sheer boredom.

We don't know what other concerns were raised( or at least not in detail),and we also do not know whether they had actual solid proof of misconduct and whether they have taken their concerns to a regulatory body. I, as part of an organisation, can report misconduct and still choose to leave if I feel that I am not being listened to, or that the situation is not being handled properly, quickly or efficiently.

I can still fulfil my duty to report misconduct, and choose to distance myself from an organisation that doesn't reflect my values and expectations with regards to how it should be run, and yes choose to protect my professional reputation from what may be uncovered (or not) in the future.

Dr C has reported concerns on how the charity was being run, the trustees have panicked and scarpered.

Or
The trustees decided that Dr C is a mean girl, tried to make her resign, she refused so they have taught her a lesson by resigning.

So I’ve just watched Dr C’s interview with Sky News.

Wow, it’s utterly compelling. She’s very articulate isn’t she.

Basically the TLDR: Dr C stringently does everything above board. She believes that formality, form, and every bit of governance should be strictly adhered to. No cutting corners. No shirking correct governance in favour of appeasing people. No “filing the form under B” to avoid any sort of scrutiny or audit. No special dispensations for VIPs. None of this “Oh I’ve asked my friend/wife/nearest celebrity to come on board that’s ok isn’t it”. In other words - values all charities should adhere to.

And Harry wanted to do whatever he wanted without anyone saying “Hang on a minute…”. If he wanted to add a new Trustee, it happened without the correct procedure or governance. He then wanted to bring along a Netflix crew to a charity event without telling anyone. If he wanted to change last minute who was receiving a trophy on the stage, it happened- at the expense and humiliation of the charity Chair. He wanted to have people interfere where they had no business interfering.

And the Board was full of people who’d spent donkeys years blowing smoke up his arse and we’re too afraid, or too busy fangirling, to say no or challenge it.

Dr C steps in. She wants everything done by the book. She also wants to ask the question the Board have been too afraid to ask - “Is Prince Harry’s dwindling reputation affecting donations?”. The Board want her to STFU and fangirl with them. She refuses, and digs her heels in because she deeply cares about the charity causes. Harry throws yet another toddler tantrum, spends months pushing her to leave the charity, turning people against her and when he fails to eject her him and his fangirls on the Board follow him and look to smear Dr C.

That’s my take anyway, and I believe that’s exactly how it went down. Look how articulate and strong and intelligent Dr C is. She’s also acutely aware of how litigious Harry is and would be wary of telling lies or exaggerating. Compared to whiny half wit Harry - I’d put my money on Dr C any day. I’m please she’s won and I think she’s fucking amazing for standing up to a bully.

In the word “bully” keeps following a person, claimed by unrelated people, it’s perhaps time to believe they’re a bully

An employee is not a trustee. A trustee has to act in the best interest of the charity. If she wants to defend herself in a way that might harm the charity then she needs to step down as a trustee first.

All trustees. Patrons is an honorary role and has no legal responsibility.

I also believe misogynoir is at play. Black women are so often labelled aggressive or angry when actually they’re just voicing what they want. And they wouldn’t be called that if they were a white woman saying the same words. The fact a white woman described her as “dictatorial” is highly sus.

Yes, those are my thoughts exactly.

i’d be willing to bet when the Patron attends board meetings, appoints new trustees and directly influences strategies you’d be able to argue he’s assumed quasi-trustee duties…

It's really odd that he didn't bother to visit these projects for 6 years - especially when you consider that he visited Rwanda and Mozambique in 2022 and Nigeria as well during this time. Yet managed to go to Singapore, Japan and Florida to play polo

Especially odd when you consider that he seems to have made several trips a year to Invictus games' hosts in Germany, Netherlands and Canada

And really odd that he never took Meghan ever if it was so important to him