Page 36 | Sentebale #2

BreadInCaptivity · 30/03/2025 22:47

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 22:39

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.

Edited

If you had no solid proof of misconduct then issuing the statement H did was pretty damn irresponsible and dare I say a form of public bullying….

Also you don’t need proof to refer to the CC. It’s their investigation that establishes the facts. You need to escalate your concerns and they did not do this.

None of your responses paint the picture you want them to because they aren’t supported by the facts and timelines in the public domain.

Lunde · 30/03/2025 22:50

Spectre8 · 30/03/2025 22:25

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.

Show quote history

See you back here in a couple of years then ....

PippistrelleBat · 30/03/2025 22:50

Serenster · 30/03/2025 22:46

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…

Show quote history

If he did that then you don’t have a patron who is a ‘quazi-trustee’, you have a board of ineffective trustees not fulfilling their responsibilities.

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 22:53

PippistrelleBat · 30/03/2025 22:41

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.

Show quote history

Who says she needs to stand down first? What is your authority for this?

Lunde · 30/03/2025 22:55

PippistrelleBat · 30/03/2025 22:41

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.

Show quote history

Well the patron started the mudslinging - SC had kept quiet for over 3 weeks.

So by your argument Prince Harry should definitely go because he started the mudslinging that damaged the charity. Glad you've clarified Harry's responsibility here.

Conundrumseverywhere · 30/03/2025 22:55

Could someone post a link to the interview with Sky News please? I can only find a snippet.

PippistrelleBat · 30/03/2025 22:56

In the first instance if there is something wrong in the management of a charity then it is up to the trustees to set this to right. Trustees all have an equal vote, including the chair, and in most constitutions a majority at a quorate meeting is all that is required to agree most actions.

Profhilodisaster · 30/03/2025 22:56

@Conundrumseverywhere

JandamiHash · 30/03/2025 22:59

MayaKovskaya · 30/03/2025 09:12

Sir Trevor Phillips certainly didn't go easy on her - quite rightly, but she was able to express her points. It did make me wonder what would happen if either H or M were ever subjected to this level of scrutiny.

My toes did curl now and again but this is absolutely how reporters should be - otherwise you have the likes of Oprah not presenting any challenge, just bawling and saying “Whaaaaaat” at the interviewers. I really rate Trevor Phillips as a reporter

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 23:00

Again, we do not have enough details to clearly establish what Harry and the board members became aware of. We also do not know exactly what was reported and what not.

Lunde · 30/03/2025 23:00

PippistrelleBat · 30/03/2025 22:56

In the first instance if there is something wrong in the management of a charity then it is up to the trustees to set this to right. Trustees all have an equal vote, including the chair, and in most constitutions a majority at a quorate meeting is all that is required to agree most actions.

But they didn't want to have difficult conversations ....

Plus when you look at the trustees over the years many are personally connected to Prince Harry as personal friends or Clarence house employees, plus there is Prince Seeiso's relative, a couple of establishment figures (one of which sells/sold consultancy services in Africa) and a man who defrauded the NHS

PippistrelleBat · 30/03/2025 23:00

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 22:53

Who says she needs to stand down first? What is your authority for this?

Show quote history

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#s6

The essential trustee: what you need to know, what you need to do

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#s6

JandamiHash · 30/03/2025 23:01

PippistrelleBat · 30/03/2025 09:15

I think the point about the guests not knowing about NF and not having consented is an important one. Whilst Harry seems so determined to protect his own privacy, he doesn’t seem to have any consideration for that of others. And the guests at a charitable polo match are likely to be the sort of guests who care very much about their privacy.

This is such a good point! I am a person who doesn’t ever want to be filmed and my children stay off SM and they can’t even be mentioned in the school newsletter. I hate it when events have camera crews without warning and spend my time dodging them

BemusedAmerican · 30/03/2025 23:02

I'm betting this PR person is out by the fall.

Justhere65 · 30/03/2025 23:04

MayaKovskaya · 29/03/2025 15:09

It doesn't stop her. She does as she pleases.

Show quote history

Just incredible how she doesn’t think about how damaging her behaviour is and how deluded she is. I hope H wakes up and realises that she is a complete disaster.

IAmATorturedPoet · 30/03/2025 23:05

JandamiHash · 30/03/2025 22:41

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

👏👏
Great summary and completely agree

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 23:09

PippistrelleBat · 30/03/2025 23:00

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#s6

Show quote history

Section 6? Where does it say she needs to stand down? How has she breached any of those provisions?

Ohpleeeease · 30/03/2025 23:12

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.

You keep asking the same question. Are you just trying to fill up the thread?

The fact that the trustees thought they could resign en masse shows they have less of a grip on their fiduciary responsibilities than SC. If they have legitimate and substantiated concerns about whether the chair is acting in the interests of the charity they should be putting them to the Charity Commission. In fact it would be negligent of them not to.

Meanwhile, the charity has four newly appointed trustees as of 25 March 2025 and no interfering patrons.

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 23:18

First of all, for the life of me , I can't understand why some posts on here seem to be surprised at her being" sooo articulate". Why exactly are you surprised ?Of course I would expect strong communication skills from a person covering such a role.

Anyway, she has provided her account on what went down . The focus seems to be on Harry who is just a little piece of the puzzle, but it' s what sells apparently.

The truth will eventually come out with the investigation. This seems to be a huge diversion tactic from what the core issue is, and what is actually being investigated

IdaGlossop · 30/03/2025 23:19

BemusedAmerican · 30/03/2025 23:02

I'm betting this PR person is out by the fall.

Do you mean H&M's new head of communications?

Profhilodisaster · 30/03/2025 23:20

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 23:00

Again, we do not have enough details to clearly establish what Harry and the board members became aware of. We also do not know exactly what was reported and what not.

"The U.K. Charity Commission said it was "aware of concerns" over Sentebale's governance, adding: "We are assessing the issues to determine the appropriate regulatory steps."

Wouldn't Harry have said in his resignation announcement that he was stepping down due to governance concerns rather than the breakdown of the relationship with Dr C ? He said he would be sharing his concerns, not that he already had .

JandamiHash · 30/03/2025 23:29

The Sky News interview really cements how little Harry understands about PR and his overinflated sense of importance for him and his wife.

Yes there was a small rumble about the trophy ceremony on stage. Anyone with a modicum of PR knowledge knows the “it’s tomorrow’s chip paper” stance is still a strong one. Ignore it and the gen pop will be outraged by something else tomorrow. Think how many scandals there are that we’ve all forgotten about and someone reminds you and you go “Oh yeah! Forgot about that!”.

But Harry HAD to string the arse out of it by having his wife vindicated and stuck up for. When actually nobody cared THAT much.

I am a royal follower, always have been, and I remember being in work when his “Leave Meghan alone! You’re harassing her! Mean comments! Stop it” press release came out when they were just dating. I remember saying “Prince Harry has a girlfriend?! Never even knew!”. He really thought, and continues to think, that him and “M” are at the forefront of everybody in the world’s minds

JandamiHash · 30/03/2025 23:30

AtIusvue · 30/03/2025 09:51

Those that defended them for the LAFire tours. That young girl who set up a charity.

Gavin Newsom, defending them over Archewell.

Crew on WLM who spoke to how great it was to work with her at people.

Archewell staff who spoke to US weekly to say what a great boss she was after the bullying allegations from the HR.

List goes on

Show quote history

Yes knowing people are pushed into defending her publicly really sheds a light on it all doesn’t it

jeffgoldblum · 30/03/2025 23:33

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 20:33

Why are other charities with PH as a patron seem to be doing ok( Invictus in primis), and then suddenly we are having this narrative that PH is apparently "toxic" for Santable?

There is nothing wrong with seeking other patrons/ investors, but the way the whole thing is being handled is just bizarre to me.
Does she really think that gossiping about the high profile founder of the charity and his spouse will endear her to the Bloombergs of the world when it comes to fundraising? Again I am really struggling to understand the endgame.

It would interesting to hear a more detailed account from Prince Lesotho and the other board members.

Edited

The other charities are doing fine??
🤣🤣🤣🤣

Profhilodisaster · 30/03/2025 23:39

JandamiHash · 30/03/2025 23:30

Yes knowing people are pushed into defending her publicly really sheds a light on it all doesn’t it

Show quote history

He reminds me of one of 'those' parents who defends their bullying child rather than addressing their behaviour. How mortifying that your husband runs to people asking them to say nice things about you.