Sentebale #4

[glitterturd]

Harry

It would be highly unlikely for the Chair to act unilaterally without the support and agreement from the Board. It's more probable than not that the Board were A) aware of this change in direction, and B) supportive of it.

But it suits the narrative, doesn't it? Blame all of the bad horrible things on the pushy Black woman who barged her way into the job and is single-handedly responsible for defenestrating poor old Hazza

The Trustees have resigned.

But only showing the backs of their heads! No view of the 'blue, blue eyes' allowed.

Apart from the issue of the 1st birthday photo during HMTLQ Jubillee celebrations .... to ensure media cut-through.

They didn't resign at the time of the charity's change of strategy though, did they? They've only resigned when they tried to push her out and she fought back. It must have come as an awful shock to these privileged blokes.

One of the major misfortunes of Diana's unexpected and early death was a real nervousness about how to handle her sons. In part understandable as it is clearly traumatic to lose a parent in that way and so young. But it must have made it really hard to take a firmer line with them that might have looked harsh to the public.

A lot of accusations are being made and concerns raised by Dr C, none of them related to matters the CC would likely be investigating. So it would be interesting to know what the other matters they are investigating are.

I have finally caught up, the mental gymnastics the Sussex Squad go through for these two is unreal, it would be a completely different story if it was Prince William and Catherine, no receipts would be required then would they, I know who I believe and it isn't Harry.

Just read this
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14560353/Prince-Harry-unpleasant-message-Sentebale-boss-revealed.html

On the subject of working hours and filling one's time with gainful employment, what is Harry currently doing with himself? Is the Better Up role still in play, and how often has he been seen carrying that out? Plus any others.

I’m still failing to see any actual actions that led Dr C to report to Charity Commission

If that's the case , why didn't Harry or his mate issue a statement refuting Dr C's claims , he could have denied Harry asking her to stick up for Meghan , he could have denied losing the polo venue , he could have denied the unleashing of the Sussex Machine, instead of just telling us how distraught Harry was.

I discussed this with a friend on Sunday. They commented that no one discusses Harry or thinks of him in the US unless they are into the RF or UK history, so no one in the US will give him money. Also, he made the polo people look like idiots in the Netflix polo documentary so that wasn't going to do him any favors. She had seen the anti-SC publicity and watched the interview.

The Skye interview has had almost 500k views on its YouTube channel. Most of the comments are pro-SC. I've also seen pro-SC
Comments in the DM, the NY Post, and Page Six.

When I read the comments about SC from Harry's pal Alex and that Rhodesia comment, my reaction was that I believed SC even more.

Edited for typos.

Sorry for being late to the party, but from what I can tell, two British mainstream newspapers have published articles pushing back against the "H&M are evil" narrative. I understand that many are eager to see their downfall and will seize on any story that appears to confirm their biases. However, I hope most reasonable people will wait for a more measured and accurate account to emerge.

Harry has fearlessly taken on the tabloids and others in court, and it's no surprise that these forces are impatient to see him fail. To be clear, H&M are no saints—but now that they are fully independent, they must work to sustain themselves. Meanwhile, some seem all too eager to bury them based on hearsay rather than waiting for a more substantiated version of events.

Wikipedia is a red herring as others have pointed out easily maliciously edited. Though malicous edits on a high profile story rarely last long.

The Telegraph – https://archive.ph/LijV4#selection-3467.0-3471.84

"When the board urged Ms Chandauka to resign, she launched legal proceedings in the High Court, prompting mass resignations. 'She’s a very poisonous woman and it’s very sad it’s come to this,' a source said."

The Times – https://archive.ph/027Md#selection-1623.0-1623.274

"Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, who served as a trustee of Prince Harry’s African charity for nearly 20 years, has described its chairwoman’s 'almost dictatorial' style, which led to clashes and ultimately prompted her, the prince, and other trustees to leave the organisation."

That’s very true. Plus Diana had always labelled Harry as ‘the troublemaker/thick one’ which was very unhelpful.

There is another thread on that .

Diana had always labelled Harry as ‘the troublemaker/thick one’ which was very unhelpful

TBF as his mother she might have had a point

It's not like she's been proved wrong so far...

Funny how ‘fearless crusader’ Harryhuses the same newspapers he abhors to launch racist, misogynistic attacks via a proxy.

How very noble of him. Of course, when he does it there’s no shame. Obviously. He is above question (in his own mind).

It seems doubtful that he meets the ‘shadow director’ test but the board minutes and attendance records can be scrutinised.
If the polo events were not organised by Sentebale themselves then they would not really have any control over how they were run so long as they received the surplus.

Just as predicted, DM have taken another massive shot at Harry. It's hilarious. People were surprised they planted a statement (Alex Rayner "like losing a finger" article from earlier today) when they have such an acrimonious relationship with the paper. Not surprisingly, DM put that article behind a paywall and pushed it down the page extremely quickly. It barely got any traction aside from the outrageous accusation of SC being jealous of Meghan because she wasn't the most important WOC on stage.

Then the DM rolls out an article on SC closing her social media due to racist trolling from the Sussex Squad. And now full headlines on how Harry tried to force SC to apologise for causing Meghan to be upset on stage. This article includes the worst quote from Alex Rayner's statement without any paywall. It literally paints Harry and his rich white mates in the worst possible light.

It also dropped at prime USA time, which means H&M and all their mates are being sent into a frenzy now. Their PR team is probably in meltdown.

Handy that the flouncers from the board are slagging her off, but have simultaneously managed not to report any of their oft-mentioned concerns to the CC, despite a legal obligation to do so. Contrast to SC, who has confirmed she has made a report to the CC and asked them to investigate - that's not an action that a lawyer would undertake lightly.

And Baroness Chaulker, who also conveniently ran a paid for consultancy service. It would be very interesting to see if her firm was engaged for the charity as that would be a clear conflict of interest. The fact that she was a trustee for almost two decades is actually a big red flag - having such longevity is contrary to good governance. The Charity Code recommend a thorough review if service goes beyond 9 years: https://www.charitygovernancecode.org/en/5-board-effectiveness

Baroness Chalker the trustee that made the claim in my previous post - a woman of irreproachable integrity unless others have evidence to the contrary. In a she said she said tussle I know whose side I would be on. She will not have made those comments lightly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Chalker

Chalker was granted a life peerage as Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, of Leigh-on-Sea in the County of Essex in 1992,[3] after losing her seat at the general election of that year.

Chalker is the founder and president of Africa Matters Limited, an independent consultancy providing advice and assistance to companies initiating, developing or growing their activities in Africa.[4] She is a member of the international advisory board of Lafarge and sits on the board of trustees of the Investment Climate Facility for Africa.[citation needed]

She is a consultant for Uganda's Presidential Investors Roundtable (PIRT) that advises the president Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, on ways to improve Uganda's investment climate and competitiveness.[5]

Chalker is a member of the board of trustees of Sentebale, a charity set up to reach Lesotho's poorest children, many of whom are victims of extreme poverty and the HIV/AIDS epidemic. She founded the Chalker Foundation, which seeks to support the improvement of healthcare in Africa.

She held the position of non-executive director and chairman of the Corporate Responsibility and Reputation Committee for Unilever, retiring in May 2007, having served three terms of three years. She joined the board of Unilever as an advisory director in 1998, becoming a non-executive director in 2004.[citation needed]

Chalker is a former chairman of the Medicines for Malaria Venture, a not-for-profit foundation dedicated to reducing the burden of malaria in disease endemic countries. She is a former non-executive director of Group Five (Pty). She was awarded the Livingstone Medal by the Royal Scottish Geographical Society in 2000.[6]

In June 2014, Chalker was awarded honorary citizenship of Mozambique by President Armando Guebuza for services to that country.[7]

Chalker was shortlisted for the Grassroot Diplomat Initiative Award in 2015 for her work with Africa Matters, and she remains in the directory of the Grassroot Diplomat Who's Who publication.[8]

In 2018, it was announced that Chalker would take over from Nicholas Crane as president of the Royal Geographical Society

Because neither of these points are relevant to any investigation by the CC. A rude email and changes to a fundraising event don’t relate to how the charity is run.

@vera99 As someone with such "irreproachable integrity" you would expect Baroness Chaulker to A) be cognisant of the good governance requirements when working as a trustee, and B) abide by them even if others do not. Given this, why did she stay in place for almost 20 years? As a trustee term this is manifestly excessive.

@Mylovelygreendress I'm being hit with a paywall and the archiving keeps freezing. Can you post the highlights?

Well we are all probably grinding axes here surely the reasonable position would be to suspend judegment and hand wring with sadness about the whole affair unseemly as it is. I didn't flounce I had a 7 day suspension that lasted 2 years but I did lurk and saw how this board turned into a Harry and Meghan pile on in the interim. They are no saints nor are they the devil incarnates either.