Sentebale #4

[glitterturd]

Harry

@vera99 have you held a trustee or non exec position? Or have you been an exec with non exec/trustee structure. I am currently both of these and length of service is absolutely a fundamental element of good governance. If you've held either of those positions without understanding this fundamental underpinning, I'd be concerned about the organisations you're associated with.

Sorry but what the fuck is this all about. For factory made jam-not-jam

mental 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Also, why would you characterise your suspension from MN as "a Serenster post that got me smacked" surely it was your actions that got you suspended not @Serenster posting?

Marina Hyde has this on the whole debacle:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/01/prince-harry-institution-charity-windsors

She takes a more balanced view of both sides.

I don't really think she has a choice. It's one thing to say you going to postpone your TV show because of the fires , quite another to say you're delaying the launch because your husband is garnering some bad press.

If she took that view we might never see pots of spread that look like they come out of Alice in Through the Looking Glass.

Would that be a bad thing? Different matter 😂

So prove, yet she will still be expected to release it from the SS, and if she does, they would still not believe her.

But it's hard to believe that an investment of £500K in finding new income streams could be done since 2023 without board approval. There was a CEO in place until December 2024.

@CorrectionCentreno because she refused to resign. I’ve been a trustee and wouldn’t work under this kind of nonsense. A chair may be in charge but at the end of the day they represent, lead and articulate the views of the trustees/board. Not that I’m a fan of the RF.

Apologies if this has already been posted but I am minded to trust the BBC over any tabloid and whilst they are careful to preface any assertions with "according to" it certainly doesn't appear to be a slam dunk case against the hapless couple.

And I was unsighted that Harry had donated £1.3 million from Spare to the charity.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy0l99w12mo

Exactly, where were everyone else as board members or executive staff when SC was doing all this?

Absolutely incredible it is all apparently down to her when it is easily discernable other people would have legal responsibility for what went down, for good or ill.

This. More balanced coverage is required. Tabloids are awful.

I love it when someone pops on to a thread to post something that was discussed pages ago, without bothering to find that out or stating “sorry if this has already been posted” 😆

The BBC is so interesting. I used to think them the most trustworthy news source but I'm now really sceptical about them. They have summarised the friend's statement (which was clearly authorised by Harry) with this sentence: A friend of Prince Harry's says he feels as though "he's had one of his fingers cut off".

They decided to leave off, for reasons known only to them, that the friend accused Sophie of being jealous because she could no longer (in Meghan's presence) be the most important woman of colour on the stage and that the 'stink' was coming from Sophie.

This is why I think this might not be as bad for H & M as some have been predicting. Deference from some of the most respected British media...

Edit to add further emphasis: the King's son is using his soft power to bully an African woman in the post BLM world. It's truly extraordinary that the BBC is letting him off the hook for this.

Happy to be wrong about this but as I understand it, the publisher agreed to donate the sum so it didn’t come directly out of Harry’s pocket and was part of the deal.

I'm so dreadfully sorry I didn't trawl through 4000 vitriolic posts.

They tried to vote SC off, SC got an injunction not against them removing her, according to am earlier post, but against them having more meetings for six weeks. This would have the effect of preventing them removing her but it would also prevent the rest of the board from taking other actions. They could have just been so dismayed by this that they resigned, or alternatively this could have tied them to something, due to joint responsibility of the board, that they could not in all conscience support so the only action left to not be part of it would be to resign.

It was only a few pages ago 😊

eta I notice you added the word “vitriolic” to the post I originally quoted 🤪

The Charities Commission will investigate a serious incident report alleging, amongst other things, a widespread culture of bullying. I assume something along these lines is what has been filed by Dr C. By contrast, the former trustees' allegations that she was responsible for financial mismanagement have not been reported to the CC. One has to ask why.

Harry thinks that too, until he wants his side of the story put across by one of his friends….

Well Harry and Meghan claim to work 1 hour a week for Archewell according to the annual report....

How else is he meant to respond? He can't win either way. Outright discussion - torn to shreds, through a friend - torn to shreds. Complete silence? Torn to shreds.

BBC is a biased and untrustworthy ‘news’ source. I am sceptical of most things they write now.

He can’t win because he’s not a good person.

and? it is vitriolic. I should have put a few more descriptors in though, you're right... unhinged, obsessive, vitriolic, one sided.

And I would say anyone out to obsessively tear down everything one person does, without knowing the full facts (but believing the tabloids in every instance) is not a good person.