PR Disasters ….part 7

[AtIusvue]

Meg and Harry PR shenanigans

that’s plain stupid

Both the honest opinion and public interest defences appear to apply and give Harry and Dyer complete protection. However, my view could change when we know the details.

Given we don’t even know the allegations yet, it seems a little early to be opining on what defences apply, let alone how strong they may be!

As I’m sure you will know, these defences are not absolute. Malice and/or no honest belief that what you are saying si true will defeat both those defences.

Harry had no ‘duty’ to publish that info. So doubt it

Then tell that to the English legal system.

That makes sense, Serenster, and an "adverse media campaign" doesn't sound to me to be the same as a resignation statement, no matter how it was phrased

As said, we can't know yet but I'm wondering if Sophie's claimed evidence includes any involvement by Harry in SM onslaughts

Agreed that it is early to offer an opinion. At the time I wrote that, I was accepting the apparent assumption of many on here that it was about the statement made by Harry at the time the trustees resigned. And whilst those defences are not absolute, I would be surprised if they didn't cover that statement. The statement did not apportion blame for the relationship between the chair and the trustees breaking down, simply said that the relationship was broken and that, as a result, the trustees had resigned. I would expect a defamation case to fail if it was based on that statement alone.

Going to look back on posts, but as a point of law, defamation against an individual (like a high ranking employee) can constitute defamation against their organisation in the right circumstances.

My my.

Popcorn time indeed...

It depends on the evidence - you have to prove an improper motive (such as spite), or that the defendant has no reasonable belief that what they are saying is true.

Harry is prone to putting the silliest things in his emails (“We have to be able to say we had nothing to do with this”) so who knows what might turn up here?

Based on Harry's known public statements about his decision to leave Sentebale, I can't see that he would lose this case. What he may have said in private emails to other trustees might be very different though.

I don't know much about Dr. Chandauker but her claims of misogynoir haven't been substantiated by the tribunal investigation while the claims of problems with the governance of the charity were. It does sound like a huge personality clash took place between her and the trustees, she didn't like Harry's polo charity match approach to fundraising and it all ended in disaster.

This rightly points out that this action has long been on the cards, being outwith the Charity Commission remit:

The commission also said Ms Chandauka should be allowed to stay on in her role.
After the report, Sentebale said: “The Charity Commission is explicitly clear, including in its public guidance, that it is not the commission’s responsibility to adjudicate or mediate internal disputes. This would include individual allegations of bullying, harassment, misogyny, misogynoir etc.

“The issues not investigated by the commission can and may be dealt with through avenues more appropriate than the commission.”

The BLT comments in the Telegraph are very critical of Harry. Scathing.

How his star has fallen.

Was that not because of the debacle at the polo match when Meghan and Serena turned up then Meghan started bossing Sophie around at the presentation ? There was much criticism of M’s behaviour.
Then - allegedly- Harry demanded that Sophie issue a statement in support of Meghan which she refused to do .

That presumably is one of the email exchanges that Sentebale has in its possession.

I imagine Sentebale may also have copies of emails from Harry and his chum to various board members and staff defaming other board members over the past six years.

It was Dr Chandauka who referred the charity to the Charity Commission in Feb 2025 due to concerns about poor governance, in addition to bullying/misogyny in the boardroom. She later complained to the Commission about the public media campaign run by the ex-patrons/trustees.

The Commission did find issues with governance. It identified 'a lack of clarity around role descriptions and internal policies as the primary cause for weaknesses in the charity’s management.'

The Commission was clear that it found no evidence of 'widespread or systemic bullying or harassment, including misogyny or misogynoir at the charity, but the Commission has acknowledged the strong perception of ill treatment felt by a number of parties to the dispute and the impact this may have had on them personally'.

Charity Commission Sentebale findings

ETA: Given that Harry's public statements don't always reflect other people's recollections of events, they may not be a good indicator as to likelihood of winning or losing a case.

The Charity Commission found no evidence of systemic bullying. They didn’t comment on individual instances of bullying, possibly they considered this outside their remit.

Oh this is absolutely delicious, talk about the chickens coming home to roost. Harry will be absolutely furious.

at best this is going to be highly embarrassing and exposing for him, at worst, expensive and seriously reputationally damaging. I know we all know it happens, but having it proven that Harry has funded the SS or other online trolls to attack and discredit Sentebale would be almost irrecoverable for him I think. I wonder if that would be the straw that would cause Invictus and his other charities to finally say enough is enough.

I really admire SC having the sheer nerve to stand up to him - it’s long overdue. I would be very surprised if the charity was prepared to sue without material evidence.

Also hilarious that Harry has further defamed the charity in his own statement saying they’re using charitable funds - he really is an utter bellend.

I’m sure PH and MD will be concerned as to what email exchanges/receipts Sentebale hold.

That an external party is prepared to fund the legal action then they must be sufficiently confident in what they have seen/heard from the charity.

Especially as Harry has a speaking gig to talk about mental health in the workplace.... with this new case about him bullying a black woman in her workplace!

While I can’t really be bothered to argue with the Sussex supporters, the findings of the charity commission are not really relevant to this court case. Their remit would have been to investigate what was happening within the charity in the previous period. The case being brought refers to the period afterwards, when Harry made a number of very serious allegations in the media aimed at SC and Sentebale. If they also have evidence that he was funding social media seeding of a defamatory narrative as well, that will be explosive.

Thank you, that's very informative.

My overall impression is that Harry and others didn't expect Dr Chandauka to be so strong-minded. I thought her refusal to release a statement in support of Meghan was very principled while Harry was clearly expecting deference.

I'm still not convinced they will win against Harry but discovery will be fascinating.

The statement on Sentebale's website from the trustees and executive director clarifies that the case is being brought against Prince Harry and Mark Dyer for co-ordinating a media campaign against the charity from 25 March last year. The timescales mean they have had a year to gather evidence. The statement notes that no charity funding is being used to bring the case.

In summary, peevish Harry and Mark Dyer are being accused of actively and systematically using the media to trash Sentabale. This from Harry the warrior against online harms. The case has nothing to do with the polo match fiasco, the attempts by H's camp to redirect donations from Sentebale to Archewell, or Harry's and Sophie's arguments before March last year.

As Harry would be incapable of implementing a coordinated media attack himself, I am wondering whether some of the PR resignations in Monteshitshow are down to being 'instructed' to work on this. Using the media maliciously would break the code of ethics of PR membership bodies and be career limiting.

Quite the backdrop for next week's Australia venture. The timing of today's release is Sentebale's. It does look rather malicious.

https://sentebale.org/sentebale-seeks-court-protection-against-coordinated-adverse-media-campaign-to-enable-it-to-grow-and-thrive/

Typo

That is not the only situation where qualified privilege applies. However, I accept that I may be wrong. Having said that, it is not clear that the courts would regard this statement as defamatory even if it is untrue.

Oh yes - awkward 😂

And the Australian tax payer will be footing the bill for their jolly

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/2192584/taxpayers-cover-part-harry-meghans