Part 2.
Trustee and Organisation Management: Safe Guarding responsibilities

Whatever was hoped or expected by releasing the
private family discussions, the managements of the various Prem supporting
organisations have legal and moral obligations to acknowledge, consider and
explain all of the following:

a)    
that the allegations have been made

b)   
what are the Rawat family’s and
specifically Prem’s personal relationship to the relevant organisation.

c)    
the steps the Trustees/Management are
taking under Duty of Care and Safeguarding responsibilities.

d)   
what action the Trustees/Management
are obliged to take in reporting these allegations as  i) Law enforcement issues,  ii) Regulatory issues,  iii) public reporting issues,  as material facts in respect of garnering
donations and other activities.

In the post Epstein era, even where allegations relate
to historic abuse, publicly registered organisations cannot collude in covering
up material that may be relevant to safeguarding concerns. It is not necessary
for legal action to be in play. Beyond the fact of the disclosures, how the
family now seeks resolution is private to those hurt and abused. But the
organisations need to demonstrate their compliance with all regulatory and
legal duties to the public in the face of the information that they now
unavoidably have. What those duties are will depend on jurisdiction and local
regulatory structures – what they can’t do is pretend it’s business as usual.

If the Trustees/Managements have integrity then every Prem
supporting organisation will immediately suspend activities, acceptance of
donations etc, and institute a review, bringing in external Duty of Care and
Safeguarding advisors to establish how each organisation is to respond to the
fact that its ultimate person of control has been accused of behaviour that may
suggest a continuing threat to one or more vulnerable individuals and groups
that the organisation may come into contact with.

The key jurisdictions are the US and the State of
California (TPRF), Australia and the State of Queensland (IRF), Spain and
Netherlands ? (WOPG) and the UK (HDSK). While I can’t speak to the other jurisdictions,
the UK situation is unequivocally set out at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-report-a-serious-incident-in-your-charity
and which defines loss of reputation as a serious incident that must be
reported. With potential media investigations in play, the HDSK Trustees can’t
say there is no substantial reputational risk facing HDSK, and they should act
without delay.

Truthfully, if Prem has any integrity and was
concerned about his family and those who have followed him for fifty years and
more, he would now retire, close all the organisations and give up any kind of
public presence. Not that I have any hope that is what he will choose but it
would be the honourable thing.

I leave it to others whether they see value in
contacting organisation Trustees to enquire about or remind them of their
duties to the wider community as well as premies, or whether contact with
oversight bodies is relevant. I’ve yet to decide what action if any I will take,
although if the current journalistic interest in Prem’s UK activities makes it
to publication anyone that maters will have been alerted.

I some views on the wider issues of abuse, cult
history and responsibilities which I’ve posted as Part 3. >