Buckingham Palace Aide resigns

This is going the rounds. I leave you to judge:


After yesterday’s ‘Race Incident’ which destroyed the life of an 84 year old woman who has loyally served our late Queen -someone checked out the so called Charity known as “Sistah Space” and registered by the U.K. Charity Commission in 2018 under the registration number 1179934


Now there is very little to see as far as finances are concerned and the income went from virtually nothing to 350k in four years - the sole paid employee of that Charity is one Ngozi Fulani (our race victim) who receives 65k tax free and there was a further 180k paid out in “expenses” which are not accounted for - and there are no records of where the rest of the money went to and the accounts for three years have always been filed late and the Charity subsequently fined - - now that’s not her real name of course - it’s a West African name and yet the lady was born in the U.K. to Gladstone and Mildred Headley who were both Barbadian by birth - her real name is Mary Headley - apart from that little subterfuge - the Charity wasn’t formed in 2015 it was formed in 2018 and commenced fund raising in 2019 - you can also find no details of a change of name for the lady either so one can assume that she has either previously married a West African or adopted a West African name for effect and dresses as a West African for some reason whilst being Caribbean by nature of her parents and indeed British by birth - all very odd and also suspicious and perhaps the reason why she was so evasive when Lady Hussey attempted to engage with her .


Ngozi Fulani is also on record previously for accusing the Royal Family of being guilty of Domestic Violence against Meghan Markel and for also accusing the Royal Family of being “institutionally racist” her charity had received payments from the Guardian and the Independent for those interviews as it did for the Daily Mail story - all charities registered with the commission are bona fida - but that doesn’t mean that they are run properly and it doesn’t mean that someone inside those organisations isn’t helping themselves to a very comfortable lifestyle - people in glass houses comes to mind but either way the woman is possibly a fraud and maybe we should not donate a single penny to her ”charity”.

Some of us have come across the Fulani in West Africa ………. They are infamous bandits.

DaisyAnne

Goodness me, no one would address me as "missus" in my culture volver. You are obviously attacking my origins. Now what should we do about that?

Ignore the ignorance, I think.

People use "missus" in my culture all the time. Anne-Marie calls Beth "missus" all the time in "Two Doors Down".

So what I understand you're saying is DaisyAnne, is that I've brought a bit of my culture into yours, and you don't like it?

Now, what does that remind me of? 🙂

I sometimes wonder why I defended a black woman against her black pimp and putting not only my life in danger but my partner and his friend who came to my help if I’m such a racist

Perhaps the problem with meeting with up and receiving an apology would draw a line under the incident MayBee. No more publicity. Nothing more to say.

MayBee70
Exactly so.

There is a problem because volver wants there to be a problem, Maybe No other reason why anyone would criticise an attempt to reconcile an unfortunate situation.

I think volver must come from the disrupt and remake extreme of politics. Both the far right and the far left think it will work. If only they would look at Brexit honestly, they would see it doesn't.

volver

Haven't seen that one. That's new.

So she wants to apologise for something so many people say she hasn't done? How does that work then?

But she hasn’t said she didn’t say that. And she wants to meet the lady to discuss what happened and apologise. I can’t see a problem with that. Why isn’t there a twenty page thread about the young lad who was stopped and searched by police because he resembled someone who had committed a crime. He was still in his school uniform I believe. Those are the sort of racist incidents that make me apoplectic with rage.

Goodness me, no one would address me as "missus" in my culture volver. You are obviously attacking my origins. Now what should we do about that?

Ignore the ignorance, I think.

tickingbird

^Don't lecture me on facts lady.^

More “ do as I say not as I do”.

Careful Missus. Personal attacks are not allowed

Missus?! Does that pass as polite address round your parts?

Yes it does actually.

Watch "Two Doors Down".

GagaJo

DaisyAnne

volver

No matter how often people say it wasn't racist, it was.

That's not an opinion, it's the facts.

Sorry. Welcome to the 2020s.

I can't decide if you are arrogant or ignorant. You feel you can call people racist on facts that you make up. There are laws about racism. They are the only things that make an act racist. What was it, in this case, that meant anyone broke the law?

You are allowed an opinion however outlandish. You are not allowed your own facts.

A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Tell me how that applies to this situation, and I will agree it is a fact. Otherwise, I revert to the first line of this post.

OMG.

So you think as long as something doesn't break the law, it isn't wrong?

Apartheid was legal.
US segregation / Jim Crow laws were legal.
Slavery was legal.

There is a ton of racism that goes on that isn't illegal. Doesn't make it right.

Didn't all those violate the most basic tenets of international human rights law and policy.

I have been very careful to describe things as racist behaviours. Which isn't the same as calling someone racist.

I haven't insulted anybody, perhaps you have taken offence at what I have written, but as I said, we all have to put up with being offended.

You said I was either arrogant or ignorant.

I'm sure everyone will decide who the nasty person is.

DaisyAnne

volver

Careful Missus. Personal attacks are not allowed.

Saying I don't know if you understand things is not an attack it is to quote "a fact". I don't know.

You have implied people are racists. That is an attack and a particularly nasty one.

You seem to think that you are allowed to insult to your hearts content, but no one must offer you any criticism. Now where have I heard that before. Ah yes, the complainant. It seems you both have the same intention to disrupt at whatever costs to anyone else. This is why I think extremists are dangerous.

You think it is only racism if it's illegal. How is that not racist? I honestly didn't realise people, other than dangerous extremists with guns and weapons thought that way.

I'm honestly in shock. Not faux, online shock. Real shock.

Actually DaisyAnn, it is terrifying that you think anyone that believes in racism, that isn't bound by law, is an extremist.

My god. I fear for my DGS if many people in the UK think that way.

Don't lecture me on facts lady.

More “ do as I say not as I do”.

Careful Missus. Personal attacks are not allowed

Missus?! Does that pass as polite address round your parts?

volver

Careful Missus. Personal attacks are not allowed.

Saying I don't know if you understand things is not an attack it is to quote "a fact". I don't know.

You have implied people are racists. That is an attack and a particularly nasty one.

You seem to think that you are allowed to insult to your hearts content, but no one must offer you any criticism. Now where have I heard that before. Ah yes, the complainant. It seems you both have the same intention to disrupt at whatever costs to anyone else. This is why I think extremists are dangerous.

DaisyAnne

volver

No matter how often people say it wasn't racist, it was.

That's not an opinion, it's the facts.

Sorry. Welcome to the 2020s.

I can't decide if you are arrogant or ignorant. You feel you can call people racist on facts that you make up. There are laws about racism. They are the only things that make an act racist. What was it, in this case, that meant anyone broke the law?

You are allowed an opinion however outlandish. You are not allowed your own facts.

A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Tell me how that applies to this situation, and I will agree it is a fact. Otherwise, I revert to the first line of this post.

OMG.

So you think as long as something doesn't break the law, it isn't wrong?

Apartheid was legal.
US segregation / Jim Crow laws were legal.
Slavery was legal.

There is a ton of racism that goes on that isn't illegal. Doesn't make it right.

I read on GN yesterday that ‘silly’ is an old people’s word.

chestnut that is a serious point - because where is the line crossed?

Yes, you're right of course.

How silly of me.

All these years, wrong about facts. My life has changed in the last few seconds.

volver

^I can't decide if you are arrogant or ignorant.^

Didn't you, on this thread, or maybe another, say that people need to take care regarding how they describe others?

Don't lecture me on facts lady.

Until you understand what they are and stop believing they are just things made up to give extremists the limelight I expect I and others will keep explaining the "facts" to you.

Careful Missus. Personal attacks are not allowed.

volver

^There was no racism in the case we are discussing.^

And you say that with a straight face?

I'm not revelling in it, I feel a responsibility. God knows why.

I imagine he does. I am not at all sure you know what the word means.

I can't decide if you are arrogant or ignorant.

Didn't you, on this thread, or maybe another, say that people need to take care regarding how they describe others?

Don't lecture me on facts lady.

lemsip

volver
Haven't seen that one. That's new.

So she wants to apologise for something so many people say she hasn't done? How does that work then?
it would work because she wouldn't know what the so many people say she hasn't done
But it evidently wouldn’t work for the agenda of Vd or ms whotsit. British Citizens don’t accept apologies, especially if it would remove them from the limelight and allow the true purpose of the meeting to gain the publicity it should have.
Her hurt is paramount!
Her abuse!
Her violation!
The hurt she is now inflicting on someone who was in the wrong (if the whole story is true) but who wishes to apologise for any hurt caused is evidently what we should now expect from a British Citizen. Thank goodness she claimed British citizenship and not English!

There was no racism in the case we are discussing.

And you say that with a straight face?

I'm not revelling in it, I feel a responsibility. God knows why.