Accidental Delete Of An Outlook Email
Technology10 mins ago
Palace Racism
Ngozi Fulani was asked where she was originally from mmm, whats the problem there
it's not what or was considered a british christian name, i assume the palace get people from around the globe visiting, so why the big hoo haa.
https:/
it's not what or was considered a british christian name, i assume the palace get people from around the globe visiting, so why the big hoo haa.
https:/
Answers
I think that the lady was asking where her family originated from. I think that is a genuine question, maybe not the time nor the place but it is hardly a major issue.
17:51 Wed 30th Nov 2022
douglas - //
"...started gleefully trawling the net for information with which to trash Ms Fulani's reputation with..."
or
'Found information already in the public realm that may suggest more (or less) to this latest outing than first thought.' //
And that address a question I raised four times, before giving up after receiving one response, which was abusive.
Why does anyone feel the need to go looking for information to trash Ms Fulani, whether it is accurate or not?
Do people feel that if they can find reasons why she may have been untruthful and / or fraudulent, that somehow mitigates the experience she suffered?
Or is there a metaphysical set of scales being loaded - the lower Ms Fulani''s side with evidence that she is a 'wrong 'un', the higher Lady Hussey's side must inevitable be, mitigating her behaviour as it rises.
I can't answer that question, because my mind does not operate like that - find some dirt - means she deserved what happened.
If you can explain it, by all means do go ahead.
"...started gleefully trawling the net for information with which to trash Ms Fulani's reputation with..."
or
'Found information already in the public realm that may suggest more (or less) to this latest outing than first thought.' //
And that address a question I raised four times, before giving up after receiving one response, which was abusive.
Why does anyone feel the need to go looking for information to trash Ms Fulani, whether it is accurate or not?
Do people feel that if they can find reasons why she may have been untruthful and / or fraudulent, that somehow mitigates the experience she suffered?
Or is there a metaphysical set of scales being loaded - the lower Ms Fulani''s side with evidence that she is a 'wrong 'un', the higher Lady Hussey's side must inevitable be, mitigating her behaviour as it rises.
I can't answer that question, because my mind does not operate like that - find some dirt - means she deserved what happened.
If you can explain it, by all means do go ahead.
Peter - // very fluent tho - easy on the eye- readable, mellifluous, Not Dickens but perhaps sex columnist in Mayfair 1965-1980 as one searches often fruitlessly for meaning //
Do you understand what you post?
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - but don't bother explaining, unsurprisingly, I don't care either.
Do you understand what you post?
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - but don't bother explaining, unsurprisingly, I don't care either.
naomi - // AH, 17.17. If a question mark exists investigation may throw doubt on initial perceptions - as happened in this case. //
Why would there be a 'question mark'?
The incident was reported, the culprit apologised and resigned - why on earth would anyone feel the need to 'investigate'?
And if someone feels the need to 'investigate', then why not 'investigate' the other party with the same level of vigour? She was the offender let's not forget.
But Lady Hussey'a background remains unexplored, apart from a cursory observation that she has been a LIW for sixty years, and therefore must be immune to a display of basic bad manners.
Except, clearly she is not immune at all.
Why would there be a 'question mark'?
The incident was reported, the culprit apologised and resigned - why on earth would anyone feel the need to 'investigate'?
And if someone feels the need to 'investigate', then why not 'investigate' the other party with the same level of vigour? She was the offender let's not forget.
But Lady Hussey'a background remains unexplored, apart from a cursory observation that she has been a LIW for sixty years, and therefore must be immune to a display of basic bad manners.
Except, clearly she is not immune at all.
There would be a question mark because Lady Hussey worked closely with the late queen for 60 years and did the job without complaint. Suddenly there is a complaint - and upon investigation it transpires that it comes from someone who has already wrongly accused the royals of racism and domestic abuse.
Is none of the following true then?
https:/
In the wake of the news, the Palace responded with a statement stressing that they were taking the incident ‘extremely seriously’ and that ‘unacceptable and deeply regrettable comments’ had been made. It was added that ‘the individual concerned [Lady Susan was referred to only as ‘Lady SH’ in Fulani’s tweets and was not explicitly named by the Palace] would like to express her profound apologies for the hurt caused and has stepped aside from her honorary role with immediate effect.’
https:/
In the wake of the news, the Palace responded with a statement stressing that they were taking the incident ‘extremely seriously’ and that ‘unacceptable and deeply regrettable comments’ had been made. It was added that ‘the individual concerned [Lady Susan was referred to only as ‘Lady SH’ in Fulani’s tweets and was not explicitly named by the Palace] would like to express her profound apologies for the hurt caused and has stepped aside from her honorary role with immediate effect.’
> Making the expected noises
You're avoiding the question. It's either true or it isn't. But either way ...
If it's true then "the Palace" establishment, that included Lady Susan Hussey who was representing them, was racist.
If it's not true then the Palace establishment is lying about it, which is even worse.
I'd prefer to believe that it was true. What about you?
You're avoiding the question. It's either true or it isn't. But either way ...
If it's true then "the Palace" establishment, that included Lady Susan Hussey who was representing them, was racist.
If it's not true then the Palace establishment is lying about it, which is even worse.
I'd prefer to believe that it was true. What about you?
naomi - // There would be a question mark because Lady Hussey worked closely with the late queen for 60 years and did the job without complaint. Suddenly there is a complaint - and upon investigation it transpires that it comes from someone who has already wrongly accused the royals of racism and domestic abuse. //
Your naivity surprises me.
In your endless efforts to exonerate Lady Hussey from her creation of this whole sorry business, you are determined that she must be blameless.
Why?
Because she has worked for sixty years at Buckingham Palace!!
If you can think of an organisation more rigidly class-conscious and utterly expert at keeping its dirty linen under wraps, then I can't.
Just because no accusations of bad behaviour have not reached the outside world, it is naive in the extreme simply to assume that there must there be none.
Things get hidden, for decades, but it doesn't mean that they didn;t happen, merely that we didn't hear about them, but that is not the same thing at all.
Remember Jimmy Savile?
Oh hang on, I can think of an organisation more rigidly class-conscious and utterly expert at keeping its dirty linen under wraps than Buckingham Palace - it;s the BBC.
And who was Chairman when Jimmy Savile's crimes were being commited as a matter of course on BBC premises, while its employees looked the other way?
Marmaduke Hussey - late husband of the same Lady Hussey.
I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Your naivity surprises me.
In your endless efforts to exonerate Lady Hussey from her creation of this whole sorry business, you are determined that she must be blameless.
Why?
Because she has worked for sixty years at Buckingham Palace!!
If you can think of an organisation more rigidly class-conscious and utterly expert at keeping its dirty linen under wraps, then I can't.
Just because no accusations of bad behaviour have not reached the outside world, it is naive in the extreme simply to assume that there must there be none.
Things get hidden, for decades, but it doesn't mean that they didn;t happen, merely that we didn't hear about them, but that is not the same thing at all.
Remember Jimmy Savile?
Oh hang on, I can think of an organisation more rigidly class-conscious and utterly expert at keeping its dirty linen under wraps than Buckingham Palace - it;s the BBC.
And who was Chairman when Jimmy Savile's crimes were being commited as a matter of course on BBC premises, while its employees looked the other way?
Marmaduke Hussey - late husband of the same Lady Hussey.
I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Atheist - // I thought PP's post was crystal clear. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I did understand it. //
If you understood him referring to me as the sex therapist in a magazine, then you have a better grasp of his constant piffle than do I.
//Are you sure you're not accusing him of unintelligibilty because you disagree with what he said? //
Yes I'm quite sure.
If he wrote in plain English and I disagreed with him, I would say so.
He doesn't, so I didn't.
If you understood him referring to me as the sex therapist in a magazine, then you have a better grasp of his constant piffle than do I.
//Are you sure you're not accusing him of unintelligibilty because you disagree with what he said? //
Yes I'm quite sure.
If he wrote in plain English and I disagreed with him, I would say so.
He doesn't, so I didn't.
Ellipsis - //
Is none of the following true then?
https:/
In the wake of the news, the Palace responded with a statement stressing that they were taking the incident ‘extremely seriously’ and that ‘unacceptable and deeply regrettable comments’ had been made. It was added that ‘the individual concerned [Lady Susan was referred to only as ‘Lady SH’ in Fulani’s tweets and was not explicitly named by the Palace] would like to express her profound apologies for the hurt caused and has stepped aside from her honorary role with immediate effect.’ //
I think your link fits firmly under the umbrella of 'research', and must therefore be a valid contribution to the debate - sitting as it does alongside all the other 'research' that has gone before it.
Is none of the following true then?
https:/
In the wake of the news, the Palace responded with a statement stressing that they were taking the incident ‘extremely seriously’ and that ‘unacceptable and deeply regrettable comments’ had been made. It was added that ‘the individual concerned [Lady Susan was referred to only as ‘Lady SH’ in Fulani’s tweets and was not explicitly named by the Palace] would like to express her profound apologies for the hurt caused and has stepped aside from her honorary role with immediate effect.’ //
I think your link fits firmly under the umbrella of 'research', and must therefore be a valid contribution to the debate - sitting as it does alongside all the other 'research' that has gone before it.
Latest Posts
They Just Can't Help It, Can They.-Jermy...
News12 mins ago
T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV13 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
