2.
Limit the reply function (though you can still quote tweet and add your opinions that way).

Like most people, the existence of Sistah Space was unbeknown to me until it made headlines for an incident at Buckingham Palace. It has since remained in the spotlight, and being

3.
Human, it is natural for us to be curious. Initially on face value, donating to a domestic violence charity is something I’m happy to do, but before any charitable commitments I always conduct due diligence to see how funds are used and to what benefit, and this is where the

4.
Rabbit hole begins that I am sure Sistah Space and its members who incontrovertibly bear responsibility will undoubtedly come to regret the self-orchestrated attention.

Full disclosure before I go any further; I’ve downloaded and made copies of all multimedia and source codes

5.
And I am still working on compiling it into a legible PDF file to submit to relevant agencies because the reporting systems in the UK are restrictive and limited. So if you happen to be reading this thread and this applies to you, if you start wondering whether I’ve seen

6.
Something online and you are considering rushing to delete it; let me save you the bother by telling you the chances are I already have it now as I’ve been at this for over a week. I’m not going to upload the PDF itself, as that’s intended for different purposes.

7.
There will be a lot of jumping around the timeline, as it is difficult to explain things that happened 10 years ago without giving context to something that happened 4 years ago – so I’ll try to keep it as clear as possible.

I’m going to start with the first issue that caught

8.
My attention in Sistah Space, and this was when I noticed that the Trustee Annual Reports were being signed off by senior members involved in the charity posing as an Independent Examiner, namely Rosanna Lewis (or Rosanne Lewis, Rose Lewis, Rose Muatta or Rosanne Muatta).

9.
I will hazard a guess at what you are thinking – why so many names? This will become a common theme throughout the thread, but the reason there are so many names is not because I am unsure as to the name of the individual, but rather that the individual often uses different

10.
Variations or different names altogether; I am merely listing all of the names that apply to this single individual.

Independent Examinations are for the purpose of maintaining confidence in the accounting standards and have an impartial and professional acknowledgement

11.
That financial data looks orderly and correct. It is fundamentally impossible for a co-founder of a charity to be an independent examiner of that same charity, it undermines the entire purpose of independent examination.
This alone ought to warrant the @ChtyCommission to open

@mentions 12.
At least a regulatory compliance case into Sistah Space for failing to adhere to UK accounting standards – certainly least of all to maintain confidence in the charitable sector in general.

I thereafter decided to have a glance at the financials, and immediately what stood

@mentions 13.
Out to me was a 4703% year on year increase in administrative expenses. This is a staggeringly high increase, and it did not correlate with any other part of the financial report, be that appreciation or depreciation. Unusual activity is typically something that will be

@mentions 14.
Will be elaborated on, so this is where I started to go through each trustee annual report word for word, number by number.

I initially believed that Sistah Space started in 2018, at the time of its registration with the CC, however I later came to realise that it in fact

@mentions 15.
Began in 2015, as can be seen on various YouTube videos uploaded by members of the charity.

It is also rather suspect that in all that time, Sistah Space did not think to utilise accountancy services. For one, the financial reports submitted by Sistah Space appear to be cash

@mentions 16.
Based rather than accrual (once a charity’s gross income exceeds £25k, this is required).

I was also flabbergasted and dumbfounded when I read in the Trustee Annual Report that the finance officer for Sistah Space was overwhelmed by the workload from a self-proclaimed small

@mentions 17.
Small charity and did not understand how to do charitable accounting once income exceeds a certain threshold. Quite honestly, this stunned me. Any benefit of the doubt I could extend to Sistah Space after reading a statement to that effect instantly vanished, as it creates

@mentions 18.
So, so many questions as to whether Sistah Space has ever used a person who knows what they are doing, or even knows how to do so correctly. Once again, even this alone ought to warrant the to turn its attention onto the situation as it is impossible to have

@mentions 19.
Any confidence in the submitted reports when the finance officer is described as being inadequate to perform regulatory duties.

What exacerbated this further, was when I read three different scenarios provided by Sistah Space as to who was maintaining accounting, all from

@mentions 20.
One trustee annual report. In one scenario, it was the accounts manager who was initially off for covid reasons and subsequently retired that handled the accounting. In another scenario, it was the trustees though these same trustees were said to have been absent for personal

@mentions 21.
Reasons in the same trustee annual report. In the other scenario, it was the poor soul who didn’t understand accounting once gross income reaches a certain threshold.

On immediate face value, it looks pretty bad when most of the time accounts are submitted and filed late.

@mentions 22.
But it is absurd that so many serious compliance issues are happening and that it has gone on for as long as it has.

Sistah Space has pleaded on a number of occasions previously that issues in its accounting will be addressed, though all evidence suggests that these are mere

@mentions 23.
Empty promises that carry no genuine intention. While there is certainly a lot of attention in the media and Sistah Space on the topic of race, I firmly am focusing on the concern of money and compliance. If this is to continue unchecked and unchallenged, it will undoubtedly

@mentions 24.
Erode any confidence in the as an effective and competent regulator. It will also heavily damage public confidence in the charitable sector generally. This must be investigated, there is no doubt about that.

Now I have no affiliation with Sistah Space or any

@mentions 25.
Of its members; I am a stranger to them and they are strangers to me. Because I am not directly involved in the financial dealings of Sistah Space first-hand, I’m not currently well positioned to effectively judge income the charity has received from direct donations from

@mentions 26.
The general public. There is no way for me to verify figures to be authentic and correct, and I am hesitant to rely on the financial data supplied by a charity that has never been independently examined or audited. Unsurprisingly, I leave out direct donations though would

@mentions 27.
Encourage the CC to look into this area due to the mounting circumstantial evidence of abject failures to date regarding the management of Sistah Space.

However, I can look at grants that have been awarded to the charity, as I do not need to solely rely on Sistah Space for

@mentions 28.
This information. Time to buckle up, because this is where things start to get spicy if they weren’t already before…

First I want to start with the soft power the key group within Sistah Space utilises through various individuals who are active in our political landscape.

@mentions 29.
One name that popped up often was in the London Assembly. On 11th December 2020, Caroline was pushing the ambitions of Sistah Space within the political sphere, though this was to do with exceptionally high demands made by Sistah Space during the pandemic.

@mentions 30.
Caroline informed the London Assembly that Sistah Space had seen a 300% increase in demand for its service since the start of the pandemic, this equates to one year period. The only place the figure of 300% has ever been mentioned is within the Trustee Annual Report, which

@mentions 31.
Would lead any rational person to suspect that this is where Caroline sourced such information. What is striking, however, is that this would be the same report where Sistah Space professes a multitude of compliance failures; failures in adhering to UK accounting standards

@mentions 32.
And much, much more. I find it inconceivable that somebody could read such information which was presented in plain English, albeit written poorly – but nonetheless still understandable – and still be of the opinion that it is suitable to receive monetary funding.

@mentions 33.
Another politician that appears frequently on the scene, spanning over a very, very long period, is none other than our own national mathematician, Diane Abbot.

[*insert sarcasm face*]

Ngozi Fulani belongs to what is typically described as the ‘hard left’. She has long

@mentions 34.
Attended various political engagements of Diane Abbot and Jeremy Corbyn over many years prior. Diane Abbot has frequently lobbied various political arenas on behalf of Sistah Space with the aim of securing what the charity wants (and to be clear, it wants a lot).

@mentions 35.
I should clear up, whenever I write Ngozi Fulani, keep in mind this could also mean Ngozi Headley; Ngozi Headley-Fulani; Marlene Headley; Marlene Fulani; Mary Headley; Mary Fulani; Mary Headley-Fulani; or Sister Ngozi.
For avoidance of any doubt, this is all the same person.

@mentions 36.
Diane Abbot’s relationship with Ngozi Fulani pre-dates the existence of Sistah Space, as they are seen in several photographs outside a store at 42 Chatsworth Road, London. At the time of the photograph, there is a poster advertisement for the Chatsworth Road Festival for the

@mentions 37.
15th September 2015 (day may not be exact, but month and year is correct). The store at the time also was called “Maxine & Marlene’s”, as I can see in photographs. The premises appears to be a store that sells various items and accessories with a clear reference to African

@mentions 38.
Culture (or at least as far a reference that a typical Brit may perceive it to be).
We also know that Sistah Space started that same year, and all evidence suggests that the name change to Ngozi Fulani from Marlene Headley happened on or very near to the beginning of the

@mentions 39.
Charity, Sistah Space. I find this timing to be interesting and convenient, as if you were to submit an application for a grant under the name Marlene Headley, then you are unlikely to be perceived to be in a minority group on the application alone, unlike Ngozi Fulani.

@mentions 40.
It is my belief and my opinion that Ngozi Fulani adopted such a name for the purposes of appearing and presenting as a minority with the aim to garner greater appeal in the subsequent demands for help of every kind that is to follow. In the climate of 2022 in particular, the

@mentions 41.
Topic of race is morphing into both a sword and shield by many. I believe that this is a disservice to those who suffer from genuine racism, but I also believe that those who weaponise the topic in pursuit of personal gain are unlikely to care; in turn I will not waste any

@mentions 42.
Of my energy trying to reason with someone I clearly hold different values to.

So let us begin with and , and the costly feud between Sistah Space and this local authority that no doubt heavily ate into what is otherwise scarce resources.

@mentions 43.
I will cut down on the melodramatics and put it to you that basically Sistah Space were unhappy for a plethora of reasons, and demanded that Hackney Council provide the solutions to any problem they had otherwise it would be considered that the council was racist.

@mentions 44.
This was an ongoing issue between the two sides that ultimately ended up in independent mediation, with both sides being legally represented and advised. Some of the benefits provided to Sistah Space by Hackney Council include but are not limited to: £35’000 on refurbishments

@mentions 45.
To a property that Sistah Space was resident in on a rent-free agreement from December 2019. 24 hour security was funded by the council, in addition to expenses met for removal and storage, installation of CCTV; installation of panic alarms and an agreement between the two

@mentions 46.
On an end-date for temporary accommodation Sistah Space was provided while refurbishments were being carried out at the other property.

Sister Space repeatedly professed to Hackney Council that the premises was unsuitable because the security was inadequate. Now I have spent

@mentions 47.
A great deal of time watching hours upon hours upon hours of video footage. In most videos I have watched, the front door is left wide open and Sistah Space members are often sat outside selling donated items or twerking in the street while blasting music outdoors.

I neither

@mentions 48.
Claim to be a woman nor do I claim to be a domestic violence victim, however I imagine that if I were then I probably wouldn’t feel comfortable entering into a space that would be attracting a great deal of attention. Perhaps that’s just me, but I’d wager I’m not the only

@mentions 49.
Only one to be of that opinion; it is less a matter of culture, and more a matter of professionalism.
Also, owing to the nature of sexual violence, I’m not entirely certain that having women bend over and bounce their arse in the street is the correct image in that setting.

@mentions 50.
Now I want to rewind slightly to the topic of ‘selling donated items’, and this will also tie in to something I read on the Trustee Annual Report which caught my eye.

When Sistah Space was explaining this charity shop, it initially explained this as a unique concept to sell

@mentions 51.
Donated items to its service users at a discounted price. Immediately, I take issue with this concept, as it is claimed that the items are donated (I interchange this to mean at no cost), so the full benefits are not being passed down to the end user, which would be those

@mentions 52.
That are attending who are victims of domestic or sexual violence. It is also plausible that such persons have limited access to a financial resource, therefore I do find it to be unethical and counterintuitive to the purpose of the charity that it utilises a charity shop as

@mentions 53.
A means of net income at the expense of the wrong target group. The only party that benefits in this situation is the charity; not the donors, not the end users, not the community.
This of course is on the basis that there is no cost associated to items that find their way in

@mentions 54.
To the Sistah Space charity shop.

However, Sistah Space has made multiple applications for grants specifically for the purpose of purchasing products for its charity shop (though it omitted the shop element in the applications).
There is the possibility therefore that the

@mentions 55.
Charity is purchasing goods to resell and perhaps this is where the staggeringly high increase of administrative expenses comes from (4703% year on year increase).

In this scenario, it would be logical to look at what the donated items available for sale at the charity shop

@mentions 56.
Include, and thanks to previous videos posted by members within the charity that gave a running commentary on the items and its source, we know the answers to this and it certainly grabbed my unconditional attention.

I will now list what was discussed on the video footage.

@mentions 57.
– CDs and books were provided to the charity shop from Dr Sandra Richards. Sandra Richards is Ngozi Fulani’s older sister and she has a life coaching business. She sometimes appears in videos for Sistah Space, though generally she is spamming her own social media with an

@mentions 58.
Endless stream of inspirational quotes and radical perspectives on theology to do with race. Sandra is also of the opinion that she is in fact a divine god from an older life living among a weaker species; she identifies as African and resents any one who considers her to be

@mentions 59.
Black Caribbean or Black British, as she eloquently made clear in an interview some years ago.
– Watches are supplied from Mosaiqe. This is a now dissolved business that owes hundreds of thousands to creditors, and its director is Kassai Antonio Fulani, otherwise known as

@mentions 60.
Kass Fulani; Kass Headley; Kass Fulani-Headley; Kassai Fulani; Kassai Headley; or Kassai Fulani-Headley.
Or quite simply, this is Ngozi Fulani’s son.
Mosaiqe, historically, has went through a lot of different business concepts – from music, to art, to accessories, etc.

@mentions 61.
Mosaiqe has equally went through a lot of crowdfunding and fundraising schemes, a combination of direct donations from the public as well as a Santander grant for £8’000 which was actually awarded to Djan Headley (Ngozi’s daughter) in her final year of university though she

@mentions 62.
Does not appear to have ever held any authoratative position within Mosaiqe, ever.
Just to briefly reflect, when I write Djan Headley, this could also mean Djanomi; Djan; Djanie; Djand; and Headley or Fulani respectively (you get the gist by now hopefully).
Upon reading into

@mentions 63.
Kassai’s background a bit deeper, he holds no punches in proclaiming to be sharp and full of business acumen.
Personally I struggle to agree with that observation as when a business feels it can commit spending while it has a debt exceeding 1000% of its highest gross income

@mentions 64.
With no wriggle room, that’s a pretty strong indicator that you haven’t got a clue how to budget responsibly and sensibly.
However in the midst of owing hundreds of thousands to creditors, Kassai continues to mysteriously have the funds to travel the world and take regular

@mentions 65.
Overseas holidays. One thing I did discover is that when Mosaiqe’s website was registered, it was registered under the company Ethics & Aesthetics, which is a separate company that Kassai is the director of that surprisingly is still active today – but I still found it

@mentions 66.
Peculiar that a cost which would typically be written down as an expense was registered on the books of a different company altogether. If that is the practice applied for all expenses and income, then it would make sense why Mosaiqe became riddled in debt despite the social

@mentions 67.
Media proclamations of ‘record success’ and ‘record sales’. If those record sales did exist, then they certainly do not show in the finances, that’s for sure.
– Clothing apparel was provided to the Sistah Space charity shop from Tobias Azizah, who is also known as Tobias

@mentions 68.
Azizah Drummond; and more recently changed his name to Tobias Fulani-Azizah in 2017. His company is the now dissolved Africa Inspired, and the clothing apparel this business would provide to the Sistah Space charity shop would contain his AI logo.
Once again, as with the

@mentions 69.
Financial catastrophe seen in Mosaiqe, the same applies to Africa Inspired albeit on a much smaller scale.
– ‘Survivor Dolls’ is a prominent item that features on the Sistah Space charity shop, and these items are provided by Maxine Claye (you’ll be happy to know that Maxine

@mentions 70.
Tends to go by the same name, snaps for Maxine).
Maxine is Ngozi Fulani’s twin sister and the business name is A Darker Shade, which conveniently also was advertised on social media as being located at 42 Chatsworth Road, London.
However, just like ‘Maxine & Marlene’s”, there

@mentions 71.
Is no Limited Company, however it is possible (though highly unlikely) that these were registered with as a sole trader and limited partnership respectively.
Curiously, Maxine has spoken on public social media platforms historically when addressed about the

@mentions 72.
Monies involved concerning Sistah Space and A Darker Shade. Maxine stated that half of the cost for the sale of the doll is donated to Sistah Space. This is an important and critical piece of information, because it demonstrates a direct contradiction. On one hand, the Sistah

@mentions 73.
Space charity shop is being presented to the general public, domestic violence victims, end users and the via Trustee Annual Report that the funds from the sale are in the control of the charity, yet on the other hand it actually suggests that the proceeds

@mentions 74.
From sales at the charity shop go to the donors (all the various businesses ran by various family members) on the word that half is then donated. From the information available online, I have not seen a single shred of evidence in the finances that there is capital donated.

@mentions 75.
More so, if it is indeed on the basis that proceeds from sales are actually returned to the donor, then I cannot help but find it suspicious that every single business is being reported as destitute and in debt with very little – if any – gross earnings.
The pattern that I

@mentions 76.
Have noticed among these all is a common cycle: business is started, business provides products for sale, business soars into substantial debt, accounts do not get filed, business is struck off and closed – then a new business opens and the cycle repeats itself.
Ding. Ding.

@mentions 77.
When members within Sistah Space talk of some of the products for sale, one word that I noticed often was ‘imported’. Now this is actually very common, but it equally means that money is going overseas which makes things much harder to trace (at least in my position).

@mentions 78.
In regards to the operation of the charity shop, I would very much like the to investigate whether charitable funds are being used in the pursuit of personal gain. I am not in possession of every transaction within the charity, but I can look at all the

@mentions 79.
The financial information available elsewhere (such as in the other businesses if available) and weigh everything up on circumstantial scale. Between the management of the businesses and the charity, when considered in the context of almost all persons are from the same

@mentions 80.
The same family, and all these businesses are dropping hundreds of thousands of debt on creditors to foot the bill, then I struggle to see where did the money go? Far, far too many red flags here and inconsistencies.

(I’m going to make a cup of tea, will resume in 3 mins)

@mentions 81.
(back with toast and jam, a hot cuppa and now the heating is on because Scotland is freezing cold right now – let’s resume)

Next on the agenda is the part I’ve been looking forward to talking about the most, the grants! Because this in fact is something we can look at in

@mentions 82.
More detail because it is public record. As with before, there will be some back and forth in this next section (as I try to explain various correlations and contradictions), but context is needed first. I will also be tagging those that have awarded the grant, and hopefully

@mentions 83.
Moving forward these places will be a bit more assertive when considering if what they are reading is logical and realistic, especially when they have already awarded multiple grants prior to the same charity.

I’m going to make an effort to keep this in chronological order

@mentions 84.
And hopefully that will make it easier to follow for the readers.

A quick overview, we can demonstrate that Sistah Space, between 26th March 2019 and 8th September 2021 received at least £194’498 in awarded grants alone. It is important to stress that grants does not include

@mentions 85.
Any funds raised through direct fundraising methods (donations from crowdfunding or directly from the public, etc).

There are 9 grants that we have data for, so let’s start at the beginning on 26th March 2019 Sistah Space was awarded a grant by (Greater London

@mentions 86.
Authority) for the sum of £12’000 to be used for peer research. The peer research commissioned by Sister Space is available online via Survey Monkey, where anyone and everyone can fill it in and Sistah Space is unable to verify any information provided to it.
I’m going to

@mentions 87.
Refrain from adding in the hyperlinks and such because if I start then I probably won’t be able to stop and this entire thread will end up looking like a hot mess.
But, it is available online if you search ‘sistah space survey monkey’ you will find it.
I read through the

@mentions 88.
Questions in this survey, and it is incredibly leading as opposed to being open. Personally, this is not how I would conduct a research study, but each to their own. If you want to manipulate data to get the outcome you want, then you do you, boo.

Considering that Sistah

@mentions 89.
Space utilised the free version of the survey, and considering that the extent of effort seemed to be little more than tweeting to the internet to complete the survey, I am totally baffled at how GLA could have possibly considered this task to be at a £12’000 cost.
It is at

@mentions 90.
At most 10 minutes of work. This research study would consume lesser time than it would take for me to have a shower on any given morning. Unless decision makers at GLA are knowingly awarding disproportionately higher figures to this charity, then otherwise we could assume

@mentions 91.
That this is the product of a charity that sells itself way beyond its book value. It is akin to pitching the sale of an Aston Martin, and turning up in a Ford hatchback – the two are clearly not the same.

The second grant dated 23rd January 2020was for £950 from

@mentions 92.
This grant was intended to be used for sewing classes. Now, on face value this seems reasonable, but sewing machines (multiple of them) were donated to the charity prior.
Before Sistah Space’s current website (we’ll come onto this later lol), the original website was created

@mentions 93.
By a woman called Izabela Jelonek. If you google ‘sistah space github’, you will find Izabela’s github for the original Sistah Space website. Github is open source, so it’s public domain and you can navigate through the website as it originally was.
On the original website it

@mentions 94.
Confirms that sewing classes were happening as early as 2016. Djanomi (Ngozi’s daughter who was referenced earlier) is named as the ‘teacher’/’seamstress’.

Now I could understand the grant is the product for these classes were to be procured by the Sistah Space, but if all

@mentions 95.
That we have seen so far is anything to go by, and you are suspecting that the benefit was not provided to the domestic violence victims, you’d be correct.

Sistah Space was charging domestic violence victims (the same group of people who are likely to be strapped for cash)

@mentions 96.
£5 per hour for a sewing class. And it gets better (or worse), those that attend the class are instructed to bring their own fabrics. Now given that fabrics are brought by attendees, and £5 per hour per person will most certainly cover costs for threads and electricity, and

@mentions 97.
The fact that Sistah Space was already in receipt of multiple sewing machines, it is difficult to understand what expense is the charity actually suffering here? Once again, the only beneficiary in this instance is the charity; not the victims or attendees, just the charity.

@mentions 98.
Now we move onto grant number three. This was a grant awarded to Sistah Space for £4’300 on 7th April 2020 from (the London Community Fund).
Remember that I’m listing these in chronological order, so if you have clicked onto the sequence here that is as confidence

@mentions 99.
Of the charity grows in regards to procuring grants, the higher the request will be.
Anyway, back to grant number three. £4’300 was awarded and to be used for the purchase of essential items such as toiletries, food and hygiene products.

Now, *if* Sistah Space had been

@mentions 100.
Providing all of these products to its service users for free (as the charity suffered no cost in obtaining them), then I would have no issue with this.

However, these are products that have been purchased with grant funds, which are then put into the charity shop. I have

@mentions 101.
Blown up several shots where these items are displayed with paper price tags onto them – the prices are not cheap, and on a purely speculative note, I worry that Sistah Space may try to project emotional guilt tripping to strongly encourage vulnerable persons to buy product.

@mentions 102.
Just to stress again, the latter is my speculation and my gut instinct. I make that opinion based on my judgment of the character integrity of this group that operate within Sistah Space (it is very, very low).
However, as before the only true beneficiary in this instance is

@mentions 103.
Sistah Space, not the domestic violence victims, not the service users, just the charity.
I strongly take a personal issue with the ethics on points like this, as I interpret this as the charity ultimately failing its charitable objective.
In reality, the charity operates as

@mentions 104.
If it were a for-profit capitalistic obsessive business. It is the kind of behaviour and attitude that I would expect to see from the likes of a payday loan company, but certainly not a not-for-profit charity, under any circumstances.

Let’s move onto grant number four.

@mentions 105.
Rolling in with grant number four for £22’500, this was awarded on 27th April 2020, again from (20 days after being awarded £4’300 for products).

This time, Sistah Space submitted a grant application stating that the funds were to be used to purchase x4 laptops,

@mentions 106.
x4 mobile phones, and x1 administrative assistant (clearly a reference to a salary). The grant application also stated that this would allow the charity to operate a 24 hour service.
First things first, if at least half of this grant was used for a salaried assistant, then

@mentions 107.
I’d be inclined to believe that the salary details in the financial report would need a closer look into.
I would also be incredibly interested to know if there is anyone at Sistah Space, outside of this family and the small key group, who have ever received any sort of

@mentions 108.
Training that would lead to any sort of qualification at any level. I have read a lot about training for Djanomi (Ngozi’s daughter) but nobody else.
Additionally, it would be interesting to discover whether this salaried assistant is a family member; nepotism is a noticeable

@mentions 109.
Theme throughout every single aspect of this charity and its operations.
I also cannot help but notice from multimedia that very often members of the charity are plodding around with macbooks. For the avoidance of any doubt, to any person that may be unfamiliar with the

@mentions 110.
Apple brand, it is a product that leans on the higher end scale in terms of price to value. For data entry and administrative tasks I wouldn’t expect to see macbooks for a charity that supposedly struggles so much it submits an endless stream of applications for grants.

@mentions 111.
Also – and this is important – pay attention and remember that in this grant the charity stated in the application the laptops and mobile phones would allow it to operate a 24 hour service with an online presence, we will be reflecting back on this later, a number of times.

@mentions 112.
Moving onto grant number five, which was for £9’800 from and this was awarded on 22nd May 2020. In the application for this grant, Sistah Space stated that it would allow the charity to transition to an online service for victims of domestic violence.
Now the way

@mentions 113.
This is worded would suggest that the charity does not have an online service prior to making this application. Perhaps the National Lottery Fund could have had more due diligence in vetting the information in the application, but if they were to trust it on face value then

@mentions 114.
This cost is on the upper scale but it’s not unreasonable *if* (big if) the transition to establishing an online presence and service was being done on a custom basis and from scratch.

Now this is when we will be doing some hopping about, if you have been reading this from

@mentions 115.
The very beginning (quick hello to you, because I’ve been sat for hours typing this lol), then you may recall earlier when we discussed the original Sistah Space website which is still accessible via Izabela Jelonek’s github (as a reminder, if you google search ‘sistah space

@mentions 116.
github’ then you will find it). Sistah Space already had an online presence, on a website with a customised code (I’ll reflect on this point later too, so keep that in mind). It has had the website since at least 2016 if not earlier (as we can see from various notices on it)

@mentions 117.
So this grant for £9’800 has absolutely nothing to show for it. Not a single thing. So what I would very much like to know is what was this money used for.
Let’s rewind back to the Trustee Annual Reports again for a moment, and within these reports there is typically a

@mentions 118.
Statement of some sort to give a general idea of the charities future plans. Time and time again, this is dominated by the single subject of purchasing a London property. Sistah Space claims to have some money aside to purchase a property in London, after they spent even

@mentions 119.
More effort once again harassing , with the assistance of to lobby on their behalf, pushing for extremely favourable conditions that would be de facto exclusionary to every other domestic violence unit in the Hackney area.
My speculation is that

@mentions 120.
Sistah Space has been ringfencing money from grants that have been awarded to the charity, on the grounds of purposefully misleading information to improve chances of securing more funding. I stress again that this is my speculation, based on what is available to my eyes but

@mentions 121.
I very much suspect it is a very real possibility this is happening and the ought to be diving into the management and operations of Sistah Space to minimise, what in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster that will significantly damage confidence in both the

@mentions 122.
Commission as the regulator, and confidence in charities in general with the public.

At this point I would also like to stress, in all the grants so far (remember we’re doing them in chronological order on this thread), not once has there ever been mention of a property.

@mentions 123.
Moving on to grant number six, and this is one that is highly relevant today. The sixth grant Sistah Space was awarded was for £32’948 on 11th August 2020. This grant was awarded by none other than our very own , Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

@mentions 124.
The purpose of this grant of course was to relieve pressure on public services (bless the NHS), and to ensure that charities and business has the financial resources to continue operating.
This grant in particular irks me up the wrong way, because it requires good faith on

@mentions 125.
Part of the applicant that they are in genuine need of emergency funding to survive. Through a multitude of reasons and in light of the speed at which things were moving, we lost billions to fraud during the pandemic which we all, as taxpayers, have to make up the shortfall.

@mentions 126.
Now I am very much aware that this is not an isolated issue restricted to just one organisation, it was a widespread problem. However, I am reserving my right to treat them all with equal disdain and disgust; and I make no apology for that because this was committed by those

@mentions 127.
Who preyed on the system at a vulnerable point, and any opportunity to recover lost monies through the pandemic I am of the opinion that it should be seized upon. That’s just my personal opinion, others may disagree and that’s okay. Sistah Space in this accounting year had

@mentions 128.
A surplus (profit) that was larger than its liabilities (expenses). You would be forgiven for asking at this point why on earth Sistah Space was continuing to submit applications for grants:- I am asking the same question.
Some people may think that Sistah Space had a lot of

@mentions 129.
Expenses to cover during the pandemic, but (for those that don’t recall):
Sistah Space’s premises was rent-free since December 2019; grants were provided for electronics, a new employee, food, hygiene products, skincare products, haircare products, etc.
So once again, I’m at

@mentions 130.
A total loss as to what expenses this charity was supposedly having to deal with. Where did all this money go when so many freebies were provided?

Let’s move onto grant number seven. This was for an award of £40’000 from Greater London Authority on 1st December 2020. This

@mentions 131.
Grant does not have much information attached to it. Curiously, it is listed under a different name (Royal Dock) though the same charity registration number. I haven’t fully explored this one yet, as it is an outlier, so I’m going to move on and not make any judgment here.

@mentions 132.
So, grant number eight. This time coming from (yet again) for £12’000 awarded on 22nd December 2020. The application for this grant detailed how it would be used to purchase more essential products: food, hygiene products, skin care, hair care, etc.
Additionally

@mentions 133.
Sistah Space stated that part of the grant would be used to cover the salary of another part-time domestic abuse advisor.
This will be the second time recruitment has been brought up in grant applications; as before, I am curious to know whether even just one of these

@mentions 134.
Salaried positions is filled by anyone outside of the family or the key circle members. Still to this day the only advisors I have seen reference to other than Ngozi is Rosanne Lewis (of many names) and Djanomi (Ngozi’s daughter, also of many names).

Next, we come onto my

@mentions 135.
Personal favourite which I have been so annoyed by since I found out about it lol.

Grant number nine was awarded by (a charity that I very much like) and it was for the amount of a whopping £60’000 awarded on 8th September 2021.
This grant I am going to go into

@mentions 136.
Quite a bit more detail because I want to demonstrate precisely how this was an utter and complete fraud and I hope that pays attention to this part if not anything else. I also hope that Comic Relief pay attention here, too.

Before I resume writing about

@mentions 137.
This grant in particular, I need to bring up a lot of documents and tabs, because I will be tagging relevant persons due to the sizeable amount of money involved here.
But I need to pour another cuppa and stretch the legs, so I will resume typing in around 10 mins (ish).

@mentions 138.
Showered and freshened up. Another cuppa by my side. Let’s continue. (apologies for the long wait)

The details on this grant is so wild that I’m genuinely struggling where to even begin explaining it. Anyway, let’s start with what the application to Comic Relief stated, as

@mentions 139.
This application is one that we can see the submission by Sistah Space.
Sistah Space made a number of claims, and it splits into three areas:
(1) the charity claimed that its core user group is in the 40-86 age range and that part of the grant would be used to teach the

@mentions 140.
To teach the people of an older age how to navigate around the internet, make use of online banking, etc.
(2) the charity claimed to Comic Relief that if it was awarded the grant for the sum of £60’000 then this would increase the outreach of Sistah Space by at least 60%

@mentions 141.
However there is no citation to support such a claim; there are no details of any study commissioned by Sistah Space that even touched on the subject.
Remember, Sistah Space utilises Survey Monkey (the free version) to conduct all its research thus far, and all of these are

@mentions 142.
Still available online as you are reading this tweet. You can even complete the survey and submit your results, as they are all still live (despite being claimed on the website it ceased in 2020/2021).
I have looked long and hard for any evidence or even a mention of a study

@mentions 143.
That focuses on outreach potential; at this point I am confident enough to state that it does not exist. I am also confident to state that this is a random number plucked out of thin air, as there is precedent for this to happen elsewhere. At the start of this thread I

@mentions 144.
Explained how made the claim in the that Sistah Space saw a 300% increase in service demand. I also earlier wrote that this figure is present in a Trustee Annual Return.
During a virtual meeting on 27th January 2021, Ngozi

@mentions 145.
Fulani attended this meeting and stated that Sistah Space has seen a 500% increase in service demand (that would mean a 200% jump in a single month).

Elsewhere in the Trustee Annual Reports, Sistah Space stated that its staff members halved and it’s workload doubled. Given

@mentions 146.
That Sistah Space has thus far opted to talk in percentiles, I shall translate: Sistah Space claimed that service demand increased 200%, and staff availability decreased 50%.

We have very different figures – 500%, 300%, 200% – all referencing service demand around the same

@mentions 147.
Period, and coincidentally and strangely, they always seem to round off to perfectly whole figures. For that to happen on all three occasions, since we’re on the topic of statistics, is nigh impossible.

But for a moment let’s roll with it. Let’s pretend that these figures

@mentions 148.
Are correct and let’s take the middle ground of 325%.
If you recall to earlier in this thread, I made a point on referencing the staggering increase in admin costs, which was a year on year increase of 4703% (note how I didn’t land on a perfectly whole number lol).
Even if

@mentions 149.
The service demand increase figures were true (to be clear, they are not but let’s pretend so otherwise), then it would still not correlate anywhere near a 4703% increase in admin expenses.

Furthermore, Sistah Space expressly stated that they had to suspend taking on new

@mentions 150.
Cases and only work with the existing cases. That is put on record by Sistah Space to the and I am glad that I clocked it.
If the charity was not taking on new cases, in what world is it possible for service demand to increase and expenses to soar?
The issue

@mentions 151.
With lies and dirty accounts, is that if you’re going to attempt to try and pull it off, you have to have every single last detail and digit absolutely pristine otherwise it all falls in on itself. That is what is happening here, unfortunately.

Now let’s move onto the

@mentions 152.
Third point.
(3) Sistah Space has put a high price tag on the cost of a new website. Once again, the application is written to imply that a website is not suitable, but I will come onto this in a moment because this is an area I am in a position to understand well.

@mentions 153.
Now before I go further here, I want to explain that I have previously reached out to a very small number of people that were involved, in some way or another, in anything Sistah Space could reasonably claim an expense on. This includes the new Sistah Space website which is

@mentions 154.
Currently live right now.
On the footer on this website, you will see that it is credited to the work of a business called Lex Designs London Ltd. My understanding is that this is a sole director limited company, and I spent some time watching some of her social media videos

@mentions 155.
Where she showed herself working on the PC and the applications. The reason I watched them is because I am extremely familiar with a lot of the Adobe Creative Commons apps.
I sent a private message to over instagram, briefly explaining why I was contacting

@mentions 156.
And presenting the question if her business was commissioned to the tune of £60’000 or around that figure to build a website.
I explained to Alexandra that the reason I was asking was to source more information for a better understanding, and the business that put its name

@mentions 157.
Against the work seemed like a sensible route to take.
Alexandra declined to comment, which is fine as it doesn’t necessarily alter the detail I will go into next.

In the world of website creation, for a custom built website with some fancy features to a personalised

@mentions 158.
Specification, you’re probably talking upwards of around £4’000 depending on the complexity of the work involved and amount of code required.

However Alexandra is a graphic artist – from what I have seen she is at an amateur level of digital art (I’m making that opinion on

@mentions 159.
The basis of professional work). In videos Alexandra has posted, I can see that she uses AI (adobe illustrator) and PS (adobe photoshop). Both very common run of the mill applications for any graphic designer, as expected.

However, her knowledge is somewhat limited as she

@mentions 160.
Relies on licenced templates. The idea is that you purchase the licence, you then download the template, open it up in the application and all the layers are pre-set where you can then edit the graphic to suit your need. There’s nothing wrong with this, but it is typically

@mentions 161.
A method employed by those who are at an amateur level which is rather common in those that are self-taught. (props for being self-taught in the first place though – I wanted to say something positive because it feels like I’m being negative when that’s not the point).

@mentions 162.
Anyway, so we’ve established that Alexandra can tamper with graphic design to a satisfactory level, but I would not regard it at a high end professional level (keep going Alexandra, you’ll eventually get there).

However, Alexandra is most certainly not a coder. That I can

@mentions 163.
Outright demonstrate by pointing any one of you in the direction of pulling up the page source code on the Sistah Space website, and you will see the assets (multimedia files, pictures, etc) are all stored on Square Space servers.

What is Square Space? Well, if you’ve seen

@mentions 164.
TV adverts for ‘Wix’ where it shows you how you can easily build your own website utilising the *extremely* beginner-friendly templates, then Square Space is in effect the same thing. Similar to that of WordPress templates, it is website creation for those with zero coding

@mentions 165.
Experience or knowledge.
I just want to reiterate that there’s not actually anything wrong with these platforms, they are fantastic options for those who are not positioned to write their own code, but hell will freeze over before anyone sells a Square Space website for £60k

@mentions 166.
More so, just to reiterate my point, Lex Designs London’s own website is built on the Wix platform.

If you are a website creator/coder however you fashion it, your website, particularly your landing page, is by far your biggest sales tool. It is your chance to brag with

@mentions 167.
With every trick you know. Getting the right colour palette, balance of text and infographics, user interface, UX, platform responsiveness (mobile, laptop, tablet, etc). So much goes into that advertisement in of itself.

I can categorically tell you, nobody pitching custom

@mentions 168.
Built websites would be seen alive with a freebie template. It just doesn’t happen.😂

Now there is a cost for Square Space, for the hosting, however you can navigate to Square Space’s website and see the prices for yourself. It is very cheap and very reasonable, especially

@mentions 169.
If you are utilising a package that comes with e-commerce solutions (online payments) as that saves you the trouble of having to set up an account with a merchant bank and payment processing company, so on so forth.

Sistah Space’s new website is in fact actually a technical

@mentions 170.
Downgrade on what they had originally.
Though I will secede, that the new website is more aesthetically pleasing. But on technical input, the original website wins hands down.

To put this into perspective, you could go onto Fiverr and easily find anyone who would do the

@mentions 171.
The exact same job for $5. It is super quick, super easy, does not take a lot of time at all and that’s why people price it so cheaply because it is easy money. Consequentially, it is also why so many offer template installation services.

So I’m rewinding back a little to

@mentions 172.
This grant for £60’000.

Where did this money go and what has it been used for?
To get an answer to that question, we would really need the to do what any responsible regulator would do and investigate it.
I would have liked to been able to trust Sistah Space

@mentions 173.
However, with all that I have chosen to share thus far, I believe I’ve explained in a concise and clear manner (as far as I reasonably could) why that option is untenable.

I also want to take a moment to express that I am not in favour of hurling abuse at anyone. I started

@mentions 174.
My investigation into Sistah Space as a stranger, and I intend to complete it as a stranger.

BUT there is one thing I would *greatly* appreciate, is if you would take a moment to report concerns to the , because these concerns are valid and need addressed.

@mentions 175.
If you’ve made it this far, then thank you for reading! I’m coming to the end of what has been 8 hours of me typing out this entire thread.

I hope that the length it has taken me to type this out conveys how much more I spent researching.
I would like to see all concerns

@mentions 176.
Addressed, because I think domestic abuse charities do great work. I do not want mismanagement of one charity destroying confidence in an entire sector.

As for Sistah Space, if you are reading this. I said very early on in this thread that my concerns have absolutely

@mentions END.