Linda Riley

1
Griftymcgriftface said:
Do you have links to the mortgage fraud? What did he do? Scheme abuse or false documentation?
Click to expand...
No idea about the details but I’m sure you probably could find more about the case by googling other people involved - he seems to have been small fry in it .
IMG_1175.jpeg
IMG_1174.jpeg
 
heretoreaditall2019 said:
I’m not defending her but re the £1mil house I can’t help but wonder if this was one of the ill gotten gains of right to buy so not old posh money just very lucky money. A lot of normal then working class families have ended up with net worths in the millions thanks to RTB and the intergenerational wealth transfers that came from that. Where it becomes disingenuous to still claim a working class identity is like… willingly or actively or not you’ve profiteered from the shafting of a whole class/generation and erosion of public housing stock so you can’t pretend you’re now on the losing side for clout and media opportunities. Obvs that doesn’t change your childhood experiences or world view and there are always parts of middle classness that evade or challenge upwardly mobile ppl but talk on that, don’t talk publicly on the WC and/or growing up skint experience when that’s not the reality for you and hasn’t been for a very long time. Let women raising kids or just trying to live in that situ now - in an economy SO much worse with appalling housing stock - have this airtime. hope this makes sense and wasn’t just a ramble.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I read an interview with her claiming a working-class, single Mum of Armenian descent bringing up a heap of kids (Linda and her sibs) on an estate somewhere
in London.
 
stunrw said:
I read that as “inserted lesbian visability” 😳
Click to expand...

I read it as 'inverted lesbian' which seemed totally correct to me... :O
---
foxy99 said:
So I have a question. Linda recently posted that she was “misgendered” several times a few days ago at a dinner and outed the restaurant for doing so. I don’t want to come across as GC, I’m genuinely unsure because I feel like this would be such a tricky topic to broach!

If you saw someone that is a woman but is ‘male presenting’ (in terms of how they dress, mannerisms etc.) I can see from the waiters/waitresses’ perspective that they’d use ‘sir’ or male terms to address Linda (without knowing her name etc.) But Linda was really upset by this and I totally understand why, particularly as she didn’t receive an apology.

However, as an ignorant cishet person, how on earth would they know how to best address Linda in that situation so’s not to cause any offence/harm? From my POV, it sounds like they were trying to do the right and respectful thing by respecting the way Linda presented herself but just got it wrong on this occasion. Not sure if it warranted ‘outing’ the restaurant (but perhaps with corrections and a lack of subsequent apology, it did?). Or was it a bit of an OTT reaction from Linda? V. happy to be educated here but this one has made me feel a bit uncomfy!
Click to expand...

IMO, high conflict people are unpleasant no matter what their shtick is. They also seem to be the exact same people who operate all day everyday looking to take offence, interacting with an air of indignant annoyance in all interactions, and being generally oneupmanshipping, argumentative, aloof, and fault finding (aka Narc). Linda presents masculine and butch. If she's going to do some faux niave shock just to be offended and make a thing of it then she's just doing what narcs do. If she's genuinely shook that someone mistook her for a bloke then she's delusional and should get some help cos she does look, present, and dress, like a bloke. I appreciate she's trying to be butch not a bloke but most of the butches I know very much enjoy being mistaken for men (on looks alone).
 
Last edited:
Dr.CM said:
I read it as 'inverted lesbian' which seemed totally correct to me... :O
---


IMO, high conflict people are unpleasant no matter what their shtick is. They also seem to be the exact same people who operate all day everyday looking to take offence, interacting with an air of indignant annoyance in all interactions, and being generally oneupmanshipping, argumentative, aloof, and fault finding (aka Narc). Linda presents masculine and butch. If she's going to do some faux niave shock just to be offended and make a thing of it then she's just doing what narcs do. If she's genuinely shook that someone mistook her for a bloke then she's delusional and should get some help cos she does look, present, and dress, like a bloke. I appreciate she's trying to be butch not a bloke but most of the butches I know very much enjoy being mistaken for men (on looks alone).
Click to expand...
I thought her annoyance was that she was misgendered repeatedly, even when she had informed them she was female. if I’d accidentally misgendered someone at work, I’d discreetly let my colleagues know that the butch person on the table had confirmed they used her/she pronouns so that they could avoid making the same assumption I did - not only so as not to cause offence to the customer but also to prevent my colleagues getting in trouble, or the restaurant being called out on social media .

Im not a particularly feminine woman and being misgendered can suck at times. If it’s a genuine mistake , fair enough but when it’s repeated and repeated, it can be pretty intimidating. of the butch people I know, the only one who likes being mistaken for a man is genderfluid/nonbinary- the others very much want to be views as butch women not trans men.

I’m not sure I agree with you that she should expect to be misgendered if she wears masculine clothing though- it sounds a bit victim shaming imo ( not saying she’s a victim- I get why she was annoyed but she could have had a word with the manager on the night rather than try to smear them as homophobic/discriminatory on social media)

I wonder if aggy John has managed to evict his brother yet, or if there will be another round of family lawsuits soon
 
BubbleDuck said:
I thought her annoyance was that she was misgendered repeatedly, even when she had informed them she was female. if I’d accidentally misgendered someone at work, I’d discreetly let my colleagues know that the butch person on the table had confirmed they used her/she pronouns so that they could avoid making the same assumption I did - not only so as not to cause offence to the customer but also to prevent my colleagues getting in trouble, or the restaurant being called out on social media .

Im not a particularly feminine woman and being misgendered can suck at times. If it’s a genuine mistake , fair enough but when it’s repeated and repeated, it can be pretty intimidating. of the butch people I know, the only one who likes being mistaken for a man is genderfluid/nonbinary- the others very much want to be views as butch women not trans men.

I’m not sure I agree with you that she should expect to be misgendered if she wears masculine clothing though- it sounds a bit victim shaming imo ( not saying she’s a victim- I get why she was annoyed but she could have had a word with the manager on the night rather than try to smear them as homophobic/discriminatory on social media)

I wonder if aggy John has managed to evict his brother yet, or if there will be another round of family lawsuits soon
Click to expand...

I think she was annoyed they didn’t apologise for misgendering her which is fair enough.

I do think you have to accept it’s an occupational hazard of wearing masculine clothing and presenting with a masculine hairstyle though. Should it be? Probably not, but with the way people default to make or female at the moment, it is - in the same way wandering through certain areas in the middle of the night wearing a rolex makes you more of a target for mugging and leaving your front door open makes you more likely to be burgled, realistically presenting with a stereotypical masculine look makes you more likely to be accidentally misgendered and I don’t think it’s victim blaming to say that.
 
CabalofBolorneaise said:
I think she was annoyed they didn’t apologise for misgendering her which is fair enough.

I do think you have to accept it’s an occupational hazard of wearing masculine clothing and presenting with a masculine hairstyle though. Should it be? Probably not, but with the way people default to make or female at the moment, it is - in the same way wandering through certain areas in the middle of the night wearing a rolex makes you more of a target for mugging and leaving your front door open makes you more likely to be burgled, realistically presenting with a stereotypical masculine look makes you more likely to be accidentally misgendered and I don’t think it’s victim blaming to say that.
Click to expand...
But if someone got robbed while walking home , and was upset about it, most people’s response wouldn’t be that they were delusional or a narc for getting upset . That’s what read as shaming to me - yes , because Linda chooses masculinity clothing, has short hair and quite butch features, she’s more likely to be misgendered than someone like Jack, but it doesn’t mean she’s not entitled to be frustrated after it’s happened from 3 different people, who presumably have heard her speak. If we met in a toilet and you challenged me if I was in the right one , I said to yes, you said oh sorry, I said no problem, that would be an occupational hazard. If the two people you were with then proceeded to ask me the same, and when I got understandably annoyed and called the last one out , I was told I was delusional if I thought people wouldn’t think I was a man , it’s more than just a reasonable hazard imo.
 
I’ve just realised that Big Lin was a director / trustee of Eaves Housing for Women very shortly before the charity went completely down the toilet.

this was after my association with Eaves ended
🔺and I had no idea she’d ever been involved.

it probably wasn’t her fault as the charity seemed to be a toxic shitshow for some time before it croaked, but it’s not a great thing to have on the CV.
---
Most of the staff at Eaves would have absolutely reviled the Ripper Museum. The charity had a particular political take and did not, when I was in contact with it, use the term “sex worker”, for instance.
 
Last edited:
Livia Fantasy said:
I'll have to do some digging to remember who it was, but someone last year who was a bit of a goady gobshite - one of those campaigners that hasn't realised that being a titanic twit to everyone and everything doesn't actually earn you much support - went on a rant to a restaurant about allegedly being misgendered, and also having a staff member point them to the gents loos not the ladies (or other way round, whatever).

Restaurant replied on hellsite with sympathies, but suggested that they actually didn't have a booking for that date.

hole countered back with "I came with friends and I wont give their name out publically"

Restaurant then pointed out "no, no one had a table that night, we've been closed for 3 weeks for refurbishment"

I MUST MUST MUST find this. Was just after the last lockdown.
Click to expand...
Restaurant then pointed out "no, no one had a table that night, we've been closed for 3 weeks for refurbishment"

Bliddy JOYOUS!

Showed those @rseholes up for what they were.
---
VeniVidiVicki said:
The brass neck of her going to the US and pretending she invented Lesbian Visibility Week when she did nothing of the kind and it was invented in Los Angeles
Click to expand...
How very dare you!

I'm sure she must have thrown the first lesbian at Stonewall, or something.
---
Griftymcgriftface said:
I’ve been looking at the legal case and I find the articles very confusing, but it is clear that she comes from a very rich family background. I don’t quite understand who is who and why the brother needs to be evicted from the property if the money comes in from the museum
Click to expand...
Especially as it seems to have cost twice as much to evict him as the house appears to be valued at.

Griftymcgriftface said:
I got confused by one brother having a different surname. And also the house appears to be in her name or at lesst was at the point of purchase so unsure why the brother can’t live there!
Click to expand...
Also this - surely if the house is in one person'd name, then they get the say-so.
BubbleDuck said:
TLDR - the house belongs to Aggy and his wife through the museum , but is held in trust by Linda as it her name on the mortgage . Linda has no legal right to allow people to live there without express permission of Aggy and wife . Money to open museum was mainly Aggy’s profits from the mortgage fraud he ended up in jail from and investment from his Mum through loans and stuff . They do not appear to have come from a wealthy family .


From what I can understand house was bought by Linda , on behalf of her mum who presumably was too old to get a mortgage .The museum was used to secure the mortgage - at this point Linda was a director and Aggy brother may have still been in jail or had been relatively recently released ( because of his involvement in mortgage fraud , his profits from which had partly funded the opening of the museum, alongside funding from mum, Linda and sister ). The informal family agreement was that Linda paid the mortgage payments, while her Mum paid her rent . The money from the rent came from museum takings . More loans were taken out against the museum which were used to refurbish the new house , including turning the top half into a unit in which the younger brother ( who has mental health and addiction issues , and at the time was living in a damp flat of his own ) was invited to live in . Some of the money got from the loans was also used to put back into the museum. At some point a storage unit was built at the property to hold gift shop stock , and the house was used as the head office/registered address for the museum. Takings from the museum were routinely taken to the house to be counted, banked , given to family members etc . The first bout of legal action came from Aggy John accusing his siblings of misappropriating some of that money . They retaliated alongside their mum, accusing him of misappropriating museum funds ( because at that point he was director of any of the various ventures associated with the museum and was acting as if he was) and of trying to take control of the business. Linda also tried to sue him to get his house he lived in, which like mums house, was under her name on the mortgage but the repayments came from company funds .The result of that was that Aggy was told to give his sisters 1 million each, to repay mortgage payments he owed to Linda ( the museum funds had been frozen when legal action started) and to take over the mortgages of both his house and the house his mum lived in as soon as possible because it was deemed by the judge that those properties were funded by the museum and been used for museum purposes which meant they were assets held on behalf of the museum. an agreement was made that mum would continue to live there . Aggy says Linda had said she would use some of her settlement to buy a new property for the vulnerable brother - Linda says this was an option that was brought up when she was asking for a £4 mil settlement and that when it became clear she wouldn’t be getting that amount had told Aggy he’d have to talk to vulnerable brother about sorting their own arrangements. Linda was made a trustee for the house , with the museum parent company being the beneficial owner . Importantly the trust deeds do not mention mum or brothers right to live in the house but it does say that Linda has no right to use the house or allow others to stay in the house without the explicit permission of Rollerteam ( aka Aggy and his wife). Another important fact is that Aggy got Linda to become a trustee without her having legal advice.

A few years before mum died , Aggy tried to get both his aunt ( who was now living there too and helping care for mum) and brother , claiming that they had no right to be there . Linda retaliated by saying the trust was null and void because she hadn’t been paid back for the mortgage as agreed, and tried to get Aggy and wife evicted from their house ( in Linda’s name held in trust for the benefit of the museum. Aggy claimed he didn’t have to pay her back because she had broken the clause of the trust by allowing for aunt and brother to live there without permission.

once mum died, Aggy instructed Linda that they were in a position to repay her in full for the house mum lived in, and to agree to the transfer of the house back to them . Linda agreed initially but then refused because she was told they required a tenant free transfer . All the legal action since then has basically been about that - conclusions were - does Linda have a legal responsibility to transfer the house free of tenants ( no) , do the people living there have permission of the museum to do so ( also no).
so the latest trial has been Aggy trying to evict his brother , because that’s what’s stopping Linda agreeing to the transfer . Aggy also appears to be in some financial trouble
View attachment 2182520 q
Click to expand...
Hell's bliddy bells.

It doesn't looks though any of them have anything to brag about - the only apparently innocent party seems tore the vulnerable brother - the rest appear to be a load of rogues cross-suing each other for something initially probably bought with the proceeds of a fraud anyway - or have I misunderstood that bit? I am a Bear Of Very Little Brain, and frankly, my head hurts
 
Last edited:
TheMiceInTheShed said:
Restaurant then pointed out "no, no one had a table that night, we've been closed for 3 weeks for refurbishment"

Bliddy JOYOUS!

Showed those @rseholes up for what they were.
---

How very dare you!

I'm sure she must have thrown the first lesbian at Stonewall, or something.
---

Especially as it seems to have cost twice as much to evict him as the house appears to be valued at.


Also this - surely if the house is in one person'd name, then they get the say-so.

Hell's bliddy bells.

It doesn't looks though any of them have anything to brag about - the only apparently innocent party seems tore the vulnerable brother - the rest appear to be a load of rogues cross-suing each other for something initially probably bought with the proceeds of a fraud anyway - or have I misunderstood that bit? I am a Bear Of Very Little Brain, and frankly, my head hurts
Click to expand...
I know it is early but can we hurry up and finish this thread to have this as a title - I'm sure she must have thrown the first lesbian at Stonewall, or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top