Rekha Patel loses her house

[Hercule Parrot]

Rekha Patel was fined £1,076 and has a criminal conviction for Obstructing a Court Enforcement Officer.

“Conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute” should be judged by a panel in a similar way. Misconduct outside of the education setting may be considered to be relevant if it is serious and the conduct displayed would likely have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public’s perception of them, therefore bringing the profession into disrepute

Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers
Advice on factors relating to decisions leading to the prohibition of teachers from the teaching profession
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... n_2016.pdf

[Footloose52]

I can already hear the cries, a la Carry On films, of "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!" when this clause is used:

Criminal convictions:
If there has been a conviction, at any time, of a criminal offence, the hearing will not re-examine the facts of the case and the panel will accept the conviction as conclusive proof that establishes relevant facts.

[exiledscouser]

Well done He Who Knows, now we knows too. There has been criticism, rightly or wrongly over speculation in this thread. I think folk are entitled to their own opinions and Mods will weed anything over the mark but I like Q for the underlying reliance on facts supported by evidence.

Others who don’t contribute regularly read this site including, if they would but admit it, those being commented on. It’s important to remain relatively objective and be able to back up assertions with some sensible corroboration (not troof), so far as the facts can be ascertained.

The Rekha gang haven’t reported this outcome, some might say they are suppressing facts not supporting their narrative. That’s for them but I like that posters here are mostly fair and objective. He Who Knows has my thanks.

[notorial dissent]

In Wrekha and crew's case I think it is more of an eyes closed, fingers in ears, loudly humming hoping/pretending it will all go away. In other words, D E N I A L.

[He Who Knows]

Looks like Wrecka and co-accused didn't turn up after all. Neither did Ken Thompson. No spells, no chaos. Bit of a damp squib really.
https://glossopchronicle.com/2017/11/si ... -officers/

[Burnaby49]

I still find it amazing. She's heading towards middle age dead broke, lost her house, and probably on the way to losing her job. All over some roofing stones.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I still find it amazing. She's heading towards middle age dead broke, lost her house, and probably on the way to losing her job. All over some roofing stones.

It isn't the roofing stones (Thackstones) it's her attitude that she can do what she likes, which you really can't in England with a listed building*. If it wasn't the thackstones it would be something else like parking or some other building work or suing her employer or a string of motoring offences. She's right and everyone else is wrong.

(* This http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/ ... ame=164542 hasn't been done yet (well it wasn't as of a couple of months ago when I had a look) but note you need planning permission just to put right the damage.)

[The Seventh String]

I would suspect that her current employers will now take a dim view of someone who's been convicted, fined, is of no fixed abode, has been on sick leave for months & necessitated the costly provision of a supply teacher. Anyone know how patient an educational establishment has to be?

That lack of an address and the manner of her loss of job should give her difficulties in obtaining benefits.

It’s possible to claim social security benefits even if you’re sleeping on the streets.

Entitlement to benefits claimed in connection with being too ill to work or because of disability isn’t in any way affected by how you left your last job. Other than leaving employment because of ill health might itself be an indication that you’re entitled to them.

To claim benefits as unemployed the law says you need to be fit for work and actively seeking work. Someone who is accepted as medically unfit for work can not legally be paid unemployment benefits. If in order to get a benefit the claimant says they’re fit and they’re not, technically that’s benefit fraud.

Someone too ill to work gets put through an entirely different regime for an entirely different benefit, Employment and Support Allowance. And maybe Personal Indepedence Payments (was DLA) as well, though that’s connected to disability and can be paid to working people. Neither are easy to claim and have some very tough health/disability conditions indeed attached to them.

[notorial dissent]

I still find it amazing. She's heading towards middle age dead broke, lost her house, and probably on the way to losing her job. All over some roofing stones.

It isn't the roofing stones (Thackstones) it's her attitude that she can do what she likes, which you really can't in England with a listed building*. If it wasn't the thackstones it would be something else like parking or some other building work or suing her employer or a string of motoring offences. She's right and everyone else is wrong.

(* This http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/ ... ame=164542 hasn't been done yet (well it wasn't as of a couple of months ago when I had a look) but note you need planning permission just to put right the damage.)

Arthur, you are entirely right, although I would like to contemplate that the Thackstones of Doom helped her along, but yes in the final analysis, it was basically her privileged you're not the boss of me she knows better than everyone else incredibly cheap nature that really did it and did her in, the stones were just the conduit. The thing is, she hasn't changed one jot, not one jot. The way she is going she must really want to sample HM prisons for a bit, on the other hand while it will alleviate her homeless issues, I don't except the Princess will find the adoration and respect she craves there either.

[He Who Knows]

It hasn't been a great week for Rekha Patel. Not only has she collected a criminal record and £1,000 fine from Stockport Mags, but she's also been barred for 2 years from taking her neighbour to court. Word on the ground has it that she was in Manchester Civil Court on Thursday for the fourth time in November (making a total of 5 court appearances last month including the criminal hearing). Her case against the neighbour, Derbyshire Constabulary and the High Court Enforcement group got thrown out (not for the first time) and she was given a Civil Restraint Order by the weary judge.

Exiled Scouser wrote: I see the same sort of simmering obsessional resentment in Neelu and her gang as was evident within the likes of Thomas Mair who murdered the MP Jo Cox. To hold characters like Mahajan up as a poster boy only serves to confirm this.

I see the same simmering obsessional resentment in Wrecka that Exiled Scouser sees in Neelu Berry and Thomas Mair, and sadly I don't think a CRO will make a blind bit of difference to her.

[notorial dissent]

She hasn't shown a lick of sense so far, so I expect it is not to be looked for, or for her to develop any, and having lost on ALL fronts she is not in a good place at all I should say.

[BoomerSooner17]

This would be a good time for her to cut her losses; the problem being that doing so requires her to recognize that she lost.

[Wakeman52]

This http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/ ... ame=164542 hasn't been done yet (well it wasn't as of a couple of months ago when I had a look) but note you need planning permission just to put right the damage.

Grade II listed buildings require lots of TLC.

It looks as though that application was withdrawn (by the neighbour?) not long after it was submitted. I'm guessing that was because Ms P would have had to grant some access!

Her case against the neighbour, Derbyshire Constabulary and the High Court Enforcement group got thrown out (not for the first time) and she was given a Civil Restraint Order by the weary judge.

Does this include a prohibition on her ability to be in the area? That was an earlier condition set at one of the other hearings (Manchester Magistrates?); her ambition to clear the house could be thwarted..

[daltontrumbno]

This http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/ ... ame=164542 hasn't been done yet (well it wasn't as of a couple of months ago when I had a look) but note you need planning permission just to put right the damage.

Grade II listed buildings require lots of TLC.

It looks as though that application was withdrawn (by the neighbour?) not long after it was submitted. I'm guessing that was because Ms P would have had to grant some access!

Her case against the neighbour, Derbyshire Constabulary and the High Court Enforcement group got thrown out (not for the first time) and she was given a Civil Restraint Order by the weary judge.

Does this include a prohibition on her ability to be in the area? That was an earlier condition set at one of the other hearings (Manchester Magistrates?); her ambition to clear the house could be thwarted..

No her CRO only prevents her from filing anymore cases in regards to her former residence. If she had been given a exclusion order it would have been a condition of her sentence in her criminal case, and as far as we know as yet there were no additional conditions to her sentence other than the fine and costs.

[Wakeman52]

Thanks. I was thinking of Tom C's case. It wouldn't have surprised me, given that her behaviour to date leads one to conceive that she might not leave the eventual purchaser of Hanover Cottage in peace.

[Bungle]

Rekha has other things on her mind at the moment....she wants the Ministry of Justice to waste their time responding to this Freedom of Information request. She's not too happy with their response !!!


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ng-1079798

A – Provide the date when all the recorded information for the case ref. 1IR69558 allegedly issued by the administration staff of the County Court at Stockport was stored in your secure data centre system managed by the MoJ Technology directorate and confirm that you have all the data content in the computerised court records of the case.

B - Confirm that all the recorded information contained in the computerised court record for the County Court case ref. 1IR69558 of was directly transferred to the MoJ by the administration of the originating County Court who recorded it on to Caseman system, provide the date when the data was first transferred to the caseman databse and confirm that all the data is now controlled by the MoJ Technology directorate.

C – Confirm that all the recorded information relevant to the County Court case ref. no: 1IR69558 is in possession of the Information Asset Owner (IAO) in charge as a member of the MoJ Operational Directorate as part of all the data held, relating to all civil court proceedings under the direct control of the Ministry of Justice.

She has a few more as well:

And there’s a lot more here

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/rekhaben

[Bungle]

Rekha has other things on her mind at the moment....she wants the Ministry of Justice to waste their time responding to this Freedom of Information request. She's not too happy with their response !!!


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ng-1079798

Its funny how her FOI request bears an uncanny resemblance to the ones made by Liz Watson.....and Mr Ebert.


Liz Watson
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ng-1080031


Mr Ebert
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ng-1079891

[He Who Knows]

Rekha Patel wrote: I am very surprised by the content of your response which is not in compliance with the law.
You are making various claims of:
Deliberate intention to cause annoyance, burden to authority, personal grudge and disproportionate efforts. The essential point is that you have not answered any questions concerning public records.

This is my third FOI request on the same matter, and you have still failed to provide me with the information I require, and I can see no obvious grounds or evidence supporting the vexatious argument. Not only your explanations and allegations are not justified but also are not helping me or the wider public to understand why you are not disclosing the information.

The response that you have provided feels vexatious in itself and this is simply unacceptable...

....The disclosure of the information would cause prejudice to any party because it concerns public records.
I do not believe that this request is a burden imposed on the public authority and I have no personal grudge of any kind. I am sincerely interested in the answers which concern public records of which you are (or should be) the data holder.

Her accusation about being "vexatious" is rich coming from someone who was given a Civil Restraint Order last week for being precisely that.

[notorial dissent]

Aside from the fact that the request doesn't really make much in the way of sense to begin with.

[AndyPandy]

Aside from the fact that the request doesn't really make much in the way of sense to begin with.

When did that ever stop them !!