He Who Knows wrote:Interesting that FOTLer Peter McDowell has now bowed out.
No he hasn't, the listing changes the PSC to the Tunkashila Group Holdings Limited, which was formed on 16th Oct 2017.
McDowell is still down as a director of Tunkashila, as is Tunkashila Group Holding Limited.
McDowell is the sole director of Tunkashila Group Holdings Limited.
I'd be surprised if he wasn't actually a PSC for Tunkashila, as the guidance I've read would cover the indirect holding, as he has control of the Group company and that has the control of Tunkashila he has signifcant control of Tunkashila.
Pgk70 wrote: No he hasn't, the listing changes the PSC to the Tunkashila Group Holdings Limited, which was formed on 16th Oct 201
Sorry my bad. It's Tunkashila Ltd that owns Patel Cottage on the title deeds, so I wonder what this new Tunkashila Group Holdings Ltd has been created for...
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
ArthurWankspittle wrote:This is an interesting point because I don't think that is exactly what the court did. The court just ordered the sale. It never expressed an opinion on whether there were some sham transactions involved, which IMHO is a very subtle, very clever approach.
I would have thought a court ordering the sale of property belonging to person A to pay the debts of person B would be eminently appealable.
No way of knowing without seeing all the judgements and applications etc. that constitute the confused mess that is Rekha’s legal life but I would imagine - and hope - that at some point a judge reverted the sale so the house is legally Rekha’s. A reversion/sale nullification might even have slipped Reckha by if it was included in an application she failed to challenge or challenged and lost. The relevant law was created to prevent exactly what our Ms Patel did, after all.
Knowing Wrekha she undoubtedly threw some paper at the court, but 1) didn't follow through in it, and/or 2) didn't do it right to begin with and they were supposed to read her mind, and her invisible friends had taken the day off. In other words the usual Wrekha FAIL.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Wouldn't a court order reverting the sale, so that the house still belongs to Ms. Patel, also include an order to the agency that keeps the land title records to change their records, as well?
It would seem to me that the court would also issue an order that no further ownership changes can be accepted on that property, without written permission of the court. If not, what is to prevent her from doing it again?
For whatever reason, I have a feeling that we are most likely missing a step or three in the court actions that we haven't seen, otherwise I don't see how this is proceeding.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
notorial dissent wrote:For whatever reason, I have a feeling that we are most likely missing a step or three in the court actions that we haven't seen, otherwise I don't see how this is proceeding.
Plexus Law had a pre existing charging order against the property, who owns it now is irrelevant as that charge wasn't discharged on transfer of ownership to Tunkishila Limited, I imagine they simply went for a sale order.
AndyPandy wrote:Plexus Law had a pre existing charging order against the property, who owns it now is irrelevant as that charge wasn't discharged on transfer of ownership to Tunkishila Limited, I imagine they simply went for a sale order.
I didn't realise that and therefore it makes more sense in that the judgement is sell the property to pay the charge. It doesn't matter who claims to own it, the charge hasn't been redeemed, so still stands.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
SteveUK wrote: Well, the United Kingdom of FMOTL is quiet tonight. Guess there was no amazing win? (!!!!1!!!)
Yup, Princess Shoutypants must have lost big time yesterday. I mean normally we get a rant about how corrupt and incompetent the judge is, and how "filthy" the lawyers are etc. But tonight? Bog-all, zilch, nyet. Do you think she's just too busy preparing for her criminal court case at Stockport Magistrates on 28th November (obstructing a court enforcement officer) instead of dwelling on trifling civil court losses? Jeeez the woman must love courts - it'll be the third one this month!
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
Surely she can't be still in the classroom with all this time off?
If so, it must be costing the school quite a few pennies in supply teachers.
Can someone remind me what age group she teaches? And the subject - maths I think?
Sadly, in many areas of the UK at the moment, if a specialist teacher is unavailable, for whatever reason, a stand in (pretty much unqualified) can be put in front of the class - all they essentially do is keep the peace, or hand out the worksheets, they don't tutor, prep for exams etc. so Reekas so called pride in her work/devotion to her profession and her pupils mean nothing at all - a selfish, self centered egotistical individual is what she is.
Pox wrote:Surely she can't be still in the classroom with all this time off?
If so, it must be costing the school quite a few pennies in supply teachers.
Can someone remind me what age group she teaches? And the subject - maths I think?
Sadly, in many areas of the UK at the moment, if a specialist teacher is unavailable, for whatever reason, a stand in (pretty much unqualified) can be put in front of the class - all they essentially do is keep the peace, or hand out the worksheets, they don't tutor, prep for exams etc. so Reekas so called pride in her work/devotion to her profession and her pupils mean nothing at all - a selfish, self centered egotistical individual is what she is.
My theory is the education authority are taking the gamble that she will be convicted and will therefore receive a mandatory banning order till the conviction is spent. So even though they have more than enough cause to dismiss her they are simply tolerating her because if they sack her they risk being dragged into tribunals and accusations of racism.
She’s been on the sick for a while (she alluded to it ages ago). Sacking a teacher , well , anyone is such a nightmare. It’s been debated here earlier however if she’s still be a fit person to teach, given her erratic behaviour and pending criminal conviction....
daltontrumbno wrote:
My theory is the education authority are taking the gamble that she will be convicted and will therefore receive a mandatory banning order till the conviction is spent. So even though they have more than enough cause to dismiss her they are simply tolerating her because if they sack her they risk being dragged into tribunals and accusations of racism.
SteveUK wrote:She’s been on the sick for a while (she alluded to it ages ago). Sacking a teacher , well , anyone is such a nightmare. It’s been debated here earlier however if she’s still be a fit person to teach, given her erratic behaviour and pending criminal conviction....
Is it really that difficult to fire an employee in the UK? Is there a union that teachers must be members of in order to be hirable? If so I doubt that Rekha has kept up with her membership dues, due (oops) to her Alderaan-sized sense of entitlement.
"Never in the field of human conflict, was so much owed (but not paid), by so few, to so many." - Sir Winston Churchill
daltontrumbno wrote:
My theory is the education authority are taking the gamble that she will be convicted and will therefore receive a mandatory banning order till the conviction is spent. So even though they have more than enough cause to dismiss her they are simply tolerating her because if they sack her they risk being dragged into tribunals and accusations of racism.
SteveUK wrote:She’s been on the sick for a while (she alluded to it ages ago). Sacking a teacher , well , anyone is such a nightmare. It’s been debated here earlier however if she’s still be a fit person to teach, given her erratic behaviour and pending criminal conviction....
Is it really that difficult to fire an employee in the UK? Is there a union that teachers must be members of in order to be hirable? If so I doubt that Rekha has kept up with her membership dues, due (oops) to her Alderaan-sized sense of entitlement.
What dystopian nightmare of personal freedoms do you live in? In Canada, and probably the UK and America, teachers have no discretion about paying union dues. It's a mandatory deduction from their pay cheques before they get to see their money. I was a federal income tax auditor and a union member for my 35 year career. Not by choice but by law.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".
daltontrumbno wrote:
My theory is the education authority are taking the gamble that she will be convicted and will therefore receive a mandatory banning order till the conviction is spent. So even though they have more than enough cause to dismiss her they are simply tolerating her because if they sack her they risk being dragged into tribunals and accusations of racism.
SteveUK wrote:She’s been on the sick for a while (she alluded to it ages ago). Sacking a teacher , well , anyone is such a nightmare. It’s been debated here earlier however if she’s still be a fit person to teach, given her erratic behaviour and pending criminal conviction....
Is it really that difficult to fire an employee in the UK? Is there a union that teachers must be members of in order to be hirable? If so I doubt that Rekha has kept up with her membership dues, due (oops) to her Alderaan-sized sense of entitlement.
It is fairly easy to sack someone, but with teaching they have strong unions and sacking a teacher risks having to go through a lengthy tribunals system. So the education authority are taking the gamble that Rekha will get convicted which will see her banned from teaching for a minimum of twelve months and even then she will have to permanently declare her conviction so getting another teaching will prove very difficult.
Burnaby49 wrote:
What dystopian nightmare of personal freedoms do you live in? In Canada, and probably the UK and America, teachers have no discretion about paying union dues. It's a mandatory deduction from their pay cheques before they get to see their money. I was a federal income tax auditor and a union member for my 35 year career. Not by choice but by law.
I live in the beautiful, massive, hot, humid, right-to-work, former Republic of Texas.
"Never in the field of human conflict, was so much owed (but not paid), by so few, to so many." - Sir Winston Churchill
It is indeed highly unionised here although not compulsory to be a member. The biggest being NUT (National Union of Teachers). My good lady , a senior teacher, calls them NUTters do to their militancy and joined a smaller union.
If she’s employed by a state school then they’ll certainly be reluctant to take action. If she’s at an academy (a privately owned but effectively a state school) then they may be more likely to take action. Our local authorities have a tendency to move incompetent employees about rather than face a lengthy tribunal nightmare.make them someone else’s problem to deal with. I speak from experience here.......
SteveUK wrote: If she’s employed by a state school then they’ll certainly be reluctant to take action. If she’s at an academy (a privately owned but effectively a state school) then they may be more likely to take action.
She works at a state school (Glossopdale Community College) and has been off sick since January. That means her 6 months full pay on the sick expired in July and she's four months into her 6 months half pay. I agree with Daltontrumbno, the school and Education Authority won't want a race discrimination tribunal case (having witnessed how quick she is to cry 'racism' during the long drawn out property damage case) so they'll be biding their time waiting for the 28th November magistrates decision. But what if she doesn't get a criminal conviction? There's always the option of 'Bringing a school into Disrepute' and there are plenty of social media rantings from her (remember the Gandhi's grand-daughter one?) to cite as evidence.
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
