Rekha Patel loses her house

[He Who Knows]

Princess Shoutypants wasn't really wearing Indian dress - it was more like a purple scarf, white top and white trousers.
https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/03/pa ... for-trial/

[Wozzle]

I believe she did when she was trying to portray everyone against her as 'racist'

Strictly speaking that would not be possible since to be racist you have to have an onus against people of a different race than oneself. But europeans and indians are both caucasians.

She could say xenophobia, though.

From what I gather, there was an argument that since people of Jewish faith are classed as a race, than so should every other person of religious following, since they’re all susceptible to persecution as it’s a race of people.


However, if we want to be pedantic, we can also argue that scientists do not agree there are “races”, only one species. An interesting read- http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

Under UK Law Jews, Sikhs and (Irish) Travellers/Gypsies are recognised as races due to the race hate laws, however before a court could make precedent and recognise any other group the racial and religious hatred bill was passed. Therefore any hate crimes against groups that are of a religious nature will now be covered by this (and not require the court to decide if a group was covered by the race hate laws).

[He Who Knows]

Under UK law even atheists are recognised as a religious group for purposes of race/religion hate crimes:

Religious group - this means any group of people defined by reference to their religious belief or lack of religious belief. For example, this includes Muslims, Hindus and Christians, and different denominations and branches within those religions. It would also include people with no religious belief at all.

[morrand]

Strictly speaking that would not be possible since to be racist you have to have an onus against people of a different race than oneself.

If she were speaking strictly, I do not think she would be Rekha.

[Wingding]

I’m sure I’ve seen her wearing traditional Indian items in one video.

I believe she did when she was trying to portray everyone against her as 'racist'

Strictly speaking that would not be possible since to be racist you have to have an onus against people of a different race than oneself. But europeans and indians are both caucasians.

She could say xenophobia, though.

Actually, according to the law & stated cases, you can be racist towards your own race. And anyone can perceive an incident as being racist, not just victim and offender.

[notorial dissent]

I believe she did when she was trying to portray everyone against her as 'racist'

Strictly speaking that would not be possible since to be racist you have to have an onus against people of a different race than oneself. But europeans and indians are both caucasians.

She could say xenophobia, though.

Actually, according to the law & stated cases, you can be racist towards your own race. And anyone can perceive an incident as being racist, not just victim and offender.

Since when does reality and reason have anything to do with it? These people are anything but rational and/or reasonable, their beliefs and prejudices adjust to their current needs, if for no other reasons than that they are just simply too stupid and too ignorant to really know what they are talking about, particularly since they take their cues from someone else. They'll turn on Neelu just as soon as she is no longer of value to them.

[Hercule Parrot]

Interesting period of quiet from Wrekha and the gang. No further attempts to reoccupy Patel Redoubt, etc. Do we think the penny has finally dropped?

[longdog]

Interesting period of quiet from Wrekha and the gang. No further attempts to reoccupy Patel Redoubt, etc. Do we think the penny has finally dropped?

The penny in Ms Patel's case being bail conditions and the realisation that any further nonsense will see her held on remand.

[notorial dissent]

Interesting period of quiet from Wrekha and the gang. No further attempts to reoccupy Patel Redoubt, etc. Do we think the penny has finally dropped?

The penny in Ms Patel's case being bail conditions and the realisation that any further nonsense will see her held on remand.

Stranger things have happened, I suppose. I guess we'll see how long it lasts.

[daltontrumbno]

Rekha has a tendency to go radio silent for months on end unless something is happening. She will probably plead not guilty next month kicking the case back another three months. So we have probably heard the last from Rekha and co till around October.

[He Who Knows]

longdog wrote:

Hercule Parrot wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:27 pm
Interesting period of quiet from Wrekha and the gang. No further attempts to reoccupy Patel Redoubt, etc. Do we think the penny has finally dropped?

The penny in Ms Patel's case being bail conditions and the realisation that any further nonsense will see her held on remand.

Not that quiet, word in the pub has it that Princess Shoutypants kicked off in the Glossop conveyancing solicitors last week, filming everyone in reception. Maybe it's the dying throes of someone who knows they're beat. Or conversely, the defiance of someone who knows they're gonna win. Never know with Princess.

[AndyPandy]

Rekha has a tendency to go radio silent for months on end unless something is happening. She will probably plead not guilty next month kicking the case back another three months. So we have probably heard the last from Rekha and co till around October.

When, I fear, the CPS will cock up the prosecution and she'll be found not guilty or acquitted.

Meaning she'll scream that it proves she's the legal owner and the new owner and neighbor will be back to square one with their lives and property invaded.

[daltontrumbno]

Rekha has a tendency to go radio silent for months on end unless something is happening. She will probably plead not guilty next month kicking the case back another three months. So we have probably heard the last from Rekha and co till around October.

When, I fear, the CPS will cock up the prosecution and she'll be found not guilty or acquitted.

Meaning she'll scream that it proves she's the legal owner and the new owner and neighbor will be back to square one with their lives and property invaded.

That is also my fear, hopefully after the Chrisy morris appeal the CPS will make sure everything is checked and double checked, of course this is probably wishful thinking and she will walk on a technicality which will only embolden her more.

[ManontheClaphamBus]

That is also my fear, hopefully after the Chrisy morris appeal the CPS will make sure everything is checked and double checked, of course this is probably wishful thinking and she will walk on a technicality which will only embolden her more.

I don't buy 'technicalities' - the CPS either does its job competently or doesn't. The Chrisy Morris appeal shows this clearly - he didn't get off on a technicality, he argued his case more skillfully than the CPS lawyer. Had the lawyer dealt with the judge's misconception, the outcome would (and should have been) different.

[He Who Knows]

And with Peter McDowell supporting Wrecka in her next few court appearances (as he did with Cwisy's appeal) there's a sporting chance they'll outwit the overworked, underpaid CPS again.

[He Who Knows]

Message to all lawyers on here: please could you remind us of the sub judice rules as pertaining to this case?
What can/can't we say?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I'm not a lawyer but this is Facebook's advice.

ADVICE TO SOCIAL MEDIA USERS - CONTEMPT OF COURT

We’ve noted that several Facebook users have posted comments which may be in contempt of court on some of our stories about ‘active’ cases.

Any material which could influence members of the jury in an ongoing or imminent trial is deemed as being in contempt of court and is punishable in a court of law.

These comments have included:

- references to someone’s previous convictions
- statements about a person’s character
- evidence seeming to link a person directly to the crime of which they have been accused
- other suggestions that the person is guilty

When proceedings are ‘active’, the above content CANNOT be posted and the Facebook user is in contempt of court. Proceedings are ‘active’ when:

- a person is charged
- a person has been arrested
- an arrest warrant is issued
- a summons is issued

Wrekha is unlikely to go to a jury trial as it is a summary offence, but the law doesn't make a distinction.

[He Who Knows]

AnOwlCalledSage wrote:
- references to someone’s previous convictions
- statements about a person’s character
- evidence seeming to link a person directly to the crime of which they have been accused
- other suggestions that the person is guilty

When proceedings are ‘active’, the above content CANNOT be posted and the Facebook user is in contempt of court. Proceedings are ‘active’ when:

- a person is charged
- a person has been arrested
- an arrest warrant is issued
- a summons is issued

Oh dear, looks like the Quatloosian admins will have to go through this 2-year 107-page thread and remove all references to the above...

[Siegfried Shrink]

I don't buy 'technicalities' - the CPS either does its job competently or doesn't. The Chrisy Morris appeal shows this clearly - he didn't get off on a technicality, he argued his case more skillfully than the CPS lawyer. Had the lawyer dealt with the judge's misconception, the outcome would (and should have been) different.

Having read the appeal transcript it is apparent to me that Mr.Morris stumbled into the appeal victory more or less by accident. The legal status of the person he obstructed was vital to the charge, if the person had no special status, there was no offence.
The judge picked up on this as a relevant point not because Mr. Morris cried fraud on the warrent, but because the judge considered it important evidence for the Crown's case and saw no need to be shown secondary evidence instead of the original. This may have been somewhat bloody minded, but it's a valid point. It was pure accident that Mr. Morris' defence which was in essence groundless since the warrent was in fact valid just happened to chime with how the judge saw the basis of the case and the inability of the CPS to provide primary evidence was what scuppered the case.

As this was a rehearing ab initio from the magistrates court, the CPS needed to prove the authority of the obstructed person and failed to do so. The judge did not have any misconceptions that affected the outcome, he was simply not satisfied with the evidence presented.

[ManontheClaphamBus]

The judge did not have any misconceptions that affected the outcome, he was simply not satisfied with the evidence presented.

Maybe I misread it, but it seemed to me that the Judge thought the warrant should be a different format to the format that is currently in use. Wouldn't you call that a misconception? If he had seen secondary evidence that aligned with his expectations, would he have wished to see primary evidence? (we do not know).

BTW, I didn't say that Chrisy Morris played a blinder, but it is fairly obvious that he argued his case more skillfully than the CPS. This is not a good thing, by the way and sends out an unhelpful message.