UK - Neelu Berry opens my eyes

[TheRambler]

And some background ..

Ved Chaudhari · 0:00 1994: won against NHS Trust for Unfair Dismissal 1996 won case against Maudsley for racial discrimination

The details of the tribunal hearings could be interesting. I don’t know how the NHS conducts its HR business, but having worked in a hard nosed sector of the commercial world the company deciding to take a short cut, sacking an individual and taking the hit at the tribunal was not unknown. In some cases quite large companies; “household names”; would not even bother turning up to present a defence. The tribunal usually ruled that the individual should be reinstated, but they never were.

TheRambler

[grixit]

Any clue as to who John Paterson might be? He doesn’t appear to be a judge, so presumably one of Neelu’s henchmen.

I'm assuming it this idiot who once had his own thread

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 52&t=11136

And got slapped down by Master Fontaine. Doubt there is two of them (Fontaines that is).

I'm just mad about Fontaine, Fontaine's mad about me!

[notorial dissent]

I'm going to say this, based on NOTHING but observation and past history, that I suspect she was gotten rid of. I can't help but believe that she was a total and utter pain in the ass and thoroughly unpleasant to work around, and no matter how competent she was professionally and otherwise she was NOT a valued employee.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

As we're all waiting for today's soap opera, er, I mean Neelu's Press Conference, I thought you all might be interested in the following.

This is from a paper: Disproportionality in the Professions - Working together to understand and respond to discrimination and prejudice

Berry v Ravensbourne NHS Trust [1995] EAT/578/94
A BME pharmacist was made redundant due to structural changes. She claimed racial discrimination as the Trust has failed to secure her work due to the personnel policy of the hospital, which was designed to avoid redundancy by re-deployment, retraining and a restriction on recruitment. However, the employer went on recruiting and did not consider that re-training was an option. Three possible jobs became available, which contrary to the procedure was advertised in national papers. Employment Appeal Tribunal. Appeal Allowed.

Now with my old union rep hat on, this is intolerable behaviour by the Trust. There's little to indicate that it was on racial grounds, but I'd have demanded reinstatement if re-training was an option and not take the employers assertion at face value.

Berry v. Bethlem & Maudsley Trust [1996] EAT/478/95;
BME pharmacist applied for a post at the trust, but were not shortlisted. She therefore claimed that she was unlawfully discriminated against by way of victimization. She claimed that she was not successful due to dispute with Ravensbourn Trust where she had filed a complaint of racial reasons in a redundancy situation. She claimed that she was not shortlisted because the trust was aware of the previous proceedings. Employment Appeal Tribunal. Appeal allowed.

Again, if the tribunal decided that the existing dispute was reason she wasn't shortlisted then I'd demand redress too

Berry v Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Commission [1997] EWCA Civ 1253
A BME pharmacist claimed she was discriminated on racial grounds by not being offered a 12 months position at Health Commission. She claimed that she was given unfavourable conditions at the interview; the interview was 10 minutes shorter than the interview of the other applicants, she was better qualified and the panel-members were all white, which did not mirror reality where one third of all chemists and doctors in practice in the area were non-white. Court of Appeal, Civil Division. Appeal dismissed.

This is the one I think where she pushed it too far.

[notorial dissent]

The question though is where this is coming from since Neelu is so very known for her unvarnished viewpoint of proceedings. Appearances may be one thing, but the reality of it may be something else entirely, and since this is Neelu we're talking about, it probably, almost certainly, is.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The question though is where this is coming from since Neelu is so very known for her unvarnished viewpoint of proceedings. Appearances may be one thing, but the reality of it may be something else entirely, and since this is Neelu we're talking about, it probably, almost certainly, is.

It's a respected peer reviewed paper from Manchester University and based on the original tribunal papers. There is no input or colouring the findings from Princess Loopy at all.

This is their summary findings in the pharmacy section:

The evidence as to whether BME pharmacists are disproportionately treated is equivocal. Although there is some evidence that BME pharmacists are under-represented in senior management roles in both community and hospital sectors and over-represented among pharmacy owners in community, it is hard to say on the basis of the evidence available whether this is due to career preference, time in the profession or blocked progression.

The italics under the cases in my previous post are my comments. I've been to two tribunals (one of which was a racial discrimination one) which we won. There is very little here to indicate that she was racially discriminated against but, based on the summary of the case, it's clear that the first panel correctly found in her favour. The second ruling was almost an inevitable consequence of the first. You cannot use what could be a lawful complaint to discriminate.

Her subsequent spinning it as smashing the system is of course pure la-la land.

[Chaos]

2004 got restraint order which means I won

that is so funny since we use that line to describe their failures all the time.

and how exactly is ved being racially discriminated against by 3 other white people?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

and how exactly is ved being racially discriminated against by 3 other white people?

"Other"? Neelu isn't "white". Chaudhari is her "maiden" name.

I'm 1/4 Asian and as a "jungle bunny" I was told to "go home" when we moved onto our council estate. It's perhaps why I am surprisingly both overly sensitive to what to most people would be the mutually exclusive positions of unwarranted uses of the "race card" AND have an absolute out and out zero-tolerance of actual racial discrimination.

[He Who Knows]

Great research on the 3 EAT findings, AnOwlCalledSage.
Do you think she was handsomely compensated for the two she won? In the '90s there was pretty much no financial ceiling on race discrimination cases.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Do you think she was handsomely compensated for the two she won? In the '90s there was pretty much no financial ceiling on race discrimination cases.

I doubt it. The "sanction" even then was reinstatement of job or a multiple of salary to cover finding a new position. She clearly took up other employment until she was struck off. However, without her coming forward with information I guess we'll never know for certain.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Posted an hour ago.
https://www.facebook.com/victor.pc.589/ ... 9209745576
1) She has access to a car so there will probably be more unpaid PCNs.
2) From the background comments Edward Ellis perhaps is beginning to realise his complicity in enabling bad behaviour.
3) Court case can't have gone well as we've seen no press conference footage.

We are heading into "it's quite sad" territory, but her reckless and abusive Hoaxtead behaviour and wanton disregard for innocent families does temper any empathy I'd normally feel.

[TheRambler]

She has posted on FB an “account” of yesterday’s proceedings. It would appear that she has been committed for trial in November.

Report by Neelu Berry dated 24th of July 2018.

Ref State Terrorism against babies and children and their protectors continues in the UK in a Power Boast of the Global Organised Crime Network

Proceedings in Court 4, Snaresbrook Crown Court, Essex UK in Neelu Berry V State on 24 July 2018 at 12 - 4 pm

This was supposed to be a jurisdiction trial to determine whether the Snaresbrook Crown Court had any jurisdiction to hear vexatious and frivolous charges brought against a Private Investigator pharmacist who exposed baby mutilation and unlawful removal and retention of organs within the National Health Service.

Resident judge Mr Zeidman refused to allow a jury to be present on grounds that the jury can only determine facts and not law under English law. He limited the time to 1 hour. Crown prosecutor, Mr Attenborough, gave a misleading summary of the proceedings before Judge English, omitting her demand that he provides hard copies of both sides, into the court file, which he failed to do, and when reminded of his duty to the court with an unrepresented Defendant, refused to do.

The Judge's rulings, including on "No Jurisdiction", Recusal, Pre-determination, despite the matter being in the High Court and Appeal Court, is now the subject of appeal.

The Judge then fixed the trial only for 5 days in Nov 2018 despite a request by the Defendant for a 1 month trial to call a number of witnesses in relation to State Terrorism against babies and children, who have not been identified, despite the criminal convictions of Police Officer, DC Christopher Maitland in May 2016 and Youth Worker, Stefan Cadek, in July 2017, as well as to call Child Rights Campaigners as witnesses who have been similarly subjected to Benefit Denial Frauds, Impoverishment Frauds, Ruin Frauds and non-stop Terrorism by the State.

The Judge has reserved the trial to himself.

She is still babbling.

TheRambler

[Burnaby49]

The Judge has reserved the trial to himself.

A significant comment, perhaps the only one in that gibberish. The judge knows what and whom he's dealing with and he's chosen to try Neelu's case himself rather than pass it on to a random judge who's not up to speed. I'm guessing she'll be kept on a tight leash at trial.

[TheRambler]

The Judge has reserved the trial to himself.

A significant comment, perhaps the only one in that gibberish. The judge knows what and whom he's dealing with and he's chosen to try Neelu's case himself rather than pass it on to a random judge who's not up to speed. I'm guessing she'll be kept on a tight leash at trial.

Yes, that’s very probably correct. The judge intends to ensure that the trial is conducted on planet Earth and not the planet that Neelu lives On.

TheRambler

[Normal Wisdom]

"Private Investigator pharmacist"? That's given me my first real laugh of the day. There's definitely a "graphic novel" in that.

[notorial dissent]

Have to say, she starts off in fine form, entire first paragraph is total gibberish,

Neelu still apparently hasn't figured out that these things/trials aren't about whatever she is fantasizing about this week, but rather about whatever the REAL charges happen to be.

Since her recitation bears no resemblance to reality, I am assuming the Nov trial will ACTUALLY be on her trespass Charge?

I have to agree that her "new" title is right up there with "Private Attorney General" for being out there.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

notorial dissent: No, this is her benefit fraud case.

She is convinced that the matter is already in the High Court. It isn't. She is convinced that she has a current appeal. She hasn't. She is convinced that she has a £50m live claim against the state. She used the wrong form.

If only she had a responsible lawyer who could set her straight and act in her best interests.

[grixit]

"Private Investigator pharmacist"? That's given me my first real laugh of the day. There's definitely a "graphic novel" in that.

I was preparing a batch of chlorphenamine maleate in accordance with FDA Directive 23-R, when the door chime sounded. I looked up and saw that my assistant was missing, probably playing handball with an inflated latex glove in the store room again. The kid's a real placebo, but i owed his dad a favor or two, so i had to keep him on. That's the worst part about this job, the side effects. I quickly closed all the bottles and put on my best fake sincere smile for the customer. He was a mean looking specimen, his expression was sour, like someone who needed a lot of antacid and his complexion was blotchy, probably low on vitamins A and D. Some deodorant would have helped too. "What can i do for you?" i asked, hoping it was just a quick prescription refill. No such luck. "I need your help, Mr. Pillman" he began, "Uh, you are Mr. Pillman?" I assured that i was, indeed Rafael Xavier Pillman, Rx for short. What followed was a story as sad as last year's novelty christmas display...

[TheRambler]

There are quite a few things I cannot resolve in Neelu’s current case. Admittedly I am relying almost exclusively on her account, but:

If the sums involved are as small as she suggests could it have been dealt with summarily?

Therefore

I assume that it is going to Crown Court at her request? (Either way offence)

5 days allocated for what ought to be a relatively straightforward case? The decision of the judge at case management would be based upon their assessment of the necessary time to complete the trial. Allowing Neelu “Air Time” would not come into the equation.

Case Management (I can’t recall what it’s called now) late July, trial in November. That’s fairly speedy for a “minor” matter going for elective trial.

Judge wishes to ensure that matter is dealt with and Not Neelu’s version of it.

So,

Magistrates referred it to Crown Court (not elective)?
It’s not so minor?
5 days allocated to hear the case, it may well be a custodial matter?
Judge attaches some importance to the case?

TheRambler

[AnOwlCalledSage]

None of this should be taken to imply guilt.

If the sums involved are as small as she suggests could it have been dealt with summarily?

DWP can impose an administrative penalty or refer to the CPS. The option for caution only applies to offences committed wholly before April 2012. The CPS threshold consideration is at over-payments of greater than £2,000.

I assume that it is going to Crown Court at her request? (Either way offence)

Crown Court v Magistrates is generally one of possible punishment and is decided by the magistrate; or if the defendant elects for a jury trial on an each-way offence. I think CPS asked for Crown Court, but that of course can still be summary. At this stage I've seen no positive statement that it is a jury trial, other than Neelu's comment that the judge said matters of law are for the judge, matters of fact are for a jury.

CPS guidance is here