UK - Neelu Berry opens my eyes

[BoomerSooner17]

I feel some sympathy for her situation, but not much, but if she was in fact a qualified COMPETENT pharmacist or whatever you call it in the UK, is she had really wanted to work I would have expected there would have been able to find another position somewhere. Considering her behavior over the last many years I can't help suspecting there were other more serious reasons for her unemployment.

Would anyone here take a prescription filled by Neelu?

Uh, kinda where I was heading, unless maybe I was looking for something with batwings and eye of knewt??? My opinion, FWIW, I seriously doubt she is even remotely professionally employable if for liability reasons alone.

Not only would I not take a prescription filled by Neelu, I don't want her to have access to prescription-grade meds of any kind (except for those prescribed to her by a competent medical professional). The image of Neelu mixing pills, wearing that creepy smile of hers, is a very disturbing one.

But that's somewhat academic, because there is no way that she would ever get past a first interview at any reputable business.
"What was your reason for leaving your last position?"
"Well, you see, the NHS murdered my niece, and...."

[longdog]

Can you imagine having Neelu as an employee in any capacity?

"Neelu... I don't want to make a big issue of it but you've stacked the baked beans on the dog food shelf. Can you go and get the beans and put them over there on the shelf marked 'Baked Beans' please."

"I'M DISSOLVING THIS SUPERMARKET FOR BREACHING IT'S OATH TO GOD TO PROTECT GOD'S CHILDREN AND FOR SHELF STACKING FRAUD AND ATTEMPTED MURDER FRAUD TO KEEP ME FROM..."

"SECURITY!!!!!"

[notorial dissent]

Can you imagine having Neelu as an employee in any capacity?

"Neelu... I don't want to make a big issue of it but you've stacked the baked beans on the dog food shelf. Can you go and get the beans and put them over there on the shelf marked 'Baked Beans' please."

"I'M DISSOLVING THIS SUPERMARKET FOR BREACHING IT'S OATH TO GOD TO PROTECT GOD'S CHILDREN AND FOR SHELF STACKING FRAUD AND ATTEMPTED MURDER FRAUD TO KEEP ME FROM..."

"SECURITY!!!!!"

Speaking of liability nightmares, work place harassment(other employees) and never ending labor relations disputes, and undoubtedly customer issues.

[The Seventh String]

"I'M DISSOLVING THIS SUPERMARKET FOR BREACHING IT'S OATH TO GOD TO PROTECT GOD'S CHILDREN AND FOR SHELF STACKING FRAUD AND ATTEMPTED MURDER FRAUD TO KEEP ME FROM..."

"SECURITY!!!!!"

“THAT’S NOT SECURITY THAT’S THE SAME MAN WHO FOLLOWS ME AROUND ALL DAY AND NIGHT WEARING DISGUISES, COMMITTING POLICE UNIFORM FRAUD AND MURDERING ME AND.... what do you mean she’s a woman and she’s worked here five days a week for 15 years? ANYWAY, THIS SHOP TAKES ILLEGAL PAYMENT IN COUNTERFEIT BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS FRAUD MONEY NOT SWISSINDO BONDS SO I DECLARE THE STORE BANKRUPT. NONE OF YOU NEED TO COME TO WORK TOMORROW BECAUSE I’VE DISMISSED YOU ALL SO GO HOME AT ONCE YOUR SERVICE IS NOT REQUIRED. IF ANYONE WANTS ME TELL THEM I’VE GONE TO THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE FRAUD TO ARREST THE TREASONOUS JUDGES. ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE FIVE MILLION PEOPLE MARCH AGAINST CORNER SHOPS!!!”

[longdog]

For those following events in the wider Neelu Looniverse today marks the start of the trial of her 'friend' Sabine McNeill's trial on multiple charges at Southwark Crown Court.

Excellent coverage as always over on Hoaxstead which seems to have become a bit of a sister site to Quatloos's UK shenanigans...

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/ ... ins-today/

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/ ... ial-day-1/

Neelu has much to say on the matter on Facebook... All of it bollocks. I won't link or quote being mindful of contempt of court and innocent until proved guilty and blah, blah, blah.

[notorial dissent]

For those following events in the wider Neelu Looniverse today marks the start of the trial of her 'friend' Sabine McNeill's trial on multiple charges at Southwark Crown Court.

Excellent coverage as always over on Hoaxstead which seems to have become a bit of a sister site to Quatloos's UK shenanigans...

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/ ... ins-today/

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/ ... ial-day-1/

Neelu has much to say on the matter on Facebook... All of it bollocks. I won't link or quote being mindful of contempt of court and innocent until proved guilty and blah, blah, blah.

You know what they say about a word to the wise, which Neelu will TOTALLY utterly and completely disregard.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

This is what happens when you take your eyes off the ball:

Snaresbrook
Court 20 22/11/2018 - sitting at 10:00 AM
HIS HONOUR JUDGE G POUNDER
For Mention T20180394 BERRY Neelu

If you're new "For Mention" is administrative.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Looks like the prosecution have withdrawn the case.

To be honest, the amount she was said to have not declared should have been dealt with as "sanctions" rather than a criminal case. Just because the accused is a complete shyster doesn't mean that the usual rules should be suspended.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Looks like the prosecution have withdrawn the case.

To be honest, the amount she was said to have not declared should have been dealt with as "sanctions" rather than a criminal case. Just because the accused is a complete shyster doesn't mean that the usual rules should be suspended.

Presumably there is also the consideration that even if convicted, the solution would be the same, i.e. sanctions of a reduction in benefit or a few quid a week deducted from somewhere. It's not like she's still a pharmacist earning a decent income, she's on some benefits and not much or nothing else.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

My exact thoughts at the start of the case!

I'm on UC. I declare every penny but the rules change so often that they are difficult to keep up with.

She was accused of not declaring, I believe, 15 quid per week. This was hardly a major defrauding of the state case. Pensions are deducted at a 100%, as opposed to earnings which is at a 62% deduction. And yes, previously there was a threshold which you didn't have to declare, which she'd already articulated as a defense.

I think she's on ESA. So yes, a fine to be paid by deductions from benefits was the most likely outcome.

[AndyPandy]

My exact thoughts at the start of the case!

I'm on UC. I declare every penny but the rules change so often that they are difficult to keep up with.

She was accused of not declaring, I believe, 15 quid per week. This was hardly a major defrauding of the state case. Pensions are deducted at a 100%, as opposed to earnings which is at a 62% deduction. And yes, previously there was a threshold which you didn't have to declare, which she'd already articulated as a defense.

I think she's on ESA. So yes, a fine to be paid by deductions from benefits was the most likely outcome.

I wonder if she failed to co-operate and got up the Investigating Officers nose, mind you it shouldn't have got as far as setting a Trial Date if the CPS weren't confident of a conviction.

Another CPS failure, they really need to take a long hard look at how they operate !

[notorial dissent]

I suspect in this case it is a combination of two things, Neelu's natural charming and winning personality, and general clerical/bureaucratic ineptitude, and yes, it sounds like the CPS needs a thorough house cleaning.

[noblepa]

It has been speculated here that the proceeds from the sale of her "stolen" house might net her as much as 100,000 pounds.

Would having that much money in the bank affect her benefits? I imagine that it would, even if they only counted the interest she earned on that amount. A 100,000 pound balance at only 2% would give her an income of 2,000 pounds per year, or 166 pounds per month.

[Normal Wisdom]

It has been speculated here that the proceeds from the sale of her "stolen" house might net her as much as 100,000 pounds.

Would having that much money in the bank affect her benefits? I imagine that it would, even if they only counted the interest she earned on that amount. A 100,000 pound balance at only 2% would give her an income of 2,000 pounds per year, or 166 pounds per month.

People with more than £16,000 in capital are not eligible for income based ESA (or UC equivalent).

[Wozzle]

Neelu talking about the court giving her four weeks to get a fee schedule together to claim against the CPS - not sure they will accept one for millions in swissindo though?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It has been speculated here that the proceeds from the sale of her "stolen" house might net her as much as 100,000 pounds.

Would having that much money in the bank affect her benefits? I imagine that it would, even if they only counted the interest she earned on that amount. A 100,000 pound balance at only 2% would give her an income of 2,000 pounds per year, or 166 pounds per month.

As much as £100,000? I speculated that she will be getting £286,000 minus auction costs based on figures which she supplied rather than the hope expressed by many here that she was being hosed for being so stupid.

Unfortunately I've deleted most of the auction pack for lot 132 but I seem to remember that the seller stipulated that the buyer was responsible for the seller fees. But let's say they weren't. Typically auction fees are 2.5% but let's round it up to £20,000. I worked on the price it went for minus the amount she owed in interest and capital, minus £67,000 she posted that the mortgage company had added in fees which would include the security. There would be a slight extra as the property was boarded up for another few weeks after auction but I would really be surprised if is she got anything less than £250,000.

You can't claim if you have over £16,000 and for every £250 over £6,000 UC assumes that you are using £4.35 per month in subsidy of your living expenses. This is at a higher rate than an instant access savings account will accrue interest so your capital will get whittled away when you work out the compound effect at roughly 20% per year. So put simply, as soon as she gets the cash, she's no longer entitled to benefits. That number again, To call the National Benefit Fraud Hotline, telephone: 0800 854 4400

[ArthurWankspittle]

Two points: This all only applies once she actually has it. She is currently eligible for some benefits as far as we can tell.
I'm wondering what the benefit law is as far as "when" she gets the money. Neelu apparently being open to putting the money in trust with "someone" or not accepting it as fake, tainted, Judas money, whatever, do we foresee the situation that Neelu's benefits stop but the house money sits somewhere unclaimed? Or do benefits continue to be paid because Neelu refuses to notify them of her change of circumstances?

[aesmith]

I don't see how she can dispose of the money in any way until she's received it. Can't see the bank paying out to some whacky trust. So on that basis I think she'd be treated the same way as someone who had savings but decided to "hide" them.

[longdog]

I don't see how she can dispose of the money in any way until she's received it. Can't see the bank paying out to some whacky trust. So on that basis I think she'd be treated the same way as someone who had savings but decided to "hide" them.

You're quite correct. She could spend the money on buying a house and normal household expenditure but if she does pretty much anything else with it the DWP will treat her as still having it.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Two points: This all only applies once she actually has it. She is currently eligible for some benefits as far as we can tell.
I'm wondering what the benefit law is as far as "when" she gets the money. Neelu apparently being open to putting the money in trust with "someone" or not accepting it as fake, tainted, Judas money, whatever, do we foresee the situation that Neelu's benefits stop but the house money sits somewhere unclaimed? Or do benefits continue to be paid because Neelu refuses to notify them of her change of circumstances?

I've had to look into this quite carefully recently in relation to my own circumstances

Given the advice I've been given, until the money actually lands in her account she is entitled to carry on claiming benefits.

If she tries to put it "in trust" it will be treated as though she still has the money in terms of her benefit claim. "Loans" to friends and family are also counted as being extant. She will be unable to hide it in a bank account as money laundering rules will kick in if she tries transferring it to someone else.

Bottom line is that If she tries to hide this money and continues to claim, that is big jail time, not piddling around over £15 per week!