Rekha Patel loses her house

[notorial dissent]

And I have this really historic bridge that I'd be willing to let go for a song that I just know you'll be interested in......

[Hercule Parrot]

Leaving before the case was heard is less serious than the earlier incident. A warrant is likely to be issued, but if they politely apologise with some excuse (migraine, family emergency etc) there will be no significant sanction. The real question is how their defiance in court will be handled.

Generally these cases are reassigned to a salaried District Judge, who has greater legal powers and fortitude than a mere magistrate. Ushers and court professionals will crowd in to watch the spanking, and tell stories for years afterwards. Fingers crossed....

Seriously?? You don't seriously expect Wrecka to actually apologize, do you????

No, I don't expect that. Which is why a judicial spanking will follow, assuming that HMCTS get their act together.

[Hercule Parrot]

...Maybe Thelma and Louise turned up at Stockport Magsitrates on Friday to show willing in the knowledge that if they could offer a good enough excuse at a later date, they'd avoid jail time.

Jail is very unlikely for something like this, assuming previous good character. I should think Wrecka's main concern is to delay the process. She will be suspended on full pay at present, or perhaps on face-saving sick leave. Discipline and professional conduct investigations are probably on hold, but a criminal conviction will be sufficient to blow the starting whistle.

If convicted, she will likely be dismissed and/or barred from teaching, and the paychecks will then stop. Every week that she can delay is another £500 of unearned, undeserved income.

[notorial dissent]

HP, while that is all good theory, I think you are giving Wrecka way too much credit for smarts. She has at this juncture, I think, gone clear 'round the twist. She and her coterie of Failmeisters will have concocted some grand and elaborate explanation as to how they exorcised, or something or other, the evil court and thus could then leave, and that from that moment she was then forever freed of all charges. She, and they, are now back at whatever bolt hole they have patting each other on their collective backs and planning her eventual triumphant return to Casa Patel, THAT AIN'T NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!!!!

While the possible effects you mention may very well come to pass, I seriously doubt she is even thinking about her soon to be former teaching career or the money involved. I think at this point she is too focused on her own vindication.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I'm supporting the keep the money coming theory of delay, it is entirely compatible with the tendency for British public sector employers to keep paying non working employees, sometimes for a matter of years. This would be well known to Ms.Patel.

There have been cases of British hospitals paying doctors involved in some form of dispute for years, similarly for civil servants on 'Gardening leave'. Such cases are reported quite often, and are due to the sometimes amazingly convoluted and very slow disciplinary procedures that can be involved in firing almost any employee.

In the private sector 'zero hours contracts' have been invented to get round the legal difficulties with firing people; employers have to follow a detailed and lengthy process to get rid of the most useless but not actually criminally culpable employee, and if they fail in detail at any stage, employment tribunals have the power to declare the dismissal unfair and award thousands in damages.
Employment law is a huge and lucrative and fairly new field for British lawyers to play in.

The high levels of youth employment in some European countries like Greece, France and Spain are in my opinion, due to a large extent to their having even more employment guarantees for employees which makes employers very reluctant to hire anybody, no matter what the short term desirability is.

American employers seem to be able to fire anybody at any time for any or no reason, Mr Trump seems to practice this a lot. I am sure it helps to keep the economy lean and fit.

[King Lud]

I'm supporting the keep the money coming theory of delay, it is entirely compatible with the tendency for British public sector employers to keep paying non working employees, sometimes for a matter of years. This would be well known to Ms.Patel.

There have been cases of British hospitals paying doctors involved in some form of dispute for years, similarly for civil servants on 'Gardening leave'. Such cases are reported quite often, and are due to the sometimes amazingly convoluted and very slow disciplinary procedures that can be involved in firing almost any employee.

In the private sector 'zero hours contracts' have been invented to get round the legal difficulties with firing people; employers have to follow a detailed and lengthy process to get rid of the most useless but not actually criminally culpable employee, and if they fail in detail at any stage, employment tribunals have the power to declare the dismissal unfair and award thousands in damages.
Employment law is a huge and lucrative and fairly new field for British lawyers to play in.

The high levels of youth employment in some European countries like Greece, France and Spain are in my opinion, due to a large extent to their having even more employment guarantees for employees which makes employers very reluctant to hire anybody, no matter what the short term desirability is.

American employers seem to be able to fire anybody at any time for any or no reason, Mr Trump seems to practice this a lot. I am sure it helps to keep the economy lean and fit.

That's quite a jumble of Daily Mail nonsense but politics is a no-no so least said and all that.

[JimUk1]

Seems vanity and arrogance go hand-in-hand with freemen.

I can't believe how prepared she is to throw thousands of pounds of equity away; and all for a conspiracy theory.

I think it's very tragic the legal profession isn't trying to educate people on the consequences of this nonsense.

Whilst we do see some writing back clearly starting what the defendant is doing is nonsense and harmful, surely by now there could be a hub for
Information? With all known cases like Crawford, Taylor and now Patel.

[He Who Knows]

Siegfried Shrink wrote:

Employment law is...a fairly new field for British lawyers to play in

Not really, it goes back before the 1464 Truck Acts that required workers be paid in cash and not in kind.

[longdog]

I'm supporting the keep the money coming theory of delay, it is entirely compatible with the tendency for British public sector employers to keep paying non working employees, sometimes for a matter of years. This would be well known to Ms.Patel.

There have been cases of British hospitals paying doctors involved in some form of dispute for years, similarly for civil servants on 'Gardening leave'. Such cases are reported quite often, and are due to the sometimes amazingly convoluted and very slow disciplinary procedures that can be involved in firing almost any employee.

In the private sector 'zero hours contracts' have been invented to get round the legal difficulties with firing people; employers have to follow a detailed and lengthy process to get rid of the most useless but not actually criminally culpable employee, and if they fail in detail at any stage, employment tribunals have the power to declare the dismissal unfair and award thousands in damages.
Employment law is a huge and lucrative and fairly new field for British lawyers to play in.

The high levels of youth employment in some European countries like Greece, France and Spain are in my opinion, due to a large extent to their having even more employment guarantees for employees which makes employers very reluctant to hire anybody, no matter what the short term desirability is.

American employers seem to be able to fire anybody at any time for any or no reason, Mr Trump seems to practice this a lot. I am sure it helps to keep the economy lean and fit.

I've been sacked enough times to know that's quite simply untrue. If a company has a written disciplinary policy they have to follow it. If they don't have a written policy about sacking somebody for incompetence then a first warning, a second warning and a final warning followed by dismissal would almost certainly be treated as 'fair' by a tribunal. Gross misconduct (Such as telling the boss to go fuck themselves which is what I tend to do, although you could count it as a resignation I suppose) is legally sound grounds for instant dismissal.

Any company that is using zero-hour contracts as a way to sidestep the law on unfair dismissal is almost certainly a company to avoid like the plague because it displays a mindset that treats employees as the enemy not as human beings with the right to be treated as such. If a company, or indeed a country, needs to trample of worker's rights to be 'lean and fit' it's probably at death's door already.

As for this being a 'lucrative and fairly new' field... Really? The unfair dismissal provisions in law have existed for the best part of half a century.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I think her getting paid is just a side issue. It is a pleasant addition for her for the approach she takes where she is right and everyone else (bar about four people) is wrong.

Jail is very unlikely for something like this, assuming previous good character.

Not sure about this. I think one of the issues she is facing is contempt of court and the judicial system doesn't like that. We had a case where the victim of a rape was named on Facebook (rape victims are anonymous in English law unless they divulge the information themselves) and a few posts of "isn't that so-and-so" got several people a fortnight in prison. Rekha's antics in court and occasional appearance when she can be bothered will not go down well with a judge.

[Siegfried Shrink]

As for this being a 'lucrative and fairly new' field... Really? The unfair dismissal provisions in law have existed for the best part of half a century.

To me, 'fairly new' is anything younger than I am. So half a century is no problem, I'm still grumpy about the phasing out of the green pound note with the picture of the Bank of England on it, and the white fiver.

I'd not argue seriously about your other points, a lot is a matter of perspective although as an employer in a small way I have tried to be both generous and friendly.
Certainly never sacked anyone or had anything personally to do with employment law.

[longdog]

To me, 'fairly new' is anything younger than I am. So half a century is no problem, I'm still grumpy about the phasing out of the green pound note with the picture of the Bank of England on it, and the white fiver.

Quite clearly this is a nonsensical way of looking at things. A far more rational attitude is to divide history into 'BJ' and 'AJ' being 'Before Jam' and 'After Jam'. Before Jam is ancient history whereas 'After Jam' denotes recent history defined as being from the time The Jam split up... 1982 in the CE/BCE system.

[TheNewSaint]

American employers seem to be able to fire anybody at any time for any or no reason.

Pretty much. Employment law is determined at the state level, and most states are "right-to-work" states. Unless you have an employment contract, are part of a union, or the firing was for an illegal reason (discrimination, whistleblowing) you have little recourse.

[Gregg]

American employers seem to be able to fire anybody at any time for any or no reason, Mr Trump seems to practice this a lot. I am sure it helps to keep the economy lean and fit.

For the most part, we can. In the USA, most states are what we call "At Will Employment" states, which means I employ you or not employ you at my will. It gets a bit stickier with legally protected classes, of which there are quite a few and those are sometimes different by state. (federal law covers race, creed, sex, age, nationality, and some others, some states include sexual orientation, gender identity and I'm sure a few more)
Then there is the matter of Unions, which are the primary provider of job security here, as few employers have employment contracts below the executive level. Union rules go from being a joke in their laxness with some, to being a joke in their absurdity in others, and one of the more notorious is the United Auto Workers. This story may be true or may be an urban legend, I dunno myself but the fact that it is largely accepted by the 45,000 union employees of the company where I work (Ford) is as to make it least credible for illustration.

We have, in all facilities, security gates that require a badge, and one of the very few things that will get you fired is letting someone in on your badge (guy you go to lunch with forgets his badge, you swipe him in, big no no).
The reason we have security gates, according to legend, is an incident that did happen in the late 90s, where a man and wife both worked at a plant on different shifts. The man found out his wife was having an affair with a supervisor, lost his cookies and grabbed a bunch of guns and went back to work, killed among a few others his wife and a supervisor. This is true, I remember when it happened. Now, the legend.

The UAW shop stewards got him out of the plant and into custody before he was in contact with anyone from Labor Relations, and he was then arrested, tried for multiple homicides, in the end acquitted by reason of temporary insanity and committed to a mental hospital. Because he was never in contact with anyone from the company vis a vis discipline, they could not by the union contract take any action against him, and because he was never convicted of any crime, and eventually committed to medical care, he was, according to the union contract and backdated to the date of the incident, placed on medical leave where he remained until his eventual retirement. I have on more than one occasion heard this incident jokingly explained to new supervisors by union employees with the ending "the moral of the story is, I have to kill at least 2 supervisors to get fired, and I haven't killed my first one yet" implying "don't piss me off, kid"

As far fetched as it seems, and its almost Douglas Adams absurd, I have for more than 20 years now been willing to think there is some truth to it That's how crazy our union labor contracts can seem. Even worse for the majority of americans who don't actually work in union shops and just hear stories like this to judge by.

[TheNewSaint]

I think one of the issues she is facing is contempt of court and the judicial system doesn't like that.

And, multiple instances of it. Breaking into the house after being evicted; the sham sale to Tunkashila Limited; and now disrupting and blowing off two court hearings. And it may be true that they broke into the place again Wednesday night.

I realize some of this falls outside the purview of contempt of court. However, Ms Patel's long-term contempt for the legal process, and telling outrageous lies to the media about the case, should be mitigating factors in terms of sentencing for contempt.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Possibly not exactly 'mitigating factors' but rather 'aggravating'?

------------------------------------------------------------

The Ford story was credible, but I prefer the car plant story that someone smuggled out parts for an entire car and built it at home. I have my doubts due to the size of some of the bits.

------------------------------------------------------------------


I have little to no idea about Jam, although it clearly works for you. Until the end I thought you meant spreadable fruitiness in jars.
I would define 'New' as anything this cantury, 'Recent' as back to about 1975, fairly recent as back to WWII, Old as back to George III, and so on. I must try to be clearer.

[Hercule Parrot]

...and because he was never convicted of any crime, and eventually committed to medical care, he was, according to the union contract and backdated to the date of the incident, placed on medical leave where he remained until his eventual retirement. ...

As far fetched as it seems, and its almost Douglas Adams absurd, I have for more than 20 years now been willing to think there is some truth to it ....

Yes, that's not an unthinkable scenario. In UK the protection will be more from legislation than union-negotiated terms, but similar things can happen. The other significant factor is the risk-adverse attitude of public sector HR & Legal.

If Wrecka worked for a private company, they might have already sacked her by now. The rationale would be that if she brought an Employment Tribunal claim, she would probably win (because they hadn't waited for everything to be dealt with by due process in the courts). But the compensation award would be relatively small, because her own behaviour was a major contributory factor.

Pay her for another year and then sack her for free ~ Cost to business £30,000 min
Sack her today and pay some compo in a year or so ~ Cost to business £10,000 max

UK public sector HR & Legal are very reluctant to allow cynical tactics like this, and I think it's the same in big corporate employers too. They don't want any negative PR, and the costs are not a big issue at their level. They tend to just shrug and say that the safest option is to suspend the employee until the allegations and concerns have been resolved through due process.

To be honest, I have some sympathy with it too. My experience has been from the employer/manager side, and it is certainly very frustrating - I have had senior people on gardening leave for 2 or 3yrs, and the disruption of this is immense. But I remind myself that I have no right to presume they are guilty of anything, and I must allow the possibility that the investigation will wholly vindicate them. Do unto others, etc.

The real problem underlying all of this is the slowness of our justice system. Wrecka has been able to cause chaos for several years, and no court has yet made an explicit finding of wrongful conduct against her. As soon as that happens, her employer can act (and they probably have the draft letters ready on file for that day). But our civil and criminal courts move at a glacial pace, as seen in other cases like Tom Crawford.

(apols for the tangent)

[Burnaby49]

As for this being a 'lucrative and fairly new' field... Really? The unfair dismissal provisions in law have existed for the best part of half a century.

To me, 'fairly new' is anything younger than I am. So half a century is no problem, I'm still grumpy about the phasing out of the green pound note with the picture of the Bank of England on it, and the white fiver.

I'd not argue seriously about your other points, a lot is a matter of perspective although as an employer in a small way I have tried to be both generous and friendly.
Certainly never sacked anyone or had anything personally to do with employment law.

I once tried to pay for a beer and a bacon sandwich in a pub in London with one of the old pounds (this was back in the 90s) to find they were no longer legal tender. A pound note isn't legal in Britain? Same thing happened this year with a five pound note. Britain is the only first-world country I'm aware of which actually invalidates its own currency.

[noblepa]

American employers seem to be able to fire anybody at any time for any or no reason, Mr Trump seems to practice this a lot. I am sure it helps to keep the economy lean and fit.

For the most part, we can. In the USA, most states are what we call "At Will Employment" states, which means I employ you or not employ you at my will. It gets a bit stickier with legally protected classes, of which there are quite a few and those are sometimes different by state. (federal law covers race, creed, sex, age, nationality, and some others, some states include sexual orientation, gender identity and I'm sure a few more)

This is true, but lest our British cousins get the wrong idea, the burden of proof is on the fired employee to show illegal discrimination. For example, if a woman is fired, that is not, per se, discrimination. She must prove in court that she was fired BECAUSE she is a woman. The same is true for other protected classes.

As others have pointed out, it can be problematic if an employer doesn't follow their own procedures. We have a guy at work, who was summarily fired (IMHO unfairly, but I don't know all the details). He filed a lawsuit, or a complaint with the Labor Relations Board, and, after about a year was brought back and, I believe, received back pay. This was because our employer (Cuyahoga County, Ohio), has specific procedures for discipline and termination, which they did not follow.

[noblepa]

Possibly not exactly 'mitigating factors' but rather 'aggravating'?

------------------------------------------------------------

The Ford story was credible, but I prefer the car plant story that someone smuggled out parts for an entire car and built it at home. I have my doubts due to the size of some of the bits.

------------------------------------------------------------------


I have little to no idea about Jam, although it clearly works for you. Until the end I thought you meant spreadable fruitiness in jars.
I would define 'New' as anything this cantury, 'Recent' as back to about 1975, fairly recent as back to WWII, Old as back to George III, and so on. I must try to be clearer.

Johnny Cash had a song about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb9F2DT8iEQ