Neelu tries the patience of a saint

/ 22/03/2016

Remember that time Neelu called the IPCC and gave two of their employees a valid reason to go on indefinite stress leave?

Well, she’s done it again, only this time her target is the Local Government Ombudsman.

[Please note: this post contains material about child abuse which some people may find upsetting.]

 

After one false start, Neelu reaches a nice young man named Scott, who doesn’t seem to bat an eyelash as he reads her complaint aloud—the usual bollocks about satanism and grievances and crimes committed by local councils dishonouring the people through crimes of child trafficking of children and secret societies and cannibals, and a commercial lien to cease trading, and so on and so forth for about five minutes straight.

And then he pauses, and says, “Er, okay, I read from the complaint—er…what kind of service actually are you complaining about?”

Bad move, Scott. Very bad move.

We’re quite certain that he didn’t expect Neelu’s answer.

Neelu: My niece died at five months old, she was raped in the mouth whilst in care of social services, and her organs were removed without consent or knowledge of the parents, she was tortured, with isolation drug overdoses and satanic deprivation of oxygen…in a satanic ritual.

Scott: Er…. (because really, what else can one say?)

Neelu: And then because I exposed her death as deliberate, as a pharmacist, I researched the medical file, produced the evidence of the mass conspiracy between the doctors, nurses, the trust, and Great Ormond Street Hospital to execute babies in hospitals for satanic rituals, my family’s been persecuted ever since then, with the council, Redbridge council, with false prosecutions, kidnaps, persecutions, and I just want them to stop terrorising my family and stop the crimes against babies and children”.

Scott: When did your niece pass away, please? (Quick! Make her stop!)

Neelu: On the 26th of October,  2000.

Scott: Right. Okay. So you’ve been part of this case since then, have you?

Neelu: Yeah, and the treatment that I’ve received from my local council has progressively got worse. Now I’ve been kidnapped in a conspiracy with Camden council and Barnet council, by police officers who participate in the crimes of cannibalising babies in the church, called Christ Church, by joint kidnaps of myself between Camden police and Ilford police on the 24th of April and the 30th of April. (Note: bit of a bail breach here, Neelu)

Scott: (takes deep breath) Okay. If you’ve been kidnapped, we can’t help with that unfortunately…are these councils in England?

Neelu: Yeah, it’s the London Borough of Redbridge that’s terrorising my family, they sent police officers to my home in a false prosecution against the parents of the baby regarding licensing…

Scott: (voice rising to a higher register) And when…when did that take place? (It’s okay, Scott, you can snicker. We won’t think less of you.)

Neelu: They started this false prosecution in 2010…against the parents of the baby, and then they persecuted…they sent the police to collect this fine, and there was a fraud and there was a treason that they committed because lodgers, that is landlords don’t need licences to hold lodgers, which is what they  hired fraudulent barristers and solicitors to summons and do a magistrates prosecution of the parents of the baby, without law, they’re acting totally above the law, they’re criminals and they need to be shut down. (For heaven’s sake, Neelu, take a breath!)

Scott: Um, right. ‘Cause we can look at complaints within the last 12 months…outside 12 months we don’t have any jurisdiction…. (Interesting ploy: stall her with rules.)

Neelu: Right, so they kidnapped my sister, on the 25th of May, 2015, the London borough of Redbridge sent police officers to kidnap my sister and my brother-in-law in May last year.

Scott: (playing for time) So…Redbridge kidnapped your sister in May?

Neelu: The 24th was my brother-in-law and the 25th was my sister. They sent police officers to kidnap them and….

Scott: Um…where are they now?

Neelu: Well, they were released on payment, they extorted a £10,000 fine off my family that was not due to them under any laws, it’s extortion.

Scott: So what was the reason for the Borough of Redbridge taking your sister?

Neelu: Because they’re persecuting my family for exposing the crimes against babies in the social services, the social services are responsible for the death of my niece, for her being orally raped and overdosed at five months old, with semen in her mouth, a blister on her lip, and a bruise on her tongue.

Scott: Look, I’m really sorry to hear about what happened to your niece, but we can’t look at events going back to 2000, that’s 16 years ago, we don’t investigate complaints if they’re after 12 months. (The Force is strong in this one: he’s using the well-known Bureaucratic Regulatory defence.)

Neelu: Right, so what I’m saying to you is the parents are falsely kidnapped, under the authority of the London Borough of Redbridge on the 24th and 25th of May last year.

Scott: But why were they taken away? (Stay strong, Scott!)

Neelu: They were allegedly not having paid a fine that is outside of law, that’s not required by law, because Redbridge are making up their own laws.

Scott: What was the actual fine?

Neelu: It was a fine for having lodgers in their own home, for not having a licence which they don’t need, they don’t need a licence to have lodgers in their own home to pay their bills.

Scott: Err…have you made any official formal complaint in writing about this at all?

Neelu: Yes I did, in 2010, ’11, ’12, many times.

Scott: Right. As I mentioned, we can’t look at events going back to 2010. That would be outside our jurisdiction…so regarding the action the council took on your sister and her husband, have you made any official formal complaint in regard to those in the last 12 months?

Neelu: You have that complaint in front of you. You have that in it, the kidnappings and those dates.

Scott: (sighs, realising he’s back to square one) Erm…well I’m just trying to, um…let me just have a look.

Damn, and just when it was starting to look like he might have a chance against the Neelu steamroller.

Scott tries to explain to her that his office’s job is to assess her complaint and decide whether action can be taken. He doesn’t hold out much hope, but hey, you never know. Neelu comes back with her usual challenge: is Scott under oath to God?

He admits he’s not, and this triggers Neelu’s usual torrent of abuse: he’s a fraudulent civil servant, and all man-made acts are acts of fraud, and he’s trading for a pirate organisation for a pirate country and participating in cannibalism and child trafficking for purposes of snuff movies, etc., etc.

Round and round the mulberry bush they go, for over half an hour, with Neelu heaping on abuse and bullshit in approximately equal amounts, until Scott has finally had enough, tells her he’s terminating the call, and hangs up.

We have to hand it to Scott: his counterparts at the IPCC lasted less than half that time, and sounded considerably more irked by the end.

So Scott at the Local Government Ombudsman’s office, you are this month’s Sainthood Prize for bravery and patience in the face of Neelu’s marathon phone rants. We’ll mail you your ribbon!

Neelu with crystal on forehead

 

 

 

 

Related posts

57 thoughts on “Neelu tries the patience of a saint”

  1. Can you imagine the poor tenants who lived with Neelu’s family for which they were eventually fined over?. Similar to those who unfortunately rented from Patrick Cullinane which led to his financial demise.

    Liked by 1 person

    • They’d have to be pretty desperate, I think. But given the price of any sort of housing in London these days, many people will take what they can get. I think some people have even been driven to the extreme of living with Belinda! 😉

      Like

  2. I am very cautious in what I write with regards Neelu. I am mindful of her impending trial and would hate to write anything on a public blog that she or her co-accused could use in anyway to argue that they had less than their right to a fair trial.

    Neelu (to my untrained eye) does seem to exhibit rather extreme behaviour traits and beliefs, which may result in a qualified medical examination that could influence the direction her trial might take (be that in either the proceedings or sentencing if found guilty).

    In general, such behaviour could be exploited by others for their own gain. It would seem an ideal opportunity for someone to use an unbalanced person to promote their own agenda, that is using a person not constrained by normal rationality and respect for boundaries imposed by the law due to incapacity in their mental state,

    In my own mind, anyone exploiting a person who is ill (be that physically or mentally ill) is the lowest of the low and deserves the full weight of the criminal justice system.

    I am not saying that Neelu has been exploited, nor am I saying that she’s mentally ill. What I am saying is that these are factors that might be considered in the impending trial and I think the wise will be cautious of examining the underlying reasons for Neelu’s behaviour until after the trial – it would be horrible to give anything that might let someone off the hook on a technicality

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m definitely going to the trial in July. If she acts like that she’ll be psychiatrically assessed.

      Like

      • Actually – Didn’t check all the way through video for names being mentioned. Admins please remove if necessary.

        Like

    • I understand this point, and I agree that it would be a terrible thing to imperil her trial outcome in any way. However, it’s my understanding that when dealing with people with mental illness, the courts look not at whether the accused is actually ill (which in Neelu’s case I think would be indisputable), but on whether they were capable of forming intent at the time the crime was committed.

      Arguably, all the people involved in the Hampstead SRA hoax could be diagnosed with some mental illness or another, from personality disorders to drug addictions and so forth. However, that doesn’t stand in the way of their facing charges, nor of being convicted. The prisons are full of people with mental health diagnoses.

      Like

      • Yes, there are two components to a criminal act, the ‘mens rea’ – guilty intent and the ‘actus reus’ – guilty act. – Were they of sound enough mind to know what the consequences of their crime were? i.e. Did she understand that harassing the vicar in the street would distress the man?

        I suspect there will be few difficulties with this. Having been found fit to be tried the question of her mental health then comes into play when the judge decides how she should be dealt with.

        Like

  3. Neelu claims to have been a pharmacist – does anyone know when she qualified and when her registration ended? There is no record of Neelu Berry or Neelu Chaudhary being currently registered.

    The title “Pharmacist” is a protected title. Neelu is committing a criminal offence by describing herself as a “pharmacist” without being currently registered.

    From the Pharmacy regulators website:

    https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/regulate/article/working-within-law-spotlight-illegal-practice

    “The offences of using the title ‘pharmacist’ or ‘pharmacy technician’ when not registered and practising as a pharmacist or pharmacy technician when not registered both carry a maximum penalty of a £5000 fine. They may be prosecuted by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The GPhC also has powers to bring a private prosecution and most cases are prosecuted in this way because we have the specialist knowledge to be able to bring all relevant information to the court’s attention.”

    Like

  4. I seem to recall seeing the ‘paperwork’ somewhere that saw her ‘struck off’ for bringing the profession into disrepute… Yes, I think she was a pharmacist. And is in most ways a fairly tragic figure.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Very tragic – and made even worse by her continued use of the title. She places herself at risk by using the title in a recorded encounter that she made without qualifying it as a past title. Sadly, I doubt she even realises it.

      The GPhC are notorious for being aggressively protective of the profession. In years past, a friend of mine (who owned a small chain of chemists) was suspended for 18 months as a sanction for a very minor first time paperwork offence – he failed to notice that a drug licence on a prescription medicine that had been imported was incorrectly dated (numbers transposed). During his suspension he had to employ locum pharmacists to cover shifts that he should (or would) of worked in his shops, at the time costing him £500 + day. A hefty price to pay over an 18 month period.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t know either. Especially considering that Neelu has embroidered the story significantly since the original tragedy took place, I’d think the people she harassed and maligned would want her to be stopped.

      Like

    • The permanent restraining order ( PERMANENT RESTRAINING AND MANDATORY ORDER)

      “Before the Honourable Mr Justice Newman

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

      Claim No: HQ02X03558

      Dated: 6th day of April 2004

      Sealed: 7th APR 2004″

      STATES QUITE CLEARLY:

      ” (2) post or publish, or cause, permit or procure to be posted or published on any
      website or web page on the Internet or World Wide Web, whether under their control,
      or under the control of any third party, any of the offending allegations, or further
      or other allegations to similar effect;”

      The big question (in the context of the Permanent restraining order) is if Neelu’s allegations regarding SRA are “OTHER ALLEGATIONS TO SIMILAR EFFECT”

      Liked by 1 person

  7. I would have been quite tempted to take her offer of $138 Trillion.

    I wonder if Scott left a message on her file for his colleagues, in case she phones again. That man should be given a rise or bonus.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, indeed he should. I thought for certain he was going to lose it at some point, but he remained polite, calm, and factual throughout.

      Like

  8. Part of the difficulty with the restraining order MAY be that it is in favour of certain named individuals. – Is it possible that it would take a complaint from one of them to raise the issue? – And being clinicians, bound by oath to do no harm, are they perhaps reluctant to do so about a woman so very clearly suffering from a serious mental illness? Neelu has fallen fron astonishing heights. – Quite the classical Asian beauty at one time (I hear), with brains to match the looks and a feisty attitude – what became of her? Stillborn and neonatal death is a horrendous thing and will almost-always leave the bereaved badly scarred of course. But what state must her mind already have been in when her niece was tragically lost?

    A group of us was discussing the little clutch of weasles behind this hoax over lunch. – Given that there are possible links to petty and not-so-petty crime here, including drug abuse. How useful would a young Pharmacist be? Particularly one of that generation where individuals really do struggle to assimilate differing cultures. – How easily lead is such an individual.

    As for McKenzie – clearly she Is abusing the unfortunate Neelu. It’s written all over her face as she struggles to keep the mask up in front of the crowd. – Truly a vile excuse for a woman.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I agree –

      On reflection, it is an order in favour of named individuals – in the main that limits the order to protection of the named person, rather than protecting a wider group as in the terms of an ASBO.

      However it would come under the scope of that order if any of Neelu’s actions can be demonstrated to allude to or directly refer to the named people in the order and then parallel her accusations in the past against those doctors.

      The saving grace is that the burden of proof for a breach of the restraining order is lower than an ASBO.

      However it seems that only one of the named claimants (from the order) could bring a claim against Neelu for having breached the restraining order – the burden of proof that the order was breached would fall upon the claimant. As its a civil law claim that burden of proof would only need to reach nn the balance of probabilities, the defendant was more likely liable than not liable, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

      Perhaps the content is this facebook post is sufficent evidence of the order being breached

      .

      Liked by 3 people

      • I recall that after being released from custody with Christine Ann Sands Neelu complained that she’d been tortured by being given microwaved food.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It is, probably, yes. – Put yourself in the Doctors’ place though. Are you likely to want to involve yourself in any way, shape, or form with this madness? – Perhaps and only perhaps AFTER its reached the point where it’s threatening your career or loved ones. But until then?

        Like

        • The doctors did previously join together to seek the order. At that stage emotions must have been very high. I do wonder if time has totally healed that hurt?

          Liked by 1 person

          • Unlikely, but I do suspect that they might have written Neelu off as unlikely to attract much attention from sane people. Just a guess, but court is expensive, and really, who does listen to her, other than her fellow conspiranoids?

            Like

          • Apparently none of the named doctors and nurses are still employed at the same hospital. I did alert the hospital’s legal dept about Neelu’s activities last year but, as has been pointed out, it would have to be taken up by the original complainants.
            We’ve been round in circles with Neelu for a long time. Her family must bear some responsibility for not getting her the help she so obviously needs.

            Like

          • Sorry El, my reply was to JW, guess he may not see it now. Just adding that the facebook post was in fact one of the links I sent to the hospital. Its all very frustrating, without tracing the original doctors nothing can, apparently, be done.

            Liked by 1 person

  9. Well done Scott. I think i’d have accidentally hung up on her after about 5minutes. I hope they are paying him more than the minimum wage.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Scott deserves a medal and a ribbon and one of those bronzed trophies that sportsmen/women get. His trophy should be in the shape of a man in a suit swinging a sock full of horse manure in the direction of Ilford. :)))))))

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I’m just home from work and have only started to listen to her latest video. I can no longer make fun of Neelu as she is clearly mentally ill. Her family and friends are letting her down by not helping her.

    Like

    • Yes I know. I don’t like to take it too far because she doesn’t sound well at all. Got to say though that most of them sound a bit ‘off’ to me.

      Like

      • I don’t think Sadbint or Bellend are mentally ill and I’m disgusted by the way they use their “friend” to further their own needs. I also feel they would drop Neelu like a hot potato if it suited them.
        That said, Neelu has pushed the Hampstead Hoax since the beginning and is as annoying as the rest of that crazy lot.

        Liked by 1 person

    • What I find astonishing about Neelu is how many people in positions of authority (police, the IPCC, the Ombudsman’s office) seem so patient with her, even when she begins accusing them of horrible things. I think it speaks very well for the authorities that she and the other Hoaxteaders seem to loathe so much.

      Liked by 1 person

          • When you call the people Neelu calls, you always get the message “Calls may be recorded for training purposes.” I pity the staff who have had to use Neelu’s calls for staff training. I wonder what they recommend dong?
            In Scott’s case it must be “Remain calm and polite at all times” and what a sterling job he does.

            Liked by 1 person

      • Part of their remit is to ascertain if there is any wheat among the chaff. – There is a process, they just follow the bouncing ball cooly and calmly.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, the people who deal with her are v. patient. Those in public-facing roles often have training in dealing with challenging member of the public, probably because there are so many of them, and phone calls are cheap. I once worked as a receptionist in a yoga centre and fielded several calls from local religious nutters who accused me of devil worship. Oh, and the naked yoga guy, who enjoyed being regularly told that he couldn’t come to the centre and do yoga in the nude!

        Liked by 1 person

  12. I hope the judge on 8th April has been prepared for what might be a challenging court hearing with Neelu Berry and Sabine McNeill. The journalists will no doubt be delighted at the interesting story of the events that predictably is going to arise in that court hearing.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.