Sandip Singh Atwal tries to steal £836,000 from our NHS.

[RichardCoulter]

Heard on the grapevine that he's now in prison, odd as the BBC article says that he won't be sentenced until 1/6/18

[pip08456]

Have you contacted the BBC to make them aware of their negligence or reporting error?

There is a link at the bottom of their news site you linked to for contact.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Have you contacted the BBC to make them aware of their negligence or reporting error?

There is a link at the bottom of their news site you linked to for contact.

Is that something you would normally do then?

[heero_yuy]

Pip's doing irony

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Have you contacted the BBC to make them aware of their negligence or reporting error?

There is a link at the bottom of their news site you linked to for contact.

It's only hearsay, so it's not been verified.

Thinking about it, I suppose it could be possible that he's being held on remand, so is actually locked up even though he hasnt been sentenced.

Given his dishonest behaviour, they probably don't trust him not to abscond.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's only hearsay, so it's not been verified

A bit like his "greedy" family then?

[RichardCoulter]

No, I know this for sure. Assumptions are rarely true and never helpful.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No, I know this for sure. Assumptions are rarely true and never helpful.

Know what exactly?

BTW, assumptions can often be true and, again, are often helpful ...

[RichardCoulter]

It would not be appropriate to discuss my knowledge about this on a public forum. As previously explained to you, this information is not based upon an an assumption.

Assumptions are not based upon fact and should never be made in any situation.

In addition, it looks like he hasn't been sentenced yet, so this case may well still be sub judice.

[1andrew1]

FWIW the article was published in April and said "due to be sentenced in..." which was doubtless correct at the time and may still be.
Good news if the sentencing has been brought forward. Personally, I'd like to see a bit of community service included for this type of offence.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It would not be appropriate to discuss my knowledge about this on a public forum. As previously explained to you, this information is not based upon an an assumption.

Assumptions are not based upon fact and should never be made in any situation.

In addition, it looks like he hasn't been sentenced yet, so this case may well still be sub judice.

Richard, if you can’t back something up, you shouldn’t use "secret squirrel*" as a ‘get out of jail’ card...

If you have been told confidential information inappropriately, it doesn’t count..

*I know something, but can’t tell you because (fill in specious reasoning here)

[RichardCoulter]

When mentioning this I didn't think for a moment that ianch99 would make such a meal of it to such a pedantic level and try to innappropriately bring the R word into the discussion.

I'm not prepared to discuss another person's private business without permission (even that of a criminal) or risk the safety of others for the sake of an internet discussion to satisfy his idle curiosity. His more recent posts appear to suggest that he could be developing a habit of baiting and trolling other posters.

In addition, if I were to speak about this in other than general terms, I could prejudice the whole trial and leave myself open to being in contempt of court.

---------- Post added at 22:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

FWIW the article was published in April and said "due to be sentenced in..." which was doubtless correct at the time and may still be.
Good news if the sentencing has been brought forward. Personally, I'd like to see a bit of community service included for this type of offence.

Thats true, the sentencing date may have changed since that was published on the internet, or he may actually be on remand whilst awaiting sentencing.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

When mentioning this I didn't think for a moment that ianch99 would make such a meal of it to such a pedantic level and try to innappropriately bring the R word into the discussion.

I'm not prepared to discuss another person's private business without permission (even that of a criminal) or risk the safety of others for the sake of an internet discussion to satisfy his idle curiosity. His more recent posts appear to suggest that he could be developing a habit of baiting and trolling other posters.

In addition, if I were to speak about this in other than general terms, I could prejudice the whole trial and leave myself open to being in contempt of court

Don't be so pompous. This forum deals with public information in the public domain. If you post articles referring to information in the public domain but then try and justify misinterpretation of your posts by citing "secret" knowledge, you are on a hiding to nothing.

Post facts and and argue the case. End of ... forget the, as Hugh correctly mentions, the "secret squirrel" rubbish.

---------- Post added at 23:35 ---------- Previous post was at 23:08 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Assumptions are not based upon fact and should never be made in any situation

but ...

assumption:

a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

I guess you assume the sun will rise tomorrow? However, you have no proof ...

[RichardCoulter]

I had you down as one of the more polite posters capable of reasoned and adult debate, it's not clear as to why this has changed. The way that you have started to speak to people has seriously deteriorated for some inexplicable reason, for example, I found the totally disrespectful way that you recently spoke to a member of admin to be absolutely shocking.

I again confirm that I will not be divulging information of a personal nature as this would not be appropriate, could put third parties at risk of harm and may well be a contempt of court. I cannot understand the motive of anyone trying to bring race into a discussion where it is wholly irrelevant, as opposed to condemning an attempt to fraudently gain £836,000 from the NHS.

My remarks were not an assumption, but are based on facts which you are not privvy to. I only expanded upon them after the reporting of my post led to admin asking me to. I did so in order that you would be reassured that there was no racial element. I say this as a former member of staff of the CRE. In this role I also gave speeches in front of members of the Government, including Lord Mackay, the former Lord Chancellor, who outranked the Prime Minister herself to lobby for better protection for disadvantaged groups.

If you are genuinely interested in this case, I suggest that you follow any further developments reported in the media, but you won't be finding anything out from me. That is assuming that you are not simply baiting/trolling in order to try and stir things up.

Hijacking this thread to try and virtue signal does not help the fight against racial discrimination. It's also a pity that you don't show the same concern for other disadvantaged groups when dealing, for example, with severely disabled people like myself. Perhaps disability doesn't give as many brownie points with the PC culture?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I had you down as one of the more polite posters capable of reasoned and adult debate, it's not clear as to why this has changed. The way that you have started to speak to people has seriously deteriorated for some inexplicable reason, for example, I found the totally disrespectful way that you recently spoke to a member of admin to be absolutely shocking.

I again confirm that I will not be divulging information of a personal nature as this would not be appropriate, could put third parties at risk of harm and may well be a contempt of court. I cannot understand the motive of anyone trying to bring race into a discussion where it is wholly irrelevant, as opposed to condemning an attempt to fraudently gain £836,000 from the NHS.

My remarks were not an assumption, but are based on facts which you are not privvy to. I only expanded upon them after the reporting of my post led to admin asking me to. I did so in order that you would be reassured that there was no racial element. I say this as a former member of staff of the CRE. In this role I also gave speeches in front of members of the Government, including Lord Mackay, the former Lord Chancellor, who outranked the Prime Minister herself to lobby for better protection for disadvantaged groups.

If you are genuinely interested in this case, I suggest that you follow any further developments reported in the media, but you won't be finding anything out from me. That is assuming that you are not simply baiting/trolling in order to try and stir things up.

Hijacking this thread to try and virtue signal does not help the fight against racial discrimination. It's also a pity that you don't show the same concern for other disadvantaged groups when dealing, for example, with severely disabled people like myself. Perhaps disability doesn't give as many brownie points with the PC culture?

You need to get down off that high horse, Richard. Saying how important you are and that you know information that you "cannot share" adds nothing to the debate.

You posted an article relating to a single individual of India ethnicity. No mention of any family let alone of their criminal activity. You then posted a remark mentioning greed in the context of genetics and people. There was only one way to interpret this remark in the context of your thread. I was actually in India at the time so your post was irritating to say the least.

I was not being "PC" or "trolling". I have a number of close friends who are Indian so was angered by your remark.

You then bring in disability into to this thread and accuse me of not showing concern for the disadvantaged. Shame on you.

Enough, let's get this back on topic ...