Stephen Gash takes full responsibility for the following article “The Sinister Case of Sareeta Webra” which is based on conversations between Stephen and Sareeta and dozens of documents concerning her claim that Sareeta showed to Stephen.
This is only a fraction of what actually occurred.
Perhaps Sikhs reading this article might consider taking their financial and insurance business elsewhere and telling fellow Sikhs about how the British legal system has treated a Sikh woman in such a cavalier fashion.
The Sinister Case of Sareeta Webra
Sareeta is a thirty nine year old English Sikh woman who just one week before her twenty seventh birthday was mown down in London by a car, in what authorities described as a hit and run. Indeed, authorities initially considered whether to treat it as a case of attempted murder. Some still believe it was attempted murder. The impact propelled Sareeta some sixty feet along the road and several feet into the air, causing her to sustain severe injuries including broken bones and lacerations. Even more seriously, Sareeta suffered a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury which has permanently affected her life and for which she is now forced to claim disability benefits.
Although the car was not registered to the driver at the time, a valid insurance policy still covered the vehicle concerned. This was ascertained by the Motor Insurance Bureau who stated that the company providing cover was Barclays Insurance. Sareeta herself had no life insurance and held no drivers licence which placed her in a special category as a pedestrian, for insurance purposes.
The Politics and Discriminatory Sharia Finance
It is historical fact that Sikhism was started to combat Muslim aggression in India. Consequently, Muslim countries have little love for Sikhs.
It is both Sareeta’s and my belief, that the apparent hostility shown by Barclays insurance against her is less to do with Barclays representing its clients and more to do with her being a Sikh.
Sareeta actively pursues her intention to remove the 1947 Partition of India which created the Muslim state of Pakistan and split the Sikhs’ homeland, the Punjab, placing most of it in Pakistan.
This was done with much bloodshed and displacement of people and has left a lasting legacy of hostility between Pakistani Muslims and Sikhs. Naturally, the world’s Muslims side with their Brotherhood in Pakistan.
Barclays has received substantial financial backing from Middle Eastern Muslim countries, not least Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia a Muslim country, it is the centre of world Islam and contains Islam’s holiest site. Saudi Arabia is one of the UK’s largest recipients of weapons including a significant number of fighter jets. Some arms sales in the past have reportedly involved bribes, but investigations were closed down by Blair’s government under the guise of national security.
Unfortunately, the Barclays connections with Saudi Arabia and Qatar have allegedly resulted in dodgy financial events, arguably bordering on corruption that required official investigations.
It seems that the British establishment has prostituted the United Kingdom’s economy to oil sheikhdoms. Its once proud financial services industry, that the UK’s economy now depends upon, is in tatters. Even London’s historic stock exchange is largely owned by Middle Eastern potentates.
Firstly as Chancellor of the Exchequer, then as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown stated he intended for the UK to be a world centre of sharia financing.
Anybody who knows even a smidgeon about sharia understands that it is profoundly discriminatory against non-Muslims. This is especially so concerning Sikhs who are not even “people of the book,” as are Christians and Jews who, in theory, are offered a modicum of protection from Muslim aggression, which however, rarely manifests itself in practice. So, Sikhs are considered to be of even lowlier status than Jews and Christians by holier-than-thou Muslims.
As far back as 2007 it was being reported that Barclays was moving aggressively into sharia financial services.
This submission to Islamic practises has since increased exponentially.
It is a sure thing that Sikhs and Jews will come off worst where sharia finance holds sway.
This is probably, if not assuredly, the case with Sareeta who proudly runs her Facebook Blog
It was some time before Sareeta’s case first appeared in a court room, during which time she convalesced and literally got herself back on her feet. Her original litigation specialist, Stephen Thorpe, handled her case so well that Barclays Insurance admitted “full and complete commercial liability”, so one would assume that it was an open and shut case. Indeed, this has been stated several times to Sareeta by lawyers. However, even after nearly thirteen years her case has not yet been resolved.
This is in large part due to Stephen Thorpe being replaced by a solicitor within the same firm, named Marc Folgate, who essentially sat on proceedings and effectively stopped progress. When Sareeta started a complaint against her solicitor, the firm concerned promised to resurrect her case if she dropped her complaint. She duly dropped her complaint only to be told in not so many words “to go away”. This would be an appalling way for a solicitor to behave towards any client, but to dupe a brain-injured and vulnerable woman, who absolutely needed somebody to act on her behalf, is contemptible.
The legal firm concerned was Scrivenger Seabrook, Vernon House, 26 New Street, St Neots, Cambridgeshire, PE19 1XB
Things had really looked promising in 2009 when court proceedings began in earnest after Sareeta appointed a barrister specialising in incidents resulting in brain injuries. At a meeting with her legal advocates it was agreed that Sareeta would pursue her claim through the courts who would determine the level of any damages to be awarded to her.
Unfortunately, things took a downturn when Sareeta was informed that she would have to meet her own costs privately because Barclays Insurance stated it would only meet the costs of the defendants, using a legal mechanism known as Article 75. As she was uninsured, Sareeta was unable to call upon an insurance company to fight her side and meet her costs.
So, unless she won her claim, and was also awarded costs, Sareeta would have to meet her own legal expenses. Otherwise payments would be made out of her compensation or out of her own pocket.
When this stark reality slapped Marc Folgate in the face, he claimed that he would have to look after his company’s economics and effectively sat on the case. He never completed the instructions given by her very experienced and competent barrister. A judge stated to Sareeta that her solicitor had done no work since 1996.
Worse still, Sareeta says Folgate ordered her to see a “hypnotherapist” unchaperoned at a private residential address and refused to provide a CV for the “therapist” concerned. To a lay person, this might appear an extraordinary way for a solicitor to behave; to place an already vulnerable woman in an even more vulnerable situation. Due to her brain injury, that at times made it difficult for her to cope with proceedings, Sareeta appointed two litigation friends who also acted as lawful advocates to assist her in her dealings with lawyers. Her solicitor refused point blank to allow an advocate to accompany her in visiting the “therapist” and also his office. He did, however, insist that a “student” sit in at a meeting between himself and Sareeta, despite Sareeta’s objections.
Naturally, Sareeta attempted to instruct other solicitors, one even agreeing to pay the £16,000 disbursements for release of the case files from the inactive Folgate. However, the lien placed on the files was increased substantially to around £30,000, and Sareeta maintains that it was increased even further to around £50,000. It begs the question what does this particular solicitor have to hide from others in his profession? Would his inertia be construed as incompetence, negligence or something else?
Sareeta says that her inactive solicitor told her by phone that he would make sure no other solicitor would take her case.
It is extraordinary that someone concerned about the economy of his firm would turn down money offered by other lawyers to take over the case. It begs a further question, was money provided by other sources? The god of money moves in mysterious ways.
The levels of costs may have frightened off all other solicitors Sareeta has approached to represent her, but actual reasons are not forthcoming which increases the stress Sareeta endures. Although at least one set of lawyers said her case was “too dangerous” for them to act on her instructions.
We both suspect that this is due to her status within the Sikh community.
Also, it is well known that Islam condones paedophilia and it is likely that the sinister happenings surrounding Sareeta’s case stem from her involvement in assisting someone in exposing an alleged paedophile within Barclays at senior board level.
So far she has approached over one hundred lawyers and in desperation even asked Cherie Blair and the Archbishop of York for help, both of whom bluntly declined.
The last lawyers Sareeta asked to represent her, earlier this year, provided the familiar scenario of “an open and shut case,” but then declaring they could not represent her. However, these genuinely kind gentlemen suggested that her only recourse is to go directly to the Royal Courts of Justice.
£300,000 is the figure Sareeta’s barrister suggested her case was worth, based on his considerable and successful experience. This figure was arrived at before a second round of medical reports concerning the detrimental effects of the injury on Sareeta having a family of her own and also loss of earnings were taken into consideration. These would make any compensation considerably higher, possibly running into the millions.
As Barclays is an international corporation, it may be possible to persuade competent lawyers in America to act on Sareeta’s behalf. Sadly, some quarters of the British justice system appear to be becoming as worryingly corrupt as British financial services have seemingly become, but there are still good honest lawyers within it, fortunately. We just hope one has the courage to confront the dangers referred to, which make Sareeta’s case so sinister.