YOUR FREEDOMS OF CHOICE ARE SLOWLY
BEING LOST!
BEING LOST!
Dear Ms Cornthwaite / Mr E.J.M Quinn,
Thank you for your email of 9th December 2010. For this issue to be resolved it is very important full disclosure, honesty and clarity are applied in context where allegations are made which justify such extreme actions from your department / organisation.
Firstly I would like to make very clear, your department / organisation will have my cooperation in dealing with this matter to ensure ALL actions provide “Safer Stronger Communities” of which I fully support. To allow me to publicly justify my actions, I must ensure all the facts are present which require disclosure of all parties involved.
I do not believe your department / organisation has acted within the guidelines of your own standard operation procedures. The reason for this conclusion is justified as based on the actions of 17th November 2010.
From ONE complaint your department, through force entered my home. If this is the operating procedure of the Trading Standards then we clearly have a national issue which the public has a right to be aware off. Considering your actions are based on “Safer Stronger Communities” which cost the tax payer annually billions of pounds.
I also base this on your response to my reasonable request for information, which i again request.
Your response also raises several other questions and confirms as I stated in my first letter, I need to keep a detailed record of all communication “This will allow me to keep a detailed record of all communications to help resolve this issue”.
To clarify the reasonable request for information I will colour code our communications so there can be no mistakes in understanding. Should you not understand any request then please contact me and I will attempt to clarify in detail each request even further.
Derek Ellis communication (GREEN, (30th November Email), (BLACK).
Trading Standards Communication (BLUE).
“Thank you for your e-mail of 30th November 2010 which the Department received on 1st December 2010. I have been asked to respond to your email, as Eamonn Quinn's Area Manager and I must apologise for only responding to you now“ .
Considering, Mr Quinn is the Principle Trading Standards Officer and the officer who entered my home, why was my letter requesting basic information escalated to the Trading Standards South Area Office? Mr Quinn could have clearly provided this information himself.
“Our visit to your premises, which was discussed at the formal interview on 17th November 2010, was in respect of alleged criminal offences committed under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005“.
I recall at this interview Mr Quinn stated it would be followed by a written transcript and copy of the recording should I request it. Firstly, due to the unexpected actions from your department and emotional stress this caused, I cannot recall clearly all the contents of the interview. I now request the transcript and a physical copy of the recording.
“To answer the points that you raised in your email:”
The majority of the points I raised in my email have not been answered. Not only have they not been answered, you have made statements which are not honest nor accurate and you have linked unrelated facts which do not follow, (non sequitur/s) from my later dated 27th November 2010 request for information.
The questions I asked are as follows;
· Please can you provide details of regulation 23 of the general product safety regulations 2005.
1. There is a link to the General Product Safety Regulations from OPSI below;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1803/pdfs/uksi_20051803_en.pdf
Plus a link to guidance from BERR below;
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/Safety/products/general-regulations/index.html
Thank you for the links, this question is answered.
· Provide all the names and full contact details of the people who entered my home
This question was asked for the reason stated above, I do not believe that the behaviour of the Trading Standards justify such irrational actions. I make the request again; please provide all the contact details of the people who entered my home. If you are unable to provide these details due to some regulation, then please state which regulation. If you are unwilling to provide this information then please state why. For me to competently deal with this issue then this information is required based on the premise, ‘I do not believe your actions are justified’.
2. The only people who entered your home were Trading Standards Officers under the supervision of the investigating officer and Police Officers acting in a support role. The Police also had subsequent separate concerns about firearms and air-weapons found on your premises, which they dealt with separately.
The people who entered my home did indeed enter my home under supervision of Mr Quinn. This entry was gained through force, by an officer who used force to prevent my wife from closing the door. Therefore your statement claiming police officers were acting in a support role is false. One officer used force to prevent my wife from closing the door until she contacted me, as I was not present at this time and my wife would never allow unconfirmed entry to our home. At all times a police officer was present in my home and followed me when I chose to leave or enter my home, making me feel like a criminal. How exactly do these actions come under the heading of support? More alarmingly, I find your last sentence totally unacceptable and would like details of your motives for this sentence and its deceptive use.
“The Police also had subsequent separate concerns about firearms and air-weapons found on your premises, which they dealt with separately.”
The fact, I have memorabilia of a 100 year old plus riffle in my garage does not support your statement. Firstly this memorabilia is not a firearm nor is it classed as “firearms” as you claim. A firearm is; ‘A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.‘ The single item Memorabilia I have is not capable of firing a projectile and has no ability to cause an explosive charge.
Can you please explain your motives and reasons for placing such a sentence in your response when it does clearly not follow from the question I asked? The use of such non sequiturs is extremely misleading and do result in incorrect conclusions formed by person/s reading such sentences and statements.
You also use the word “firearms”; making reference to more than one can you explain this?
Again what is your motive for making reference to “air-weapons”, as this does not follow and these obvious points of fact, you have taken out of the context. The fact that I have air weapons has nothing to do with your reasons for entering my property so I would also like an explanation why such points have been raised. Details of any claims must be clear in context and logical. Anything contrary to this will misinform and lean to false conclusions of which I am sure you are already aware of this, considering your position.
· Provide contact details of the Justice of the Peace who signed the Warrant.
This request is also reasonable; the reason for my request is to ensure correct information was given under oath to her Majesty’s Justice of the Peace by Mr Quinn. I believe that such information is unsatisfactory and there are no reasonable grounds for a forced entry into my home.
3. A copy of the warrant was left with you, together with a copy of the seizure log and a copy of the appeals procedure under the General Products Safety Regulations
Again your response does not follow, nor does it answer my basic request. I made a reasonable request for contact information based on the reason above. My question did not relate to a copy of the warrant being left with me and fails to answer my request. Also, I did not ask about the seizure log or the appeals procedure. I again make the request; ‘please, provide contact details of the Justice of the Peace who signed the Warrant.’ If you are unable to provide these details due to some regulation, then please state which regulation. If you unwilling to provide this information the please state why. For me to competently deal with this issue then this information is required.
· Provide full contact details of the individuals who were taking pictures and using a video camera.
4. Trading Standards Officers took photographs as part of the operation. This is part of our evidence gathering and they will be disclosed to you if proceedings are considered. Media representatives were present but were instructed not to enter your premises.
Thank you for the answer, With reference to your department taking pictures. In relation to the media, please can you provide evidence of authorisation from the property / land owner (which I assume you have) which allowed the media to enter private premises. The premises on which the building resides is private property and the point of entry leading to the property is private. Again your statement does not follow and raises serious concerns from your department on property rights by authorising media personnel to enter private premises. These concerns cannot be actioned until you provide contact details. What also, is the motive of the trading standards for allowing media who knowingly use facts out of context, dishonestly use non sequiturs and mislead the public into drawing false and harmful conclusions. I again make the request; ‘Provide Full contact details of the individuals who were taking pictures and using a video camera from the media.’ If you are unable to provide these details due to some regulation, then please state which regulation. If you are unwilling to provide this information the please state why. For me to competently deal with this issue then this information is required based on the premise, I do not believe your actions are justified and you have authorised media personnel to violate private premises.
· Provide a full in context explanation and details of individuals who are victims of crime which relate directly to my actions which caused this warrant to be issued.
5. These actions arose from a complaint received from our regional fraud team. If proceedings are considered you will get full disclosure of all witnesses. During the interview you were informed that our actions had arisen from a complainant who had bought your product and from the subsequent findings of the Public analyst who had analysed the products that you sold.
You confirm these actions relate to a single complaint. Is it the policy of the trading standards to enter people’s home through force based on ONE complaint? Please provide the documented procedure/s which outline enforcement I am not able to find such details in your Trading Standards Institute Manifesto.
Please provide communication details for the regional fraud team. Please also clarify the meaning of “subsequent finding”. Provide details and contact information for the public analysed. What exactly did the public analysed analyse, which analytical methods were used and which national standard were the Item/s analysed against. Please state clearly based on facts not what you believe your issue/s is with these water purification solutions. Without this submission/s from yourself I cannot clearly demonstrate before the public exactly what this water purification solution is and is not, based on current scientific data not whim based statements or false claims.
· You said their maybe a labelling issue which caused these events, can you explain.
These findings were read out to you during the interview and you had opportunity to comment on them. Our investigations into the alleged offences are still progressing and until they are concluded and we have a second formal interview with you, we cannot release any further information at this moment. You will however have every opportunity to ask questions at the time of the second formal interview.
If proceedings are considered, then you will be given copies of all relevant information by way of advance disclosure.
Please list the alleged offences and please provide a written list of all questions which will be asked at the voluntary second interview. This will allow me to present facts in context and in a clear manner, thus eliminating any confused thinking and irrelevant information.
I am fully willing and you have my complete attention to ensure that ALL questions which are relevant to the person I have harmed or defrauded will be answered honestly, logically and objectively. I will assume that all questions will be logical and relate to the premise as mentioned above.
I also request this interview takes place in public at a local location convenient to both parties, which I will pay for. So please provide adequate time for me to arrange this. If you have objections to this, then please provide your reasons in writing.
In the public interest this should be heard because I consider myself to be a productive member of society who does produce genuine values to maintain my own life and the lives of my family.
These are serious criminal allegations and I would strongly advise you to take legal advice.
I live based on objective, honest, moral, ethical and philosophical principles which provide a solid objective reality from which I base my life. Based on this, every allegation will be nullified to ascertain facts and factual data based on logic and reality, not emotional whims. This and only this will determine the severity of such allegations.
Please be assured, I will completely work with you to resolve this issue, I do not live by knowingly harming others or taking from them by means of fraud, deception or force and for the many people who know my life and know me personally from inside and outside of the professional community within our society, will verify this.
Until I know what the serious allegations are and the reasons all the items were seized. (Please explain in simple clear words the reason/s why you seized the many items from my home). I cannot make comment. However, please be assured I am confident this issue can be resolved without the excessive wastage of public resources. Should you choose to ignore facts and waste public funds then you will be held accountable.
The moral and ethical basis of the Trading Standards you have brought clearly into the dispute, I am still shocked to learn that a department who claims openly “Safer Stronger Communities” uses force to enter my home and then try to legitimise these actions by declaring it a supportive role. Such dishonesty is completely unacceptable and I would ask that future communications are based on facts, honesty and a genuine concern.
Furthermore, please do not under estimate my intelligence to deal thoroughly with any issue you may have, real or imagined.
Yours Sincerely .
Derek Ellis
Thank you for your email of 9th December 2010. For this issue to be resolved it is very important full disclosure, honesty and clarity are applied in context where allegations are made which justify such extreme actions from your department / organisation.
Firstly I would like to make very clear, your department / organisation will have my cooperation in dealing with this matter to ensure ALL actions provide “Safer Stronger Communities” of which I fully support. To allow me to publicly justify my actions, I must ensure all the facts are present which require disclosure of all parties involved.
I do not believe your department / organisation has acted within the guidelines of your own standard operation procedures. The reason for this conclusion is justified as based on the actions of 17th November 2010.
From ONE complaint your department, through force entered my home. If this is the operating procedure of the Trading Standards then we clearly have a national issue which the public has a right to be aware off. Considering your actions are based on “Safer Stronger Communities” which cost the tax payer annually billions of pounds.
I also base this on your response to my reasonable request for information, which i again request.
Your response also raises several other questions and confirms as I stated in my first letter, I need to keep a detailed record of all communication “This will allow me to keep a detailed record of all communications to help resolve this issue”.
To clarify the reasonable request for information I will colour code our communications so there can be no mistakes in understanding. Should you not understand any request then please contact me and I will attempt to clarify in detail each request even further.
Derek Ellis communication (GREEN, (30th November Email), (BLACK).
Trading Standards Communication (BLUE).
“Thank you for your e-mail of 30th November 2010 which the Department received on 1st December 2010. I have been asked to respond to your email, as Eamonn Quinn's Area Manager and I must apologise for only responding to you now“ .
Considering, Mr Quinn is the Principle Trading Standards Officer and the officer who entered my home, why was my letter requesting basic information escalated to the Trading Standards South Area Office? Mr Quinn could have clearly provided this information himself.
“Our visit to your premises, which was discussed at the formal interview on 17th November 2010, was in respect of alleged criminal offences committed under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005“.
I recall at this interview Mr Quinn stated it would be followed by a written transcript and copy of the recording should I request it. Firstly, due to the unexpected actions from your department and emotional stress this caused, I cannot recall clearly all the contents of the interview. I now request the transcript and a physical copy of the recording.
“To answer the points that you raised in your email:”
The majority of the points I raised in my email have not been answered. Not only have they not been answered, you have made statements which are not honest nor accurate and you have linked unrelated facts which do not follow, (non sequitur/s) from my later dated 27th November 2010 request for information.
The questions I asked are as follows;
· Please can you provide details of regulation 23 of the general product safety regulations 2005.
1. There is a link to the General Product Safety Regulations from OPSI below;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1803/pdfs/uksi_20051803_en.pdf
Plus a link to guidance from BERR below;
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/Safety/products/general-regulations/index.html
Thank you for the links, this question is answered.
· Provide all the names and full contact details of the people who entered my home
This question was asked for the reason stated above, I do not believe that the behaviour of the Trading Standards justify such irrational actions. I make the request again; please provide all the contact details of the people who entered my home. If you are unable to provide these details due to some regulation, then please state which regulation. If you are unwilling to provide this information then please state why. For me to competently deal with this issue then this information is required based on the premise, ‘I do not believe your actions are justified’.
2. The only people who entered your home were Trading Standards Officers under the supervision of the investigating officer and Police Officers acting in a support role. The Police also had subsequent separate concerns about firearms and air-weapons found on your premises, which they dealt with separately.
The people who entered my home did indeed enter my home under supervision of Mr Quinn. This entry was gained through force, by an officer who used force to prevent my wife from closing the door. Therefore your statement claiming police officers were acting in a support role is false. One officer used force to prevent my wife from closing the door until she contacted me, as I was not present at this time and my wife would never allow unconfirmed entry to our home. At all times a police officer was present in my home and followed me when I chose to leave or enter my home, making me feel like a criminal. How exactly do these actions come under the heading of support? More alarmingly, I find your last sentence totally unacceptable and would like details of your motives for this sentence and its deceptive use.
“The Police also had subsequent separate concerns about firearms and air-weapons found on your premises, which they dealt with separately.”
The fact, I have memorabilia of a 100 year old plus riffle in my garage does not support your statement. Firstly this memorabilia is not a firearm nor is it classed as “firearms” as you claim. A firearm is; ‘A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.‘ The single item Memorabilia I have is not capable of firing a projectile and has no ability to cause an explosive charge.
Can you please explain your motives and reasons for placing such a sentence in your response when it does clearly not follow from the question I asked? The use of such non sequiturs is extremely misleading and do result in incorrect conclusions formed by person/s reading such sentences and statements.
You also use the word “firearms”; making reference to more than one can you explain this?
Again what is your motive for making reference to “air-weapons”, as this does not follow and these obvious points of fact, you have taken out of the context. The fact that I have air weapons has nothing to do with your reasons for entering my property so I would also like an explanation why such points have been raised. Details of any claims must be clear in context and logical. Anything contrary to this will misinform and lean to false conclusions of which I am sure you are already aware of this, considering your position.
· Provide contact details of the Justice of the Peace who signed the Warrant.
This request is also reasonable; the reason for my request is to ensure correct information was given under oath to her Majesty’s Justice of the Peace by Mr Quinn. I believe that such information is unsatisfactory and there are no reasonable grounds for a forced entry into my home.
3. A copy of the warrant was left with you, together with a copy of the seizure log and a copy of the appeals procedure under the General Products Safety Regulations
Again your response does not follow, nor does it answer my basic request. I made a reasonable request for contact information based on the reason above. My question did not relate to a copy of the warrant being left with me and fails to answer my request. Also, I did not ask about the seizure log or the appeals procedure. I again make the request; ‘please, provide contact details of the Justice of the Peace who signed the Warrant.’ If you are unable to provide these details due to some regulation, then please state which regulation. If you unwilling to provide this information the please state why. For me to competently deal with this issue then this information is required.
· Provide full contact details of the individuals who were taking pictures and using a video camera.
4. Trading Standards Officers took photographs as part of the operation. This is part of our evidence gathering and they will be disclosed to you if proceedings are considered. Media representatives were present but were instructed not to enter your premises.
Thank you for the answer, With reference to your department taking pictures. In relation to the media, please can you provide evidence of authorisation from the property / land owner (which I assume you have) which allowed the media to enter private premises. The premises on which the building resides is private property and the point of entry leading to the property is private. Again your statement does not follow and raises serious concerns from your department on property rights by authorising media personnel to enter private premises. These concerns cannot be actioned until you provide contact details. What also, is the motive of the trading standards for allowing media who knowingly use facts out of context, dishonestly use non sequiturs and mislead the public into drawing false and harmful conclusions. I again make the request; ‘Provide Full contact details of the individuals who were taking pictures and using a video camera from the media.’ If you are unable to provide these details due to some regulation, then please state which regulation. If you are unwilling to provide this information the please state why. For me to competently deal with this issue then this information is required based on the premise, I do not believe your actions are justified and you have authorised media personnel to violate private premises.
· Provide a full in context explanation and details of individuals who are victims of crime which relate directly to my actions which caused this warrant to be issued.
5. These actions arose from a complaint received from our regional fraud team. If proceedings are considered you will get full disclosure of all witnesses. During the interview you were informed that our actions had arisen from a complainant who had bought your product and from the subsequent findings of the Public analyst who had analysed the products that you sold.
You confirm these actions relate to a single complaint. Is it the policy of the trading standards to enter people’s home through force based on ONE complaint? Please provide the documented procedure/s which outline enforcement I am not able to find such details in your Trading Standards Institute Manifesto.
Please provide communication details for the regional fraud team. Please also clarify the meaning of “subsequent finding”. Provide details and contact information for the public analysed. What exactly did the public analysed analyse, which analytical methods were used and which national standard were the Item/s analysed against. Please state clearly based on facts not what you believe your issue/s is with these water purification solutions. Without this submission/s from yourself I cannot clearly demonstrate before the public exactly what this water purification solution is and is not, based on current scientific data not whim based statements or false claims.
· You said their maybe a labelling issue which caused these events, can you explain.
These findings were read out to you during the interview and you had opportunity to comment on them. Our investigations into the alleged offences are still progressing and until they are concluded and we have a second formal interview with you, we cannot release any further information at this moment. You will however have every opportunity to ask questions at the time of the second formal interview.
If proceedings are considered, then you will be given copies of all relevant information by way of advance disclosure.
Please list the alleged offences and please provide a written list of all questions which will be asked at the voluntary second interview. This will allow me to present facts in context and in a clear manner, thus eliminating any confused thinking and irrelevant information.
I am fully willing and you have my complete attention to ensure that ALL questions which are relevant to the person I have harmed or defrauded will be answered honestly, logically and objectively. I will assume that all questions will be logical and relate to the premise as mentioned above.
I also request this interview takes place in public at a local location convenient to both parties, which I will pay for. So please provide adequate time for me to arrange this. If you have objections to this, then please provide your reasons in writing.
In the public interest this should be heard because I consider myself to be a productive member of society who does produce genuine values to maintain my own life and the lives of my family.
These are serious criminal allegations and I would strongly advise you to take legal advice.
I live based on objective, honest, moral, ethical and philosophical principles which provide a solid objective reality from which I base my life. Based on this, every allegation will be nullified to ascertain facts and factual data based on logic and reality, not emotional whims. This and only this will determine the severity of such allegations.
Please be assured, I will completely work with you to resolve this issue, I do not live by knowingly harming others or taking from them by means of fraud, deception or force and for the many people who know my life and know me personally from inside and outside of the professional community within our society, will verify this.
Until I know what the serious allegations are and the reasons all the items were seized. (Please explain in simple clear words the reason/s why you seized the many items from my home). I cannot make comment. However, please be assured I am confident this issue can be resolved without the excessive wastage of public resources. Should you choose to ignore facts and waste public funds then you will be held accountable.
The moral and ethical basis of the Trading Standards you have brought clearly into the dispute, I am still shocked to learn that a department who claims openly “Safer Stronger Communities” uses force to enter my home and then try to legitimise these actions by declaring it a supportive role. Such dishonesty is completely unacceptable and I would ask that future communications are based on facts, honesty and a genuine concern.
Furthermore, please do not under estimate my intelligence to deal thoroughly with any issue you may have, real or imagined.
Yours Sincerely .
Derek Ellis
