Good morning Sir,
Thanks for your response. You are correct as saying I accepted the titles, but my experiences of discrimination and the involvement of the www.met.police.uk and www.policeconduct.gov.uk not once, but twice leaves me no alternatives but to see a carefully laid trap that was created by www.leyf.org.uk after the death of my mother. Am sorry I have to be so negative but as I said I was asked to condense pages of documents into a single page. Then https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-m-myers-v-london-early-years-foundation-2300047-2016 come up with this making me a victim. I could list the Legal Systems and Police that done that to me. Leaving me no option but to think I have to safeguard myself from the loopholes in the Rules of Law designed to trap a Lay Person like me whose vulnerability was used by LEYF and cohorts to exacerbate and trigger my mental and physical disabilities rendering me incapable of functioning like I did before.
As said previously, you are the expert and I give my consent for you to do your job as fitting the information I provided about my experiences. There are so many issues/titles that can come out of the 2 times the Police visited my home. Am not out to have a vendetta with the Police who is there protecting US. My argument is not once but twice the Police let slip their duty of care to a person who was made vulnerable. Instead of acting on my concerns both times they made me a villain. Am only interested in lessons learned and am compensated from my claims sent to the Central London County Court for Designated Civil District Judge to impose Restraint Order. My treatment by http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk beggars belief and they using delaying tactics to break me.
Be assured that I have all confidence that we are working in partnership to resolve the matter. Therefore, I am in agreement with the titles decided for the job to be done.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Good afternoon Mrs Myers,
Thank you again for your response. I can take from your email that you have accepted the titles but please note, these aren’t designed to create loopholes, just address the main header of your concern to allow me to look into the details regarding this. Much like you wouldn’t presume to understand a book by its title, this is pretty much on the same standard, so hope this goes some way to put your mind at ease.
As such, you have identified a 3rd item which isn’t covered by the other two titles so again, must ask you agree I look into this 3rd matter which has been titled as follows:
B9-Other Policies Procedures: The officers did not wear or offer any Personal Protective Equipment when dealing with me, putting me and my family at risk of COVID.
Once you agree this 3rd title, I will begin the process of looking into each concern.
Neil SOLLISS PC2492AS
Professional Standards Unit
Metropolitan Police Service
Brixton Police Station 367 Brixton Road SW9 7DD
From: Mervelee Myers ;<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: 13 January 2021 12:50
To: AS Mailbox – Professional Standards <ASMailbox.ProfessionalStandards@met.police.uk>
Subject: RE: REMINDER! Your complaint – our reference PC 7911 20
Good morning Sir
As per usual I must address your email as it relates to the discrimination of the past 6+ years. Let me explain that this in no way applies to your handling of the investigation and as I said previously I admire your professional approach and the quick time you take getting back to me. However, the Police and IOPC in the name of Owen Pyle and Tammie Tebboth from www.met.police.uk and Ratna Kahnam from www.policeconduct.gov.uk are responsible for putting the Police into disrepute and allowing PC Holly Sweeney to get caught up in this matter by my former employees https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-m-myers-v-london-early-years-foundation-2300047-2016 aided and assisted by the Legal Systems. I have told you, you are the expert in deciding the titles, but at the same my vulnerability has been used against that am weary of the traps. My former employers asked me to condense an 8 page Reasonable Adjustment into 1 page and a 37 page Grievance into 1 page. The ET claimed I did not mention certain fact. You have my permission to use “Titles” that best reflect my complaint, but at the same time I must protect myself from the corruption using the loopholes of the Rules of Law to trick me.
The verbal account is with the GP and I have a copy that I requested for my record. This was the best option available. The GP suggested a video assessment but I didn’t think that would shed any more light on the matter than my verbal communication. Now we are talking about COVID-19 none of the Police Officers who entered my home was wearing masks and they were in contact with my 97 year old husband. When my step son visits, he wears mask around his dad. It was hours later when I was shivering in the van that PC Holly Sweeney said “By the way Mervelee, do you have any COVID-19 Systems?” My answer you have taken your time in asking. The Police did nothing to protect my husband and I who have disabilities and underlying symptoms. I can direct you to the GP to get any required Reports as I forwarded the images for him to attach to my Records. But I have video recordings and images as my Defensive Practice.
I can confirm I agree with the “Titles” you are deciding based on my detailed account so as there are no misinterpretation of what happened to me during the unlawful arrest when I was beaten up or man/woman handled in my home. By 2 females and a male Police Officers. I was not seen by the Doctor, I had a “Telephone Consultation” as was deemed appropriate by the Surgery.