This is a recent email exchange with Cannon Hill inspector

Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2023, 15:07

To: Andrew.Martin2@met.police.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fact you can not even work to out whom you are addressing, as well as your other comments, all show you have been just unquestioningly accepting the misinformation given you by your junior officers, and confirms my view that you have not actually bothered to read the files in this case or that you are complicit in their breach of statutory duty.

Had you bothered to read the files you would have seen that PS New has not in fact answered any of the questions, nor explained why PACE does not apply, which underlines the nonsense of your email.

Is he acting under your instructions in that failure, or was he lying to you in the same way PC Young did when pretending the only reason for my arrest was a fictional failure to attend non-existent interview?,

As stated in my last email, no explanations have been given for any of my recent enquiries.

At no point has anyone even attempted to offer any explanation as to why it was either necessary or appropriate to: 

A) Arrest a clearly distressed and defenceless blind person at 9:15 in the morning, without articulated justification 

B) Why no attempt was made to stop this unsanctioned activity, even after it became obvious that your officers actions were directly causing me measurable physical harm, which not only did they create in the first place, actively prolonged this by preventing my prescribed medical treatment being administered.

C) Unlawfully remove privileged legal information, contained both our CCTV system and the other computer equipment of which you have failed to return to us;

D) Unlawfully removed accessibility tools and other medical equipment, necessary for independent living and personal safety, including my specially adapted mobile phone, that had already been made available freely for inspection on numerous previous occasions and all relevant information contained within had also already been made available. 

(You had a duty of care to consider less disruptive means, that would have negated the need to remove my accessibility technology and you failed to do this which is an Equality Act violation, as you were deemed to be aware that this action would put me at a substantial disadvantage.)

E) Seize, without explanation or cause, ceremonial objects of religious expression, which is a human rights violation.