Another ridiculous email exchange
Another ridiculous email exchange:
"Subject: Request to inspect items of property seized
Good afternoon Mr Hart,
Regarding your request for the possible inspection of items seized from [DELETED] on the 13/01/2023; could you please state which specific item(s) of property you wish to have inspected; and your reasons for each specific item for this?
Regards,
Robin Young
And this is what he got back in reply:
"Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2023, 16:26
Cc: KEVIN.M.J.Chambers@met.police.uk
This is yet another pointless time wasting tactic on your part.
I have the absolute right to check all items as a matter of fact because of the numerous errors; the documented omissions, inaccuracies in your record keeping and to check nothing has gone missing or been damaged and to ensure that nothing has been tampered with or destroyed.
In addition to these general rights and in particular:
1) Item 1 - The item description does not include the red phone wallet, with the cash and keys to my property. This bag can then be opened and the wallet, money and key returned or separately recorded with some explanation for their wrongful seizure and detention.
(If the wallet, money or keys are not there, then there has been a theft, and explanations are required, in addition to be separate claim for consequential loss resulting from perfect you forced us to change change the looks)
2) Items 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 - these all need to be positively identified as to what they actually are, on account of your descriptions being meaningless, highly-presidential and misleading.
(Had you not continued with your illegal and unethical search of my home, contrary to PACE, and in my absence, I could have identified these items for record purposes, and this violation of my rights would not have arisen.)
3) Item 5 - to see which photo was taken to put with my Runes, and to ensure no runes are missing. As these are faith objects used for private observance these should never have been taken. When you showed this bag at my oppressive interview, you did not allow my to inspect these and took no account of my disabilities.
4) Item 9 - because I don’t trust you not to have manipulated or altered the image, as you have been found to have mipulated and missrepresented images on precious occasions in your attempts to manufacture evidence against me.
5) To see if there is any explanation for the missing exhibit ODG1. For this reason alone I need to examine the exhibits at the station where they are stored (Wandsworth) and not have them ferried around.
Please note that before or during the inspection you, Robin Young, must not be present. As you well know from medical evidence previously submitted by my GP, for you to be in any proximity to me will either case me another seizure. If you insist on being present, it will be interpreted as a deliberate refusal to comply.