–Ramola D/Posted August 3, 2o19
Letters of inquiry and concern sent earlier to Redbridge Council Press Office and to the Care Quality Commisssion overseeing NHS Trust Hospitals at Brighton, Sussex, and Essex regarding the recent multiple and aggressive sectioning attempts on Mr. Edward Ellis, Equity Lawyer were replied to on July 30, with a terse refusal to address by Redbridge Council. Citing the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, the Adult Care, Public Health and Well-being Team stated, “We are unable to provide a response as this relates to a matter of personal care and treatment that falls outside of the FOI process.”
Considering that the letter requesting information had raised a number of concerning issues about Mr. Ellis’s being pursued by the Mental Health workers at Redbridge Council on multiple occasions, including with police officers carrying tasers as they entered the home they broke into on 26 June and on another occasion as reported here earlier, and also considering that earlier coverage had established quite definitively that Mr. Ellis was hardly mentally ill and had become instead the victim of fraudulent sectioning attempts by Redbridge Council on the basis of faulty information from NHS Trust doctors, particularly the questionable Dr. Lever, head nephrologist at Queen’s Hospital, this is hardly an adequate response to a concerned public.
Among the questions raised by this reporter in her request for information from the press office were the following:
Why was this action taken on 26 June 2019 to break down Mr. Ellis’s door in intention of “search and capture” of Mr. Ellis?
Why was Police Officer EO 4333 holding a taser in his hand behind his back just as he entered the home?
Are you aware of the extreme dangers of tasers–which have caused numerous deaths and cardiac arrests, and which harm people in relation to the level of their physical health? (Please see my Community Care…article linked above, which links to many articles reporting these dangers.)
Are you aware Mr. Edward Ellis is a kidney patient, who has moreover been the recipient of a fistula surgically placed in him by Sussex University hospital with no follow-up for dialysis over 7 months, who is himself working on acquiring the best treatment for his kidney issues?
Are you aware that Redbridge Council has essentially approved the use of a taser on a 66-year-old kidney patient–if this police officer acted in a pre-approved manner, that is? If he did not, are you aware that this is a serious matter of concern and that Law Enforcement in the whole of the UK needs to be made aware of the extreme dangers of taser use on unwell people, who are for obvious reasons, in a vulnerable physical state–and that Law Enforcement should not therefore be permitted to use or threaten use of tasers on people known to be medical patients?
Failure to answer such basic questions is inexplicable, given their intent to elucidate why the Council would embark on such pernicious actions against a senior citizen and NHS patient who is also a whistleblower and equity lawyer of high international repute, working to end corruption crimes against upstanding citizens, who is known and loved by millions, if not billions.
Questions of Concern Regarding Taser Use and Wrongful Sectioning Attempts Shockingly Left Unanswered
Questions of concern regarding taser use when left unanswered by an “Adult Care, Public Health, and Well-Being” team surely suggest a blithe and unsettling lack of concern on this subject by this team. More than shocking given that the very presence of police officers accompanying a mental health team taking the extreme step of breaking down a resident’s door with force, citing the Mental Health Act, has obviously been decreed by the council.
Given that the Council sent that team, with police escort, to Mr. Ellis’s home, it follows that the Council is responsible both for the wrongful citation of the Mental Health Act (in absence of any evidence of mental illness, as discussed earlier here in Egregious Sectioning and Kidnap Attempts on Equity Lawyer Edward Ellis As the Completing Mass Corruption Remedy Process Exposes Pervasive Crime & Corruption in UK Courts, Police Departments, and Hospitals) and for attempts by police officers to knock people out with tasers, perhaps occasioning their sudden death by cardiac arrest, as doctors and lawyers have attested is an ever-present danger with 50,000-volt-shock-delivering tasers, discussed earlier here: Community Care or Deranged “Mental Health Team”? UK Police Carry Taser Into Home Break-In to Attack Whistleblower Patient with Kidney Failure
6 July, 2019 Visit of Officer with Taser/Covered Here
On a later occasion also recorded by human rights activist and reporter Neelu Berry, it is clear the police officer who sought to enter and search her home is prominently carrying a taser.
On the occasion of the dramatic and thickly-peopled break-in on 26 June where not one mental health nurse or social worker but several bustled in on the officers’ heels to look under beds and peer into closets with intent to capture a hardworking equity lawyer, it is further clear the officer with the taser had full intent to use it, or keep it handy for swift use, as he whipped it out from under his vest and carried it behind his back as he entered.
26 June 2019, Nurse Smiles as Officer Holds Taser Behind Back/Covered Here
If this is not a betrayal of the public trust, what is? How is a Mental Health team engaging in adult care, public health or well-being by delivering 50,000 volt shocks using a deadly conducted energy device which shoots prongs into people’s bodies, designed to paralyze and incapacitate, and known cause of several deaths by cardiac arrest in the past?
And how is the Adult Care, Public Health, and Well-being Team at Redbridge Council justified in maintaining a cool silence over this matter? Does the Council wish to imply that they intend to continue in this practice and believe it is perfectly alright to knock out and quite possibly kill senior citizens in this fashion? It is quite clearly not a matter of public health, public safety, or personal well-being but its opposite when a police officer is permitted to brandish and deploy a deadly energy device on a member of the public, under the aegis of “Mental Health Care.”
It becomes painfully obvious rather that such an extreme police action in accompaniment with a team intent on a psychiatric arrest is intending primarily to subjugate and subdue a non-mentally-ill citizen, for purposes of political silencing, in flagrant violation of all protected freedoms of speech and expression in a democracy.
Neelu Berry notes that the Redbridge Council should respond to the taser held by the police officer and the Mental Health nurse smiling, also the fact that there was no incident that invoked the Mental Health Act. “The fact that the taser being used before the Mental Health Team Assessment was proof of an assassination of character or intellectual property. All the above actions of the team were contrary to Section 4 of the Criminal Law act 1967 which mandates wide publicity for crimes being committed, especially by corrupt state officers against Whistle.blowers who are protected Witnesses.”
Questions of Concern on Evidence of Fraud and Medical Malpractice by Queen’s Hospital Nephrologist Left Unanswered
The primary matter of medical malpractice evinced by wrongful attribution as mentally-ill of perfectly sane and mentally-well professionals like Mr. Ellis, covered at length earlier, was also left unanswered:
5) Are you aware that, as Ms. Berry spells out below, there does not appear to be any cause whatsoever for a Mental Health sectioning to have been indicated by any hospital or doctor in recent contact with Mr. Ellis: “The Mental Health Team of 8 had no reason to believe Mr Ellis had Mental Health issues because Dr Lever confirmed there was no evidence of it during a consultation.” Please note that this matter of Dr. Lever stating clearly it was not in his remit to make mental health evaluations while oxymoronically and peculiarly asking Mr. Ellis to submit to his recommendation that someone else should make a mental health evaluation–for no reason whatsoever–was discussed in my article Egregious Sectioning….linked above. Dr. Lever’s attitude and actions suggest that he is unreasonably and suspiciously persecuting a whistleblower reporting high-level corruption including hospital corruption.
The claiming of a personal data exemption to withhold information on the sectioning attempts on Mr. Ellis–a matter of vast public concern, and not in any way purely private, given its implications for all members of the UK and world public–also reads as an unnecessarily lax and expedient refusal to discuss the matter further, a commentary on the evasion of transparency and public accountability by the London Borough of Redbridge.
Questions of Concern on General Practice and Protocol also Left Unanswered
Questions regarding general practice and protocol in the matter of the Council pursuing a mentally sound citizen under false-labeling as mentally ill were equally left unanswered, with a “personal data” exemption being claimed, when the questions themselves indicate an interest in general procedure.
7) Why were there so many staff workers of whatever kind attendant, who are they, what is their professional qualification, and why were they all storming the bastion of Mr. Ellis’s home that morning?
8) What had these staff workers been told to warrant their all being there, en masse, as if they all needed to be there?
9) What is your understanding (I am asking Redbridge Council and the Care Quality Commission Health Service Regulating Body here) of the rationale behind getting a warrant under the Mental Health Act to section a completely sane and sound citizen, who in no way has engaged in harm to self or society and has never been in danger of same–and has given no-one, no doctor, no nurse, no medical professional, no neighbor, no friend, no interviewer any evidence whatsoever of such imputed harm?
The Council’s blanket response:
“The information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA). The information is personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). As it is information about someone else I’m unable to give this to you; release of this information would constitute a breach of Principle 1 of the DPA. Principle 1 states that personal data shall be processed (used) fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be used unless at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the DPA is met; in this case none of those conditions have been met. This response therefore acts as a refusal notice under section 17 of the FoIA.”
This matter continues therefore to be of great concern, and while the Council suggested Mr. Ellis could protest his treatment–“If Mr Ellis wishes to complain about his treatment he can do so by contacting the NELFT complaints team at nelftcomplaints@nhs.net“–this writer intends to submit an appeal for internal review, as suggested by the Information Request and Compliance team at the Council, as per their letter.
It is also regrettably clear from this cover-all response that the officials at the Council penning it have sought to screen themselves from scrutiny and public accountability on a matter of grave concern to all citizens in a democracy; every citizen is at risk if a democratically-elected government can sink into syndicated corruption, protect people in authoritative positions who engage in medical malpractice, and unleash over-arching actions of harm on citizens in the name of psychiatric well-being.
Anyone and everyone could be subjected to a Mental Health Arrest-With-Taser on any doctor’s fraudulent, false-labeling recommendation then, it seems–and no need for the Council Mental Health teams to explain these actions: a situation which calls for immediate reform in both the Freedom of Information Act and the Mental Health Act.
Concerned citizens should be doubly alarmed and might wish to subject each member of this Council to closer scrutiny of platform and agenda for integrity and true interest in public health and safety.
American Journalist Covering this British Government Debacle Retaliated Against with Anti-Personnel Weapons in India
It should also be reported that directly after completing a draft of this article and sending it in to the London Borough of Redbridge and their Press Office for review and comment as per their request, this reporter was hit immediately with intense anti-personnel “non-lethal” weapons AKA Stealth Assault Anti-Humane Weapons, inclusive of resounding ELFs from a local construction mixer and precision-hit Microwave Weapons from nearby cell towers or satellites, as well as intense scalar weapon-hits on private parts–all sounded on external shields, inducing projectile vomiting, migraines, and burning for over 48 hours. (The program of stealth assault involving electronic-warfare weaponry now installed in the US and UK to stifle freedom of speech and expression is worldwide, from all reporting victim accounts, and has been installed in India in exactly the same format.)
Clearly, the reason this story–as also many others of international import–is not being covered by mainstream media outlets in the UK or elsewhere is because such coverage is being stifled and repressed, by brutal attack of the journalists attempting coverage.
This information is being reported in the interests of informing the world public and UK public that Freedom of the Press in the UK is quite literally dead, despite fake attempts by the UK Government with the recent Global Conference on Media Freedom touting interest in media freedom–which perhaps translates more accurately to propaganda freedom for government use.
This information regarding anti-personnel assault on this writer was also provided earlier today to the Redbridge Council with a second request for comment, which elicited the following anonymized and opaque reply from the Press Office, London Borough of Redbridge:
“A council spokesperson said: “The council has responded to your FOI request and we have nothing further to add.”
Clearly, the London Borough of Redbridge believes it is possible to maintain an impenetrable silence on all matters related to their fraudulent Mental Health Act invocations on sane and mentally sound citizens and get away with it. This should be deeply concerning to all sane and mentally sound UK residents, and this writer advises that all in UK concerned by this matter make their feelings about Redbridge Council’s actions known publicly to them in writing.
This writer also requests that all readers take note of what is being reported here, about anti-personnel anti-humane weapon retaliation against journalists with gravitas.
British, American, and all Western governments seem to think they can maintain a semblance of “democracy” while assaulting all questioners, writers, journalists, activists, and whistle-blowers in stealth, with electronic-warfare weapons–and not be held accountable for it. As many know from reading my reports and watching my interviews, I believe these weapons, whose thrust I have been on the receiving-end of for almost six years now, are profoundly inhumane and should be banned.
My most recent correspondence with Redbridge Council reporting Anti-Personnel Stealth Weapon retaliation and their response to my request for comment: Response from Redbridge Council Press Office & Report of Anti-Personnel Assault on Journalist
The Redbridge Council Response letter is here: Response (information exempt)
My Letter of Concern to Redbridge Council and other members of the UK Government is here: Letter of Concern_Request to Stop All Wrongful Mental Health Sectioning Attempts on Mr. Edward Ellis, Equity Lawyer – Ramola D
My Request for Information to the Press Offices at Redbridge Council and the Care Quality Commission, along with Neelu Berry’s letter to the Care Quality Commission is here: Request for Information on Wrongful Sectioning Attempts on Mr. Edward Ellis, Equity Lawyer, 26 June 2019
