Mary Moss
Dear Ms Moss
Please find attached a Notice of Decision in relation to your claim referenced IPT/23/94/H.
Kind regards
Tribunal Caseworker
Investigatory Powers Tribunal
25 September 2023 Case Reference: IC-247159-W5G3
Dear Mary Moss,
Thank you for your complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) of 24 July 2023 about Camden Council (‘the council’) and their refusal of your subject access request (SAR).
We understand that you made a SAR to Camden Council following a dispute with your neighbours and you would like to access the details of the third party who requested the welfare visit.
We note that the council extended the deadline to respond to your request by a further two months due to its complexity.
We further note that your request for the information was refused, leading you to contact the ICO.
Your right of access
You have the right to ask an organisation whether or not they are using or storing your personal information. You can also ask them for copies of your personal information, verbally or in writing.
This is called the right of access and is commonly known as making a subject access request or SAR.
An organisation normally has to respond to your request within one month.
If you have made a number of requests or your request is complex, they may need extra time to consider your request and they can take up to an extra two months to respond.
If they are going to do this, they should let you know within one month that they need more time and why.
You will not always receive everything you have asked for. Depending on the circumstances:
There can be other reasons why you may not receive all the information you expect, such as when an exemption applies, or the type of information you asked for is not covered by a subject access request.
Our view
As you have requested information relating to the details of the third party who requested the welfare visit, this would not be considered to be your own personal data and would therefore fall out of scope of a SAR.
Unfortunately, a SAR does not entitle you to copies of data relating to a third party, therefore you should not reasonably expect that this information would be disclosed to you under data protection law.
An organisation can refuse to give you your own information if it also includes personal information about someone else, except where:
In their decision-making, an organisation must balance your right of access against the other individual’s right over their own information. This may lead to the organisation to refuse your SAR.
We note that the council have explained that, under Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, Part 3, Paragraph 16, it cannot disclose information relating to another individual without their consent.
The council have explained that it is not appropriate to disclose your information, or the information of third parties, because your information is intrinsically bound up with the third-party data and classed as ‘mixed data’ and cannot be extracted without compromising the privacy of the third parties. It therefore cannot release your data without releasing third party data too.
The council have also explained that it is not possible to release your data without it becoming incomprehensible due to redaction, therefore redaction would not be an appropriate method to release the data.
Due to the nature of your request, we are satisfied with the council’s justifications for refusing your request.
However, we do recognise that the council were delayed in providing you with their response. We note that the council deemed your request as complex and therefore extended the timeframe to respond by a further two months. If a request is legitimately complex, then a justification should be provided to the individual without undue delay.
We will now write to the organisation to give them advice on improving their practices in this area, to ensure that future SARs are responded to promptly.
We understand that this may not have been the outcome you were looking for, and we do not wish to diminish the impact that this wider issue has had on you.
You can apply to the courts for information to be released to you. If you wish to take this course of action, we recommend that you seek independent legal advice. Unfortunately, the ICO is unable to assist you with this process.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Yours sincerely,Ellie Wright Lead Case Officer Information Commissioner's OfficeInformation Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AFT. 0330 313 1818 ico.org.uk twitter.com/iconewsPlease consider the environment before printing this email.For information about what we do with personal data see our privacy notice at www.ico.org.uk/privacy-notice.
ATTACHED BUT COPIED HERE FOR THIS BLOG
Claim No: KB-2022-006399
IN THE KINGS BENCH LONDON STRAND
BETWEEN:
Edward Moss (1)
Mary moss (2)
Claimants
and
ThE cheif Constable of the Metroploitan Police
Defendant
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANTS
Background
1. Edward Moss was born in West London at Queen Charlottes Hospital on 8th July 1970 and died suddenly and unexpectantly at Covent Garden 8th Sept 2023 aged 51.
As a boy he was educated at St Mary’s school for boys and at the prestigious London Oratory.
He was a keen rugby player, an alter boy at the parish church and was skilled in technical drawing.
During the year 1981 the Moss family came to the attention of social services and all the children were placed into care by 1983/4.
Due to the good schools the children attended and the strong links with the church their Mother had, the children went to live with teachers and the headmaster, to remain local.
However, in a snap decision by social workers, in 1985, when they returned home to the headmaster’s house, their Mother was gone and they were moved to the south coast.
The double injustice that the children felt, by having their Mother removed, made them all damaged by the care system. The siblings had a strong bond and supported each other.
In 1988 after the failed placement at the south coast children’s home, where there was a fatality of another resident who was just 12yrs old, the home was closed and Edward was assessed to foster his three youngest siblings.
2. Although he was just a young man himself, he stepped up to do that role rather than the children be split up and adopted. He was approved by an adoption and fostering panel as the younger one’s carer.
Left without any real support except his then girlfriend and her children, who Edward was also looking after with her, it then followed that Edward had a relationship breakdown after taking or someone administering some very bad drugs and/or drugging that was taking place and the children were then moved, as he was sectioned which he felt was wrong at the time.
The hospital drugged him up for a while and so he became part of the mental health system.
However, Edward did remain in the caring role and when the youngest found himself also drugged and then too sectioned in a psychiatric hospital, the siblings took him out and he lived with Mary in London for three years. Edward came to London to look after his brother.
He continued to look after him until the day he died. His absence and care is sorely missed.
CRIME
3. Edward had seven cars, when he was seventeen years old and he worked as the forecourt deputy manager at an Esso fuel station.
4. At the time of writing the skeleton for the court of appeal, two police officers showed up at the flat of Mary Moss for over an hour. They said through the letter box, on Saturday 15th April 2023 at about 3pm, “Mary let us in”.
I believe that Camden and the police are working collaboratively to reject the claim by force by possibly a ‘section’ of Mary Moss as a ‘danger to others’ since she had a non-event argument with a neighbour over a long standing noise complaint that has already been the subject of a court case but since the neighbour has a child the police and Camden have clutched at straws to put the children in March 2023 ‘at risk’! I will do a subject data access and possibly an injunction against this brutality, the same as was afforded to my brother.
(A) Noise nuisance and other attempts, allegations, non-investigations, by Camden/Police against Mary Moss to either evict or charge with ASB https://legalaidcuts.blogspot.com/2023/03/edward-moss-like-sarah-everard-may-not.html
Therefore, now that I have fled, am writing this from a safer location and wish the court to have the draft (sent) just in case they find me and to explain that it is just a draft to be helpful to the courts, by 4pm 17/04/23, to help with the decision making.
I will be sending a proper skeleton argument if I am not dead or arrested either.
5. Edward was born in 71 but the first two convictions were dated 85/86, so it’s wrong and the rest are mainly traffic offences given fines from 91-95 - 1. spent 2. spent. 3. 4. 5. Traffic offences from 91-96 from 20yrs to 25yrs when he shouldn't have even been driving as he was fostering our 3, 10 yrs younger, siblings and had already been committed to a psychiatric hospital following and long and painful nervous breakdown. Pages 3 of 5 read the same ie mainly traffic violation/fines in a small sleepy town in East Sussex where the family were placed in care. At time of writing his rap sheet isn’t available to me.
6. 2011 Edward was given a flat by Hammersmith & Fulham Council but it had no electricity. Ed was bullied by 13 drug dealer’s and then two more so the police tried to evict them. Eddie used to say that he thought the two, were police.
7. The Housing Officer persuaded Edward the best course of action was to go into high support to avoid the bullies who were hitting him, stealing from him and ordering him around, they also made themselves his carers. Edward is a vulnerable adult who is very giving, so as to avoid conflict, he was easily used and needed support.
8. By 2012 he signed a tenancy to exchange his flat for high support housing.
The very next day upon moving in he was asked to sign another tenancy to say he was in a forensic unit as the place had changed ownership overnight.
9. By 2013 his then two-year tenancy came to an end about 4 months before the end of it and he was placed in low support accommodation.
10. A gentleman whose door was by the front door of the hostel and was always left open so that no one could go in and out without being seen then bullied him from day one
Edward feared this man and his family and his friends so became a vulnerable adult again to him being used against his will due to fear.
These bullies often start by taking his money, telling him he owes them money and taking his freedom pass.
This is to keep him as vulnerable as possible, often depriving him of sleep too and taking his room over by others so he has nowhere to sleep.
11. Mary Moss had been a gallery owner since 1999 and in 2011-2014 was in litigation with the landlord and their insured, over an ‘absolute liability’ flooding case, which could see the courts bringing back Ryland v Fletcher.
12. Previously having been a Development Officer for the National Association of Young People in Care for five years, then resigning and being elected three years in a row at conferences throughout the UK by hundreds of young people in care as their chair person, she duly housed NAYPIC, downstairs in their own offices, at her two galleries in WC1, Bloomsbury and in that respect therefore NAYPIC was now self-funded and held art exhibitions to continue her work.
13. She only came to the attention of the police in 2012 due to the absolute liability case as it was worth a substantial amount for insurance companies.
14. An MP Mr Watson contacted her, then the BBC did and then the Home Office.
15. She asked to speak with the Prime Minister but was raided at her home instead on 2013 Jan 9th by 9 armed police officers under Operation Fairbank.
16. That was the same day Jan 9th as Edward and her had been ‘assaulted by police’, ‘wrongfully arrested’ and ‘falsely imprisoned’ around 1998 and Bindman’s solicitors had the Chief Constable of East Sussex police convicted on all charges and that was a great day for British justice and civil liberties.
17. For Edward the low support ended June 2016 with the police kicking Edwards door down but the bullies had already left.
18. In 2016 Edward admitted to the charge of ‘criminal damage’ as he smashed a window. This was a lesser charge to the accusation of ‘Attempted Burglary’!
19. He told Mary privately after he had just been made homeless and moved again into a B&B due to being bullied, where there were two other bullies, who were friends of the last ones, in the B&B and he said he was just sad and drunk on some super strength larger and he remembered, when he and I, used to see abandoned warehouses at about 8 yrs old and they had their windows broken, so as kids we would get a stone and throw it into the window to see if we could accurately get it inside. It was a competitive laugh. He admitted he did that but there wasn’t even doors on it, so how could it be ‘attempted burglary’ of what looked like a disused building? That’s what I recall him saying. So this was the start of it all.
20. Ealing Magistrates Court-Hearing of Edward Moss-26th August 2016.
Custody for six hours. By the 25th August we not had any disclosure from CPS regarding that charge?
We have been told by solicitors that unless Edward put a foot in the door of any property, which he says he did not, then a very serious ‘attempted burglary’ charge, which is a legally oddity?
21. He had been bullied in low support two months before so was at a B&B, when the Police visited him early in the morning, taking him into custody for six hours and keeping his mobile phone for good.
22. The magistrates liked Edward and the courts could see that the charges were ridiculous and he had no previous, so they asked for a drug rehabilitation commitment, as him taking class A’s was always true and he had tested positive and had always freely admitted to taking class A drugs, for personal use. They sent him away with 1-year conditional discharge.
23. March 2017
Following the murder of a good friend of ours Edward wrote a witness STATEMENT, SIGNED, THAT READ’S;
November 2016
Amanda met with me Monday after Black Friday
We did class A smokes and no injection to my knowledge
In a decade
E Moss
This is my truth & witness statement 12/3/2017
Edward wrote and signed the above statement in 2017.
24. This was for an inquest where our good family friend Amanda Merritt, 46 years old, had also been murdered, the police alluded she had puncher marks in her, failing to mention the ambulance who administers the injection, for the coroners hearing.
25. They later did the exact same thing to Edward saying that he had puncher marks in his foot. It’s just slander commonly used for class A users who die, as if they’re less than nothing. As if those who have suffered child abuse both in Edward and Amanda’s case, were less for taking drugs, when both led normal loving and loved, well-functioning lives but for the judgments of authorities.
26. The police raided Amanda’s attic, where she had told Mary on the phone that she had kept some of Mary Moss’s NAYPIC documents when she helped her with a case of one of the NAYPIC workers in the Midlands being kidnapped.
27. The police don’t want to know how badly NAYPIC workers got treated or how so many of them ended up dead too. NAYPIC uncovered so much child abuse.
28. They had also raided Amanda on Black Friday 2016 so Edwards statement related to that raid, the first one out of the blue and very heavy handed.
29. They went through Amanda’s handbags and the attic for the second time, whilst she lay dead on the floor, after being dragged out from the locked bathroom, where her dealer named ‘S*****’ had locked her in with a knife, when he could see she was in distress, having brought her painkillers for which she had taken them all at once, due being in chronic pain in her lungs.
30. S***** was never arrested or questioned and no investigation whatsoever took place.
31. The murder went un-investigated but a police officer who was emailing with Mary Moss on the child abuse inquiry, was oddly at Amanda’s inquest?
32. Mary asked Rebecca Hall about this when several police units contacted Mary at once but she neither confirmed or denied it. I couldn’t tell who was good or who didn’t have my NAYPIC truth at heart and/or wanted a cover up. Perhaps not individual officers, whom I often found pleasant but that of the chain of command.
33. Some extracts of emails;
Your boxes
Mary Moss
Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk
Thanks Rebecca.
All the best too.
Mary
________________________________________
From: Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk <Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 02 March 2018 07:11:51
To: naypic@hotmail.com
Cc: Mark.Roberts@met.pnn.police.uk
Subject: RE: Your boxes
34. Dear Mary
Thank you for your email and for explaining very clearly why you don’t trust FAY and others. I will pass this onto Mark and put it into the Op Winter Key system.
I will be in touch with the list as soon as it is done.
For now I wish you the very best.
Regards
Rebecca
35. From: Mary Moss
Sent: 01 March 2018 16:56
To: Hall Rebecca C - SCO1 <Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: Re: Your boxes
(a) That's great thanks Rebecca I look forward to those when they are collated.
(b) I understand insofar as Fay, Watson and Exaro want to persue the VIP inquiries but I also feel that all those people have other politically motivated agenda's, as well as any search for the truth. As in who is their truth for?
(c) If the public say thought he was a rapist or worked for the soviets would they see him as a local give it a go hero, for example?
(d) That is not an accusation merely an observation on motivation which could be a good example of why people like him pursue people like NAYPIC and our cases at the time and when we cotton on to him that he does have an agenda, it might be too late as he already knows us personally and how to hurt us witnesses and continues to do so even by using our good name for example when he was merely a whistleblower of Melanie Klien House where Bottomley protected Lloyd Austin of Greenwich.
(e) For example the log books were handed to me and that is why I had them. Yet he states she gave them to him. Actually he chased her about as he did with Andrew.
(f) It was me who named LB at the inquest as Carol told me about him as she was my case when she walked into the office not for her but for her children whom I was then soon to meet at her forthcoming court case and I remember doing that with trepidation at the inquest but it is always written as Fay. He is a meddler and a crook and needs investigating properly as he plays all sides. Who is he anyway and who pays him? Lots of newspapers from what I see.
(g) The photo's I heard Carol mention but were in a safe place in three filing cabinets and I think they were robbed off her and I cannot confirm if Fay ever even saw them as I know I didn't as Carole had them locked away.
(h) I have no idea even at the time if police did warn off Fay I remember him saying but I didn't believe him at the time he always had one drama after another but there was a witness and that was a blonde kid who he said was his son who was at his flat.
(i) I think you should find and interview the son he always looked a bit quite sheepish like to me and I find that suspicious in children where there is normally something wrong.
(j) I understand the culture of coverup of VIP's and police involvement in that being as the system is lined up like that it stands to reason. So I just trust no one.
(k) I want no involvement with Fay and since it was Watson who got me involved in all of this when I was just quietly getting on with raising the voices of victims/survivors I want nothing to do with him either or the inquiry or any of it. I follow like any other citizen as normal. `Hopefully things will change and improve but not by those whose motivations are far away from the victims/survivors.
Best mary
________________________________
36. From: Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk> <Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk>>
Sent: 01 March 2018 11:55:19
To: naypic@hotmail.com<mailto:naypic@hotmail.com>
Cc: Mark.Roberts@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Mark.Roberts@met.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: RE: Your boxes
Dear Mary
(a) Thank you for your email. I did mention to Mark that you have the opinion of FAY that you do and he is copied into this email so he can see your email.
(b) The itinerary I mentioned is for the exhibits OP Winter Key still have that were separated from your boxes. This I will ensure you get, once I have had an opportunity to collate the information.
Take care in the snow and keep warm
Best regards
Rebecca
37. From: NN/YP Youth Parliament [mailto:naypic@hotmail.com]
Sent: 01 March 2018 11:46
To: Hall Rebecca C - SCO1 <Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk>>
Subject: Re: Your boxes
(a) Dear Rebecca,
(b) Sorry for the late reply. I was organising a conference for today but its been cancelled for a number of reasons not least looking at the snow out there it worked for the best.
(c) I haven't as you will appreciate had time to open the boxes as very difficult without offices.
(d) An itinerary was promised to me at some point over the years and I would like to have that if possible as it would help me to also identify where some stuff I need is, with the number of box as is clearly marked.
(e) I don't mind as you asked if Mark wants to communicate with me about any NAYPIC child abuse matters. However since, I have just read his email, I find it a bother to want in any way to talk of the person he mentions as any involvment with this person would be toxic for me. Suffice to say he has no moral compass as a convicted crook.
(f) That said the four guys who brought me back my boxes were very helpful and I appreciate having them back.
Best Mary Moss
38. Mark.Roberts@met.pnn.police.uk
You
Dear Ms Moss,
(a) I was provided your details by DC Rebecca Hall and you will see from the email below that Rebecca has introduced me to you.
(b) I am conducting an investigation concerning matters raised by Christopher Fay and I am hoping you will be able to assist me.
(c) Christopher Fay raised concerns about matters that affected him whilst he had been liaising With Carol Kasir (Elm Guest House – circa 1989/1990). From your recollection of working with Christopher at NAYPIC, were you aware of any concerns he may have had regarding contact with the police at that time? If yes, would you be happy to let me know what you recall and how you came by that information?
(d) I would be very grateful for your assistance with this and if it suits you to do so, please feel free to provide your responses by return of email.
Many thanks
Mark Roberts
Mark Roberts - Investigator Operation Winter Key (2nd Floor) 1, Cam Road Stratford, London E15 2SY 020 8217 6464
________________________________
(39) From: Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk> <Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk>>
Sent: 23 February 2018 13:35:37
To: naypic@hotmail.com<mailto:naypic@hotmail.com>
Cc: Mark.Roberts@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Mark.Roberts@met.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: RE: Your boxes
Hi Mary
(a) I am sending you an email to let you know that Mark ROBERTS, who is a civilian investigator from OP Winter Key will be in touch with you, I have copied him into this email. He has a few questions to ask you concerning Chris FAY as I have told him you have knowledge of this man.
(b) I also need to let you know that we OP Winter Key still retain some of the exhibits that Police seized from your boxes of information. I will make a list of them and give you a copy of the list so that you know what there is. I didn’t want you to think I had forgotten nor be concerned.
Regards
Rebecca
From: Mary Moss
Sent: 07 February
2018 08:05
To: Hall Rebecca C - SCO1 <Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk>>
Subject: Re: Your boxes
Sure will do later this morning.
Are you the same person who was at Amanda Merritt’s coroners hearing in Brighton in July? If so I was there too.
Best Mary
________________________________
(40) From: Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk> <Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk>>
Sent: 06 February 2018 12:27:46
To: naypic@hotmail.com<mailto:naypic@hotmail.com>
Subject: Your boxes
Hi Mary
(a) Can you please contact me regarding your boxes, which we still have.
Thank you
Regards
Rebecca
DC Rebecca HALL
WN8669
SCO1
Homicide and Serious Crime Command
2nd Floor
1 Cam Road
Stratford
LONDON
E152SY
Mobile 07887824751
Email Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk<mailto:Rebecca.Hall@met.pnn.police.uk>
(41) 12/02/2018
Mary Moss
DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk
Dear Sargeant Doncaster,
(a) My boxes are being returned to me later today.
(b) As I said I have a conference to organise for youth for March.
(c) Also, I spoke to the original Fairbank/Fernbrigde team after my last email and they said I am just the keeper of information.
D) I hope this puts an end to anymore surveillance and that the team/home office consider dropping all coordinates put in place that follow me and take me off a watch list since I have no criminal record.
(e) As for my name being disassociated with any wrong-un’s in the press I don’t expect a public apology but would have liked one. I unlike those accused of child abuse who were fairly investigated, won’t be seeking to sue anyone.
F) May that be a lesson to them since justice should not be met by fear or favour.
Mary Moss
_
(42)_______________________________
From: Alex.Doncaster@met.pnn.police.uk <Alex.Doncaster@met.pnn.police.uk> on behalf of DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk <DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 08 February 2018 15:26
To: naypic@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Complaint against Met Police, our ref PC/221/18 Mary Moss
Dear Ms Moss,
(a)You were notified on the 18/01/2018 of our intention to disapply your complaint on the grounds of being out of time. We consider that it is inappropriate to extend the 28 day period for you to provide your representations against this intention based on the reasons that you have provided.
Yours sincerely
Sergeant Doncaster – Complaint Support Team - Directorate of Professional Standards
'Setting the bar and upholding standards without fear or favour’
E-mail DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk
Address 22nd Floor, Empress State Building, Lillie Road, London SW6 1TR
(43) From: Mary Moss
Sent: 07 February 2018 13:02
To: DPS Mailbox - CST <DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: Re: Complaint against Met Police, our ref PC/221/18 Mary Moss
PC/221/18
Dear DPS,
(a) I request an extension of 28 days to answer why I think that this enquiry is not out of time and is still very much live.
(b) I know you cannot refuse this unreasonably.
(c ) My reasons are threefold
1) I have a 1st March conference for youth in care that is time consuming.
2) I do not have legal advice.
3) After the piece in the paper today about Mr Watson who is the MP I also refer to and the Nick person as well as an email today from the London Homicide unit to do with my boxes I would prefer to give more exhaustive details after these events show what they are about.
Best
Mary Moss
________________________________
(44) From: Alex.Doncaster@met.pnn.police.uk <Alex.Doncaster@met.pnn.police.uk> on behalf of DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk <DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 06 February 2018 10:03:29
To: naypic@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Complaint against Met Police, our ref PC/221/18 Mary Moss
Dear Ms Moss
(45) I acknowledge receipt of your e-mails dated 29/01/2018 and 30/01/2018. The correct reference number is PC/221/18. Your e-mails will be considered as part of any representations that you make in response to our intention to disapply your complaint. Please quote this reference number in all future correspondence. I did request this on 29/01/2018 but mistakenly put an incorrect reference number in the ‘subject field’ of my e-mail. I do apologise for my error and any confusion this may have caused.
Yours sincerely
Sergeant Doncaster – Complaint Support Team - Directorate of Professional Standards
'Setting the bar and upholding standards without fear or favour’
E-mail DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk
Address 22nd Floor, Empress State Building, Lillie Road, London SW6 1TR
You
(45) Dear Ms Moss,
You were notified on the 18/01/2018 of our intention to disapply your complaint on the grounds of being out of time. We consider that it is inappropriate to extend the 28 day period for you to provide your representations against this intention based on the reasons that you have provided.
Yours sincerely
Sergeant Doncaster – Complaint Support Team - Directorate of Professional Standards
'Setting the bar and upholding standards without fear or favour’
(46)
!enquiries <enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk>
IOPC Reference 2018/097585
You
Dear Ms Moss
Thank you for contacting the IOPC. We are in receipt of your email dated 01 February 2018.
(47)
30/01/2018
DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk
You
Thank you for contacting the Directorate of Professional Standards Complaint Support Team.
We are currently experiencing a high volume of emails and online public complaints. There may be a delay in our response to you.
Once your complaint has been assessed we will contact you and you will be updated every 28 days regarding progress.
Thank you for your patience.
NN/YP Youth Parliament
(48)
30/01/2018
!enquiries
Dear IOPC,
(a) Thank you for this legislation that is most helpful.
(b) Can you also send me the rules that say there is no deadline for a complaint? Also can you find anything that suggests that an ongoing investigation is a live matter regardless of when it started. I think the police are playing a long grass wild card to put me in along drawn out appeal process and wear me out. I think they should look up the rules on what is a live complaint before I take this as further harassment.
(c) I'll wait for there reply and get back to you. Because if it comes to it I'll have to get a lawyer instead of dealing with the human. They'd like that, being as they are so out of touch with anything other than legal and waste of tax payers money.
Thanks anyway
Mary
(48) Complaint against Met Police, our ref PC/218/18 Mary Moss
NN/YP Youth Parliament
(a) Tue 30/01/2018 11:34
DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk
(B) Ending at 10.30am the police in a helicopter incessantly flew around my bathroom and bedroom whilst I was naked as I was having my shower, having been working at my computer since 7am.
(C) I got immediately out of the bathroom into my bedroom and opened the blinds and there they were. This continues to happen to me.
(D) You should get this footage. I immediately emailed about the incident but my computer got a script and then buffered and then when I checked just now I find there is no message just a blank email at 10.31am.
(E) I am persecuted by the state regularly. I don’t know what exactly to do about it. (F) You say you investigate without fear or favour but you don’t want to investigate a live matter. I have kept the lid on my persecution as I have grown used to it.
(G) I only complained as I thought that the law had changed for the IOPC to accept direct complaints.
(H) Clearly this is not the case. I cannot believe I made a complaint to police who investigate police it makes no sense and I would never have done that but since I have then tell me why are you doing this and what have I done for you to do this?
Mary Moss
NN/YP Youth Parliament
Tue 30/01/2018 10:31
(No message text)
NN/YP Youth Parliament
(49)
enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk
I am forwarding communication with the Met.
We shall see but so far not a single answer to a live matter.
Mary Moss
You forwarded this message on Mon 29/01/2018 16:00
You forwarded this message on Mon 29/01/2018 16:00
NN/YP Youth Parliament
DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk
My Complaint is fully live.
(a) The files taken from my house are still in your custody.
(b) I have had no formal explanation as to why you raided me and did not take up my offer to deal directly the Government or with the Home Office when I explained had no permissions to deal with you.
(c) I have had no condemnation nor apology so my status in the world is nothing at all. Just some police raid which put me associated with a crook in the media.
(d) I don't know why you think it is okay to track me down or continue to or to use any material I have.
(e) Nothing is complete for me. Everyone else got what they wanted. A select committee for Paul an apology for Cliff so what am I in this and what happened with what you took and what are you doing now with it all and was it useful and could you have done this without me?
This is a live complaint. My life is hell now!
DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk
(50)
You
Dear Ms Moss,
No. It means you have 28 days from the date of the letter to make representations as to why your complaint should not be subject to a disapplication for being out of time. Please quote our ref PC/221/18, now that your complaint was formally recorded.
Yours sincerely
Sergeant Doncaster – Complaint Support Team - Directorate of Professional Standards
'Setting the bar and upholding standards without fear or favour’
(51)
E-mail DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk
Address 22nd Floor, Empress State Building, Lillie Road, London SW6 1TR
From: NN/YP Youth Parliament [mailto:naypic@hotmail.com] Sent: 29 January 2018 10:03 To: enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk; DPS Mailbox - CST <DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk> Subject: Re: Complaint against Met Police, our ref QU/67/18 Mary Moss
Dear Met Police,
(a) You recently sent me a letter saying that in your opinion my complaint, which in my opinion is still live and ongoing, is out of time.
(b) Does that mean that you will now forward my complaint for investigation by the IOPC?
(52)
Mary Moss
15/01/2023
(a) Excerpt from the official complaint form sent to IOPC
Reference No: QU/00067/1
(b) I worked in NAYPIC National Association of Young People In Care as their London Development Officer from 1987 to 1992.
(c) I then resigned to develop the organisation Nationally as a volunteer national and then stood for election elected at three conferences and was voted National Chair of the National Executive Committee by 1800 youth.
(d) I must have had in the region of 100 complaints on my desk at any given time, throughout my time as a London Development Officer.
(e) I had a high media profile and was able to resolve many cases as well as meet and consult with professionals at all levels including, the Health Minister and most members of the Dept of Health at the time.
(f) In 1993 the NAYPIC was raided whilst I was at a leaving care launch with the NCCVO, NSPCC and NAYPIC just near Downing Street.
(g) I witnessed a new white dustbin cart with two men in forensic white all-in-one suits take the last of the NAYPIC London and South office into their dustbin cart possession. I shouted at them to stop and the man taking the last of our case files, in black bin bags, filled just enough to be carried, ran to the van as I chased it down Stucley Street NW1, a small street in Camden where NAYPIC had a modern contemporary, two storey office, heavily protected with metal shutters that I had had installed money I fundraised from Children In Need.
(h) Upon entering the empty offices of National Association of Young People In Care I could see that they had taken £10,000 worth of computers, paid for with money I had raised from Children In Need, as well as the office desks, chairs.
(i) I salvaged the last thirty or so bin bags and took them to an office of a charity further up the road in Camden, called ‘the serious road trip’ who were feeding and entertaining the children on buses throughout war torn Europe.
They kindly allowed me to have an office in return for helping them to fundraise.
(j) Many NAYPIC cases were then safe and secure but much of the more sensitive casework I had already hidden, at my home.
(k) I did that because this was evidence that would historically come into use, when children, one day, had a voice and police forces took abuse of children more seriously then they did at the time.
(l) In all our NAYPIC files we always put a notice inside of the cover of files reading ‘this evidence is protected by PACE Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984.’ NAYPIC may have been raided by the Home Office in 1993, as a series of events then took place with funding from all Government organisations withdrawn and then followed an odd and insensitive article by a social work journal with a picture of one of our young management committee, who had recently committed suicide pictured through the glasses of an adult advisor, whom we had recently sacked, stating ‘NAYPIC is Dead, Long live NAYPIC’.
(m) I was asked by my then Management Committee, to practically give up any other career steps I may have gone on to do, since I was educated and experiences in child care issues and had come 2nd out of 70 applicants in a job worth over fifty thousand, if I could carry the mantle of setting NAYPIC back up and to be remunerated and compensated for any directors loans once I had carried out the last wish and vote of NAYPIC, to have a membership of all 12 million children by parliamentary budget and that NAYPIC was to be called NNYP New NAYPIC Youth Parliament.
(n) I successfully set up two art galleries to fund NNYP in 1999 to 2013. It was not to my surprise then during 2012 (when I was representing myself against a top firm of lawyers in an important 2 million pounds precedent court case against RSA & UKU insurance company and my landlord Community Housing Association, the Chair of whom, was sister in law of the Master of the Rolls on ‘Absolute Liability’ in disrepair to both the shops following flooding into the premises from outside on the landlords premises) that I had suddenly come to the attention of some of the establishment who didn’t like me due to the absolute liability case and perhaps those too whom had stumbled on me through www.youthparliament.co.uk which had long list of historical abuses, that had been on that site since 1999 or early 2000.
(o) Now however the establishment putting two and two together, worked out I was not someone who had gone away even with a name change and NNYP had contemporary premises in central London www.scarletmaguire.com and www.spaceshift.co.uk and I was quite a dab hand at being in court on this absolute liability case, which was valuable to insurers worldwide and that I with a passion had set out to ensure that my case and essentially NNYP was not stolen again, by the powers that be, who had already trespassed both shop premises in 2008 with all the NAYPIC files in the downstairs offices.
(p) I had a blog called www.legalaidcuts.blogspot.com to hi-light the pure corruption in my case. I was again a thorn in the establishment’s side.
(q) A Mr Watson MP for labour, I believe met with the 1992 sacked former advisor of NAYPIC’s, as when he emailed me and then later called me, he used the same uncanny language of that former advisor and he sounded very sensationalist to me, bearing in mind he had recently had some success in the Leverson inquiry and was populist MP at the time, I saw him as feathering his own nest, I yawned upon taking notes of what he was saying and was then surprised when he asked me to co-operate with any police that may approach me in secret.
(r) Having a serious court case to get on with and being soon in the Court of Appeal with a top Pro-Bono QC who was endangering bringing back ‘Ryland v Fletcher’ and the law of ‘Absolute Liability this contact with Mr Watson smacked to me of the same adult advisor and his Russian counter-parts, enlisting either blatantly or chancing it a Mr Tom Watson MP.
(s) I knew something would blow re child abuse if that adult advisor had anything to do with it but then and now in 2012 I wasn’t going to be any part of it, I knew I would just let it be as my work was to raise an economy not a hell again as had been in 1993 when life as NAYPIC knew it was finished, as was children’s rights for years to come.
(t) I thanked Mr Watson for his time and said something like that I ‘could not work with police as I had been given evidence in confidence by young people, back then’. I also made sure I gave nothing away when he kept mentioning Mr Peter Righton and the Elm guest house except to say that yes it was all my casework.
(u) I was then contacted by DCI PAUL SETTLE and asked to hand over confidential info so I put it on my blog and was raided.
(v) Once you’ve answered all the above questions please return this form to the DPS Customer Service Team:
(w) Email: DPSMailbox-.CST@met.police.uk
(x) or
(y) Post: 22nd Floor
Empress State Building
Empress Approach
Lillie Road
London
SW6 1TR
(z) Cont…
(aa)
have run out of space to finish on the application attached.
(i) So just to say I put it on the internet because I was scared for anyone on those notes as well as for my own safety. I feared that unless I made it public then secret operations could just tidy up whatever it was they thought I still had. I knew that none of it was formulated properly and that the evidence required to convict had not yet been properly attained by NAYPIC. I knew that people could be be bumped off and made to look like they done it themselves.
(ii) I tried so hard to have that conversation with the Prime Minister or the Home Office. I was under a duty to protect that information. When The Home Office finally told me to work with the police in a secret op with no agenda I saw this as theft of the organisation again just like in 1993.
(iii) Nine officers came to my house at 6am on the 9th Jan 2013. A friend answered the door as I had been at a family birthday party in South London and had stayed the night. My friend called me to tell me, "I was having my coffee and the door went. I looked through the keyhole and it was like out of a movie. They held up their badge and asked me to open the door. I had to take my shower and go to work I did not care but they are in your house Jo you have to come now..'
(iv) I phoned up Bindman's solicitors as I have successfully sued the East Sussex Police with them for assault and battery and false imprisonment in 1993. Although the legal aid cuts did not allow me any legal recourse, I was advised on a compassionate basis to quote the law regarding something or other I don't recall. I called DCI Settle and spoke to him on this law.
(v) I arrived with my friend a senior social work consultant who was also at the party the night before. I was met in the court yard by DCI Settle and a white female officer who stated her name but I forgot. I saw two undercover officers one male with blonde hair and one black female coming out of my building with a huge black hold all and they made out they were nothing to do with anything. I however knew they had done something in my flat and sensed something nasty with filming as they were smug as if they'd set me up or something? I later spotted the blonde officer at the Empress building so I knew I hadn't been wrong with my instincts but still don't know what heavy equipment was in the large bag. I'd like to know still?
(vi) Upon entry to my flat my friend and I were friendly but silent.
(vii) A gentleman was sitting in plain suit and coat on my sofa and said very little.
(viii) I imagine him to be senior but he seemed nice enough.
(ix) I am house proud and my flat is full of art so I said to him 'do you like my flat' he said yes.
(x) The lady officer and two other uniformed officers James Townley and I forgot his name but have it recorded somewhere stood at my kitchen bar and asked me to sigh for my £1000 desk computer which had been bagged up and then for my laptop which had all my current court case proceeding on it, that had also been bagged up.
(xi) I noticed that they had found the guest signing in book with the likes of Cliff Richard signed in and many others and that they had found a copy of the written allegations that a former adult advisor had written up to do with that case of the Elm Guest House.
(xii) They missed a copy however that I had placed face down under the wardrobe of my white floor so that worked as I still held a copy.
(xiii) Someone asked me something about my court case and did I think this would help?
(xiv) I agreed although I wasn't sure what the hell they were going on about.
(xv) I signed and with my legs not noticeably shaking I was friendly and let them out.
(xvi) I felt traumatised by the whole experience and now that the rid had happened I felt victimised and scared.
(xvii) I phoned a friend who had the rest of NAYPIC info in his shed.
(xviii) He wanted me to take it so he was not raided.
(xix) It had more Elm Guest House evidence in the 19 boxes.
(xx) I was afraid to leave my house and I set up a pet cam. I believed that they were accessing my house.
(xxi) This especially when some of the stuff they had appeared back in my house or on the internet. Lots of people like Madland's whom I believed were police started having a say on twitter about me.
(xxii) My court case reputation was now ruined and my name Mary Moss was all over the tabloids and the internet.
(xxiii) I spent 3 years after trying not to be associated with the adult advisor whom I had sacked for good reason, yet his name and mine as well as the good name and work of NAYPIC became deliberately entangled with his past and of some 2012 Olympic Fraud he had been involved with yet I hadn't seen him since i sacked him as an advisor in 1991.
(xxiv) Lots of care experienced adults contacted me.
(xxv) Lots of nutters too and I had now neither premises nor reputation.
(xxvi) I have bearly survived all of it by just keeping my head down as I am only too well aware of the dangers of it all.
(xxvii) The police in August 2013 started to put co-ordinates around my house since I wouldn't go out much.
(xxviii) They also tracked my phone and blatantly followed me directly over my head as if this was a joke and they were getting a kick out of it.
(xxix) I still get followed.
(xxx) I still have trolls that I have ignored for ages now and I still make reference to NAYPIC boxes on social media.
(xxxi) Lawyers for the child abuse inquiry I believe including Fiona Woolf and Butler Sloss have seen them as well as many police forces throughout the country.
(xxxii) I have been told a few times who had them and for what op.
(xxxiii) Former cases of mine have been approached and harassed.
(xxxiv) Cases that aren't mine have too.
(xxxv) There has been no co-ordination, no witness protection and an inquiry set up that none of us trust.
(xxxvi) Every whinger you can imagine has been on twitter muddying the waters and the whole episode lacks any dignity or organisation.
(xxxvii) I was never asked for a statement and was treated like an enemy of the state.
(xxxviii) Fake exhibitions, victims and criminals have made this child abuse explosion into the chaos that it now is with no legal aid for victims/survivors to put their cases.
(xxxix) With the people I know who are involved this was a planned explosion with a state and police outcome protecting those who in many ways are robbing our country and selling us down the river and will no longer deal with the law they are becoming the law and abusing it all.
(xl) I have only complained because I though that I could complain to the IOPC direct from the 8th Jan 2018.
(xli) However, this complaint makes me now feel in further danger.
(xlii) I was followed as recently as 28th Dec across Russel Square Park and then into a shopping centre.
(xliii) I am the subject of all the recent allegations against all the celebrities on the dubbed Mary Moss list.
(xliv) Yet the UK ignored me for years and years as Jo Gavin who ran two art galleries and was coming to power.
Mary Moss
(53) Tue 09/01/2018
Your message has been delivered to the customer complaints mailbox
Complaints <complaints@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
(54) Home Office directive Police Raid 9th Jan 2013 by Secret Operation Fernbridge
New NAYPIC
1. A Mr Tom Watson MP approached me in late 2012 by email and the by phone to let me know about the case of `a convicted Paedophile Peter Righton. I took notes and thanked him for his time. He suggested I could co-operate with police and I said as a worker for NAYPIC I could not do that or standard words to that affect. He did not tell me anything new that I did not know.
2. I was then approached by the BBC and by the Met Police Operation Fernbridge and DCI Paul Settle. DCI Settle asked me to equally share any information I had on any abuse cases. I replied similarly to him stating I could not do that as I did not have authorisation to do so. I said I would welcome speaking with a minister. I then approached Mr Watson and asked him to approach the Prime Minister on my behalf so he did that.
3. I also wrote to the Prime Minister asking for a meeting to if anything boil down the narrative improving outcomes going forward with something I had expertise on from my casework.
4. I had a letter from the Prime Minister office stating he was busy and that the Home Office could deal with me and then shortly after got another letter stating that I should talk to the police.
5. Within a short space of these two correspodences it became apparent to me that neither offices had an interest in talking with me they just wanted my information. I made a choice to publish it rather than have it taken from me as it was now to my mind a public interest issue and a potential coverup.
6. I was then raided by 9 police officers on the 9th Jan 2013. No statement was taken and the police have been watching me ever since on a watch list. All my information has been used without my consent and a number of people have been approached from my files. My NAYPIC boxes. which total 19 boxes have never been returned to me and no explanation has ever been given to me.
7. For all this although this is not an exhaustive list I wish to complain about.
Yours Faithfully
Mary Moss
Commercial Director NAYPIC
8. I wish to complain on this matter.
9. 'VIP child abuse ring’ accuser served time in prison for fraud
A list of public figures accused of child abuse, which was circulated on the internet, was drawn up by a former social worker jailed in 2011 for his part in a fraud
10. Christopher Fay at his home in South London Photo: Geoff Pugh/The Telegraph
11. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/robert-mendick/
By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter
11:56PM BST 26 Sep 2015
12. A social worker who first named Leon Brittan and other VIPs as members of an alleged paedophile sex ring was jailed for fraud.
13. Chris Fay, now 69, drew up a list of prominent public figures he said had visited a guesthouse in London where children were abused.
14. The list was uploaded on to the internet at a time when Tom Watson, now Labour’s deputy leader, was claiming the existence of a powerful paedophile ring that operated with the knowledge of Downing Street.
15. It was compiled by Fay on evidence he says was supplied by victims and the owner of the Elm Guest House in south-west London, which has been at the centre of the allegations.
16. But Fay’s evidence has been thrown into question by his fraud conviction.
Police are investigating historic abuse at Elm Guest House, and have said that Cyril Smith, the Liberal MP, who was never prosecuted in his lifetime, stayed there.
17. The VIP list identifies a number of well-known figures and has added to concerns that individuals have had their reputations shredded by potentially false but damaging claims.
18. Fay told The Telegraph he regretted the list had been made public, conceded it contained the names of innocent public figures and admitted it had sparked a witch hunt.
19. Clockwise from top left; Leon Brittan, "Red Ron' Brown, Cyril Smith and Harvey Proctor
20. Fay insisted he never intended the list be made public but a former colleague had posted it on the internet. The two have fallen out.
21. Lord Brittan’s name topped Fay’s list, but it also included Harvey Proctor and a number of other Tory MPs, and Ron Brown, a former Labour MP, who is now dead. Mr Proctor vehemently denies the allegations.
22. Last week, the Metropolitan Police admitted it was wrong to describe the evidence of one key alleged abuse victim, who is said to have witnessed child murders, as “credible and true”.
23. The Telegraph also revealed last week that another alleged abuse victim, who also claimed to have evidence of two murders, had been convicted of making hoax bomb calls, had falsely confessed to murder and been accused by a judge of telling “whopping lies”.
24. The Telegraph has now learnt that Fay was jailed in 2011 for fraud.
Fay, a former Labour councillor, was sentenced to a year in prison for being part of a scam in which pensioners were conned out of almost £300,000.
25. The fraud victims were told they were buying shares in property and Tesco but were issued with fake certificates. Fay, of Blackheath, south-east London, helped to launder cash through false bank accounts.
26. He had been a child social worker with the National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) when he began compiling evidence from children allegedly abused at Elm Guest House.
27. Mary Moss, a colleague, circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months after Mr Watson had made his claims in Parliament.
28. Fay, tracked down by The Telegraph to his council flat, said his list was based on conversations with Carole Kasir, the owner of the Elm Guest House, and interviews with abused boys at NAYPIC.
29. Fay said Mrs Kasir had been murdered – she died of an insulin overdose in 1990 – to cover up the abuse.
30. He repeated allegations he had been making since Mrs Kasir’s death to Mr Watson in 2013. Mr Watson then passed Fay’s details to police, which had begun an investigation into Elm Guest House in December 2012.
31. Fay said: “My critics will say: 'He is a convicted fraudster so why should we believe the other things [he says].’”
32. He added: “It was so wrong to put that list online. It starts with hunts. That list could have encouraged people to make up claims.”
33. This is what I just sent to IPSO
their reply is at the end..
34. Complaint
Material published in print and/or online
settingsEdit
Complaint details
Name of publication(s):
settingsEdit
35. The Weekly Telegraph (Telegraph Media Group Ltd)
36. Publication not contacted
37. Clause(s) breached:
38. 1 Accuracy
39. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11893906/VIP-child-abuse-ring-accuser-served-time-in-prison-for-fraud.html
(54)
29/03/17
New NAYPIC
1. Stubbs, Claire 40162
2. We had a number of workers and I was doing London work mostly and worked for NAYPIC during that time as Development Officer the Oaks rings a bell and I did a few cases in Surrey but I hope you will appreciate with all the material and offices gone it's better for me with people and faces that I may remember, having done about 100 cases a year over 5 years.
3. If any of them know they spoke with me then put them in touch if you want to. Other than that there may be a case for finding out who nicked NAYPIC's office in 1993? Maybe the Dept of Health Brian Hopper may know?
4. Or Ben Browne or any of the 13 I knew that went to the Dartington conference in about 1987 with Virginia Bottomley head of the DoH at the time. I was recently in touch with her a few years back and she is still very friendly.
5. Tim Yeo, someone or other too, he might know?
6. Also, we had to do work reports for them so they will have copies of our case work for London, South and Manchester as well as Coventry and Liverpool and Durham.
Hope this helps
Mary
Stubbs, Claire 40162 <Claire.Stubbs@surrey.pnn.police.uk>
(55)
You
Hi Mary,
(a) Thank you for your reply, I have contacted Metropolitan police in order to obtain copies of the material that was taken from yourselves.
(b) The report I am working from is from the NSPCC which details interviews with members of staff at the home but does not go into detail of times and dates.
(c) I believe that the time frame may have been around 1987-1989? Is that any better for you? I know it’s not date specific.
Kindest Regards
Claire
(56)
(a) Rebecca in March 2017 a month before Amanda died was referring to the boxes that the Met Police took from Mary’s home in 2013 of her NAYPIC casework.
(b) Nine officers raided Mary Moss and this made international news and a multi-million pounds inquiry that despite getting her casework aired there she was not asked to participate.
(c) A commander Neil Jerome gave evidence and said Mary, the source, was ‘dubious’ and although making an IOPC complaint an officer Matt Horne denied her access to the complaints process.
(d) Keir Stammer tried to help her to be able to give evidence but that too came to nothing. Mary has been framed and friends murdered and Edward has to be last one.
(e) This must be exposed in the courts as is right and just and fair. To prevent more deaths from the authorities who are failing the British public badly on child abuse.
(57)
From: IPSO <inquiries@ipso.co.uk>
Sent: 30 May 2017 16:46
To: naypic@hotmail.com
Subject: subject
|
1. Thank you for your complaint |
|
|
|
|
|
2. Your complaint has been received and will now be assessed by IPSO. Your complaint and personal details are below for your information: |
|
|
|
|
|
Complaint |
|
|
3. Material published in print and/or online |
|
|
|
|
|
4. Complaint details |
|
|
5. Name of publication(s) 6. The Weekly Telegraph (Telegraph Media Group Ltd) 7. Clauses breached 8. 1 Accuracy 9. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11893906/VIP-child-abuse-ring-accuser-served-time-in-prison-for-fraud.html 10. 'Fay insisted he never intended the list be made public but a former colleague had posted it on the internet. 11. The two have fallen out.' First Fay was not a colleague he was a social worker for Greenwich and an 'informer' to the NAYPIC re several Greenwich cases, where he alone researched and supplied the list to the organisation, after meeting several of the organisation's cases when he happened to be in the office meeting with NAYPIC and then approaching the cases himself outside of the NAYPIC offices. 12. Second inaccuracy the police approached a former NAYPIC development officer Mary Moss to ask for the list Fay had compiled. 13. Third inaccuracy Fay was banned from NAYPIC in the early nineties following information given to NAYPIC by their then funding body London Boroughs Grants Unit. 14. There was no personal falling out 'of the two', at all, she delivered the ban, however the information was severe enough for him to be banned since then and he has had no contact with any NAYPIC staff since. 15. Fourth inaccuracy; 'He had been a child social worker with the National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) when he began compiling evidence from children allegedly abused at Elm Guest House' Not true. 16. He did some statistical research for the organisation where he volunteered to help produce a publication on case statistics called 'abuse in the care system'. 17. Fifth inaccuracy; Mary Moss, a colleague, circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months after Mr Watson had made his claims in Parliament. 18. He was not a colleague. 19. I put the list on the internet because the police knew I still had it. 20. They could have only got that information from Tom Watson who later claims he only met Mr Fay two months after Dec 2012 (in this article it is evident in the inaccuracy in the timeline for any fool to see). 21. So either Watson is lying, the police were lying and or the whole thing is a NAYPIC sabotage since we were in a lucrative court case over out HQ at the time of the police raid at my premises which produced the list and all the log books at the guest house to which were given to NAYPIC by Carol Cazier before she was murdered. 22. Sixth inaccuracy; He added: “It was so wrong to put that list online. It starts witch hunts. That list could have encouraged people to make up claims.” 23. The sensitive data with the list as well as log books from the guest house and banking slips etc, were taken from me by police in a dawn raid on my house and I only circulated the documents because they could have been buried. 24. It was serial complex knowledge, I felt should be put into the public domain at the time rather than in police hands only, whom had no more right to the information as did the public, until such time as the information was investigated by NAYPIC who would then bring about court proceedings and protection for witnesses, instead of what turned out to be a shambles. |
|
|
|
|
|
Your details |
|
|
Ms Mary Moss naypic@hotmail.com 07916 325037 |
|
|
|
|
|
25. We will be in touch with you again once we have had a chance to assess the information that you have submitted. If you do need to send us any further information or attachments please do so by replying to this email. If you have not heard from us in three working days, please call us on 0300 123 22 20 or email inquiries@ipso.co.uk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26. The Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538909. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© Copyright 2016. IPSO. All rights reserved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IPSO Inquiries |
|
IPSO Gate House 1 Farringdon Street London EC4M 7LG |
|
Tel: 0300 123 2220 Website: www.ipso.co.uk |
|
IPSO is the independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry. We exist to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors’ Code of Practice has been breached. We are able to consider concerns about editorial content in newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists. |
|
Follow us on Twitter:www.twitter.com/IpsoNews |
|
Email Disclaimer The information contained in this email, and any attached or linked information, is intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is confidential, protected by copyright, or subject to legal privilege. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system without disclosing or copying it. We try to keep our network free from viruses, but can take no responsibility for any virus which may be transferred by way of this email. Use of this email facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Independent Press Standards Organisation (CIC), Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London EC4M 7LG |
58.
Hi Jo
1. Just an email to let you know that your boxes are still with op Winter Key. For your information we currently have West Midlands Police reviewing your boxes for disclosure matters relating to a current investigation they are dealing with.
2. I have been informed by West Midlands that you are aware of this investigation.
3. If you now wish to speak with them please let me know and I will put them in touch with you.
Regards
Rebecca
DC Rebecca HALL
WN8669
SCO1
OP Winter Key
59.
Hi Mary
1. Thanks for your reply.
2. The West Midland officers are no longer here but should you wish to speak to them I will let them know.
Regards
Rebecca
60.From: Mary Moss
Sent: 07 February 2018 13:02
To: DPS Mailbox - CST <DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: Re: Complaint against Met Police, our ref PC/221/18 Mary Moss
PC/221/18
Dear DPS,
1. I request an extension of 28 days to answer why I think that this enquiry is not out of time and is still very much live.
61.
1. Amanda got a caution/conditional discharge for the police raid as they found some grass for personal use (as she hadn’t done class A’s for a long time following rehabilitation but the Class A use with Edward on the following Monday was triggered by the police raid) and some other personal use paraphernalia.
2. The raid gave Amanda a nervous breakdown. She hid for days at a friend’s house.
3. She said that they had torn her original and valuable portrait of her that was published art work, that had been on her bedroom wall and there was no need for that. She felt violated.
62. PC Bassom harasses Edward.
1. Fri 16/03/2018 13:31
2. The Bike, Stolen Seat and Taser.
3. 5am - 17 hours - positive for class A seen by worker discharged. Wrong solicitor Westminster.
4. 28/06/2018
5. Dear Aneka,
6. Thank you for calling me back and speaking to me this morning.
7. As I explained Edward suffered a bout of depression and hid/slept in bed for 4 days, so he did not attend both psychiatric meetings.
8. The staff should have entered his room and helped him to his appointment.
9. Like his Court Case at Marylebone where he didn't attend, he was in bed in a deep sleep, after suffering a panic attack.
10. Again I was told he wasn't in, when he was,
11. so we took a taxi to court to attend by 4pm.
12. I saw him on Monday this week and he was very depressed and quiet.
13. Confusion in the plea told by temp solicitor Justin to plead guilty as lessor offence he refused.
63.
Thu 12/04/18 15:26
Gary Monks <gmonks@hja.net>
Mary Moss
Aneka Thirurajah
1. Thanks for that – Aneka opening a file and collating documents for me.
2. Mary, I also need to see Edward in the office soon as he has difficulties regarding that not guilty plea so I would like to go through everything with him. You are most welcome to join us if Edwards happy with that.
Kind regards
Gary Monks | Senior Associate | For Hodge Jones & Allen LLP
64.
Published in the Daily Newspaper
03 Nov 2020
IOPC REPORT
(i) A Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer has been given a final written warning at a gross misconduct hearing arranged by the force, following our investigation.
(ii) At 3am on 9 March 2019, police constable (PC) Karl Bassom chased a suspect across Hammersmith Bridge, both on foot and via a passing Uber taxi, and discharged a Taser against him as he was on the Thames footpath.
(iii) The man then fell into the river and PC Bassom fired five more times while the man was still in the water.
(iv) It was alleged the officer breached the police standards of professional behaviour in relation to duties and responsibilities; use of force; honesty and integrity; and discreditable conduct by:
(v) * failing to adequately consider the safety of members of the public when he kept his Taser armed and his finger on the trigger while in the moving vehicle.
(vi) This may have put the driver and passenger at unnecessary risk of accidental discharge of the Taser and possible injury;
(vii) and failing to prevent the suspect from suffering further injuries while he was in the river
(viii) * using force that was not necessary, proportionate and reasonable when he threatened to use and did use his Taser on the suspect,
(ix) particularly in relation to the final four taser discharges on the suspect while he was in the water when he may not have posed a threat to the officer
(x) * providing inaccurate information to his colleagues at the scene and later when he recalled the events in writing
65.
Dec 2018
1. Lots of court dates for Edward to attend plus he was being evicted from SHP on 20th December 2018, the eviction was dated, 5 days before Christmas.
2. More trumped-up Charges ‘Theft by finding’, ‘opening a fridge door in a shop’, ‘picking up a discarded box of flowers’, all of these complaints by Edward were, PC Bassom, harassing Edward and other mental health people living in West Kensington.
66.
1. Thu 13/12/2018 11:39
2. Change of Plea - Contact CPS
3. Email from Mary Moss on behalf of Edward regarding making him plea ‘not guilty’ to criminal damage, when he had freely admitted throwing a stone into a warehouse and picking up something off the street and now both were being tried together.
1. westminster.mc
2. Dear Ian Lam,
3. Although I am not an 'officer of the court' I am his family, I have attended the past two hearings and have witnessed my schizophrenic brother believe that pleading not guilty to a insignificant or flimsy part of the charges, ie intent and theft by finding, should be defended, as advised.
4. I don't understand since he is clearly diagnosed as mentally ill, why he is defending 'intent' anyway because by his diagnoses he doesn't have any and he has good character but is prone to coercion.
5. I have asked strongly on both occasions why he has been advised to plead 'not guilty' and not be advised that he will get a third off if he pleaded guilty and then will hopefully get the help he needs for class A drugs as having not offended in 20 years.
6. More to the point he has an eviction that day from his home and it's cold out there. The high support mental health hostel hasn't complied with any reply to an appeal, to a formal 28 day eviction notice. Now they are using his court case as an excuse to evict him before he goes into court, so today they said they would evict before 9.30am. This is evil and uncalled for.
7. I don't want anyone to face the bar but this is a case of a flimsy defence being advocated for, when he will be convicted anyway and there is now no time to get a lawyer who will advise without his own arrogance.
8. Edward Moss is currently in mental health 'Crisis' saying he would harm himself and has applied to City Road rehabilitation through his drugs worker as he knows he needs help now, due to his recent criminal out of control behaviour.
9. Doing a case, called a trial, at this stage will leave the courts without good referrals for his punishment, so his outcomes would not be fair and in-keeping with his mental health
Yours Sincerely
Mary Moss
67.
(a) The situation with SHP housing was getting difficult as with all these court cases, the latest one being when Edward was standing in front of West Kensington tube station when a WPC approached him, to ask him what he was doing near the tube station and he told her, that he had just seen a bus pass on the floor and was handing it into the office of the underground station.
(b) As they spoke, he spotted a piece of imitation chain jewellery on the ground, he leaned down and picked it up to find that she immediately said, ‘I’m arresting you for theft by finding’.
(c) Edward was a friendly man and also an intelligent on one, so he calmly questioned this and said ‘I’ve just picked that up in front of you and handed it to you, that’s not theft?”.
(d) In 2018 he was charged with ‘theft by finding’ now coupled with the 2018 charge ‘tampering with a bike, with intent to steal’ and had a taser pulled on him by PC Bassom.
(e) He was then locked up for 17 hours whilst simply going to get a new bike seat saddle for his bike, as his bike seat had just been stolen.
(f) The charges were now building, with the effect of making him stressed, panicked and homeless because SHP were allowing police to come to his room, including Bassom, to arrest him or to search his room and other high support residents without a warrant.
(g) The fact is that PC Bassom’s statement about the bike had no way of even being true is what had it withdrawn, for example PC Bassam says, Edward crosses the road to go to Woodlawn Road, yet Woodlawn Road, is on the same side of the road, on the very same corner, beside the telephone boxes, which is where PC Bassom alledges Edward’s ‘tampering of the bike, with ‘intent’ to steal’, is alledged to have occurred.
(h) Yet in Edwards statement in all of the finest of detail, everything down to the post office that opened at 6am, on Woodlawn Road, turning there into the back streets of his Father’s house, by Bishop’s Park Road, where Edward had arranged to pick up a bike seat, as his Father fixed bikes and had a spare saddle for him, so he brought the exact screwdriver and small wrench for the measurement of the screws to be the same and the pole size to be correct, as Edward’s bike seat had just been stolen.
(i) The fact is Edward was just 12 streets away from his Dad’s and not even on a back street but on the main road, which is how the officer said, that from three hundred yards away, in a moving car, he witnessed the alledged tampering of that bike.
(j) If you google that corner of Woodlawn Street, where the two phone boxes are that Edward said he went into to look for change,
(k) any bike is a bit away by the pavement, on a small arch shaped ramp,
(l) so Edward was arrested on Woodlawn Road already a few minutes away, by
(m) the turning of the immediate corner of that street
(n) into Woodlawn Road,
(o) when he was arrested by force
(p) and had the police officer PC Bassom out of the blue pointing a taser at him,
(q) telling him to put his hands in the air, and drop his screw driver and wrench as he was under arrest
(r) and then handcuffing him brutally and locking him up for 17 hours!!
(s) I took pictures of the bruises.
(t) So very often, it was time consuming for us both, causing alarm and distress, also housing wise it, this lovable legend, silver whiskered, smiling, jolly, 50-year-old gentleman, was to lose his high support, mental health placement as a result;
68.
(A) Room 5, 11 Perham Road, London, W14 9SR
on Mon 19th November 2018 at 1pm,
(B) legal notice served by Service Manager for (SHP) a managing agent, on behalf of:
(C) Notting Hill Housing Genius
(D) Edward’s Appeal;
(E) Nuisance - Edward fully denies nuisance in the house or surrounding area and has no convictions of this. He needs more elaborate particulars on this, to answer or defend fully.
69.
1. On January 2nd 2019 when the eviction happened, Edward stayed with John-Paul his brother
2. as Mary had the child abuse inquiry with her own press and police intrusion and was being heavily monitored herself, so he being at hers wouldn’t improve outcomes for either.
3. Staff, at John-Paul’s semi-independent flat in Camden complained that Edward should not stay over, although he actually stayed in his brother Patrick’s van in Tooting and went to John-Paul’s to change his clothes and take a shower and sometimes fall asleep for a few hours.
4. Mary had all of Edwards many clothes and possessions, they had with John-Paul all packed up together into five, 8 wheeled suitcases & TV/Video.
5. Between the three siblings including Patrick an Estate agent brother in Tooting who had a removal van Edward could sleep in,
6. they kept Ed as save as they could.
7. Mary contacted Camden high support mental health services and the homeless services mainly because,
8. Edward would be nearby to help him if he was arrested again for no reason
9. and then if Edward was out of the way of PC Bassom in Hammersmith
10. and also Charing Cross police since they too had taken to harassing him having him stripped and telling him to parade up and down on a bench naked in a cell,
11. that this attempt to place him in Camden may take away the possibility of him being sent to jail, as a framed injustice, with no criminal record,
12. as a magistrate once said, he has no record for 20 years, it just doesn’t make sense.
13. January 2019 Edward said whilst crying and being very upset at this stage rightly so,
"I have done nothing wrong, the charges were dropped, I shouldn't be on bail, they want me locked up, what have I done to the police for them to want me so badly".
70.
Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 15:36
1. Edward wrote to the CPS regarding the case he had been charged with of him knocking on his Dad’s door, to ask to stay as he had been evicted from his two-year placement.
2. His Dad called the police and got into a police car to look for Edward to have him arrested.
3. Letter to CPS from Edward
4. Edward Moss 08/07/70 London WC1H 9PB
5. Sentencing Edward Moss under Category 2 as advised by counsel at a trial held at the wrong court
6. Court 2 in Edward’s absence yesterday.
7. All of allegations denied by Edward who was unable to defend himself.
8. Therefore, can only now mitigate for sentencing;
9. A. Edward has been detained under the mental held act regularly over 30 years as a highly functional paranoid schizophrenic who is susceptible to being abused by others.
10. He is known as a vulnerable adult who gives everything away.
11. Edward was a victim of cuckooing of his council flat a few years ago.
12. (verb) A crime where a drug dealer befriends a weak, old or otherwise vulnerable person, then takes over their home and uses it as a crack house. "Cuckooing is a new type of crime which involves a drug dealer befriending a vulnerable individual who lives on their own.
13. Like a cuckoo, the dealer moves in, takes over the property, and turns it into a drugs' den." (BBC Inside Out, March 23rd 2007) Edward founded www.mentallyil.co.uk
14. B. Once the drug dealers had finished with Edward and his home was repossessed by the council, he found himself in a High Support mental health unit. On the point of his lapse into petty crime, he was being intimidated by the same people who took his flat. He does not remember the incident of criminal damage well, as he was on super strength lager as stated in custody due to being harassed by dealers.
15. C. The crimes for which he has been found guilty in his absence he admitted to already but was advised not to plead intent by his counsel even though he had attended his solicitor’s office and statements were written admitting everything. Criminal damage, theft by finding a bus pass which he was going to hand in and a cosmetic necklace worth £2.
16. D. The original attempt to get Edward charged was by a policeman who illegally attended Edward’s room at the hostel and harassed him and a fellow mentally ill resident continuously until he eventually accused him of attempting to steal a bike, got an easy wrongful conviction, warranting a conditional discharge.
17. E. Edward did admit later to sitting in an open doored vehicle and also breaking a car window with a hammer he found at the wheel of the car which he said at the time he though it funny.
18. F. All this happened in a short period of time and was out of character. Criminal records showing a 20 years gap in mainly driving offences.
19. G. Edward had had a failed hernia operation. He had to be operated on again and this time around his privates and again it had gone wrong.
20. H. Edward openly admits taking drugs, in pain when the op went wrong.
21. I. On top of this his two-year stay was up and he faced eviction.
22. J. He was between this also harassed by two male residents sexually.
23. K. He was pressurised into being in debt with dealers saying he owed them money and found he had the sickness of a class A, drug habit leaving him very sick on top of being mentally ill and soon to be homeless from high support to no support when they had said they would re-house him and rehabilitate him and were paid to do so.
24. L. Edward would like you to change the sentencing to lesser category c, as apart from a window smashed for which he would pay the damage by way of a fine, he has mitigating circumstances and has fallen foul of being the weak person he can be, with back pain, hernia pain and now homelessness, applying for drug rehabilitation, at his family’s houses having lost so much already and not understanding his counsel at all.
25. Edward is pleasant and polite, creative, very intelligent, dresses well always.
26. The family is considering taking Justin to the bar for insisting Edward pleaded not guilty.
27. Counsel did not win anyway and has wasted the courts time as well as the families time and distress as none of 7 have a conviction.
28. Edwards been misrepresented as a Category B offender.
29. Probation said to him yesterday, a community rehabilitation order is suitable after meeting him.
30. Yesterday’s events; Edward’s sister turned up at 10am with an ex-member of the IOPC and good friend of the family to support Edward Moss.
31. Edward had not been seen since Monday when he was evicted by single homeless project, who changed the locks to the front door and kept his possessions.
71. A second email from Edward to the CPS
Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 15:36
1. Dear CPS,
2. My father, of, 32, Parfrey Street, London W6 9EN, recently called the police on me due to me asking him for accommodation, as the Single Homeless Person's Unit where I resided served me with an eviction notice, since their two-year funding ran out.
3. This made me depressed and turn to petty crime, as I turned to drugs for support.
4. I was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia since 1999 and have been hospitalized twice for the condition.
5. When the SHP project evicted me, it was 2nd Jan 2019 and with the help of my sister, we gathered all my belongings in 5 suitcases and they remain in storage.
6. I attended probation but they told me I only have an ‘eligiblity to attend a certain number of days and now that does not matter when’.
7. I attended the Margaret center who told me I was not suitable for rehabilitation, for no apparent reason apart from perhaps the expense and waiting list times, although at that stage it would have helped and placed me back into support services.
8. I attended Camden homeless prevention services and after months they still say they are full up but are still trying for a vacancy in a non-specilist placement hostel pathway.
9. Under 2015 care and Support Act I should have been supported as disabled so my current situation is illegal according to the Supreme Court who say that a person cannot have their support needs met if they are 'homeless'.
10. I have tried and tried to get help and even turned to my historically abusive father to ask him to help accomodate me but instead he with a substaintial amount of help from the police laid in wait for me to arrive again at my historic home address, he at the back of the police car, and they arrested me for 24 hours in a police cell not giving me my already known to me solicitors.
11. Eventually my sister was alerted by my younger brother who was with me at the time and was told to leave so he told her the next day and she contacted Hodge Jones and Allen, my solicitors.
12. HJA immediately called, as my father had dropped the harassment charges after some thought as to my homelessness predicament and yet the police station would not put HJA through to the sargent who then decided to interview me and charge me himself suddenly after knowing the charges had been dropped.
13. I have slipped through a net of agencies and am desperately ill now.
14. Although I have a registered address I was staying at my younger brothers hostel since he too is menatlly ill and has a drug addiction too.
15. I have set up a charity called mentally nil, about county lines and harassment from drug dealers and I intend when I am housed to expand knowledge of what happens to servere menatlly ill people and how they CPS and police are not carrying out a simple duty of care to us, instead criminalising us the vulnerable adults susceptable to drug lords and gangs taking us for fools easily and taking our money.
16. I may or may not attend court tomorrow but that is because I was told two weeks ago, I could not stay at my brother’s hostel, yet I had to as I am nearly 50 and cannot sleep on the streets with backache.
17. It has all had a knock-on affect as he is now being told that he has to move due to me turning up for a few hour’s sleep.
18. I don't know why these charges have not been dropped in accordance with my Father’s wishes.
19. He even drove to the police station to get them dropped.
20. Why does the station sargent want me jailed, I have kept out of trouble in very tough circumstances and cannot for the life of me understand what is going on.
21. I need a bed and I need my meds and I need support, not this trying to jail me for charges dropped no matter what the procedure is, its public money being wasted and finite police resources being used to a ridiculous end.
22. I am copying this to the IOPC.
23. Please copy in my solicitors for any reply and my sister.
24. Gary Monk of HJA Senior Partner is my solicitor.
25. I do not want to be arrested for non-attendance but I cannot predict my own situation from day to day so I will try my best.
26. Edward Moss (written by Mary Moss contact 07916 325037 in the presence of Edward Moss today 1.30pm)
72.
1. 19/06/2019
Edward moss
2. Meanwhile Mary was trying to get the solicitors moving fast as to the CPS position on charges that were dropped by his Dad.
3. A series of emails to HJA Edward’s solicitors;
4. Edward Moss Update on Situation –
5. Mary Moss
Donjeta Canolli; Gary Monks
Case number 01FH0143719
(i) My sister Geraldine in Devon got through to the CPS on 0203 357 7000 option 4 and spoke to Susana and she only just noticed that the withdrawal statement is on the system but not been allocated to the lawyer so she now emailed it for consideration.
(ii) Now someone hopefully will decide today and notify you at HJA today.
(iii) Fingers crossed.
Mary
Mary Moss
Donjeta Canolli
(iv) Hi Donjeta,
I just thought as Gary is up to his eyeballs at the minute can you forward the emails below to Ruth, please.
Many Thanks
Mary Moss
Gary Monks
(v) I do appreciate that, of course, Gary and can't thank you enough.
(vi) But it's very hard for me just wait and see with so much at stake.
(vii) I am in correspondence anyway with Keir Stammer and have let him, in the light of another whole day going by with no answer from the CPS, know what is going on and of Edwards insistence, he will not go with no charges outstanding.
(viii) If anything, just to have a note of it on record.
(ix) This is a serious waste of my time and cross-contamination of my own work with the MP, however, I am afraid it might be linked anyway and I think Ed knows it, so is blaming me, as is probably right because it is ridiculously unusual.
(x) I hope this ends soon as I have so much to look forward to at the moment, as does he, with the offer of a hostel in Covent Garden, which he is excited about but is still waiting.
(xi) He is thanks to middle brother Patrick currently living in the back of a van in Tooting outside his estate agents.
(xii) John Paul's (the younger brother) place in Camden, has given us a reprieve and I am meeting with his manager at the end of the month.
(xiii) Just to let you know, it's not easy.
Best
Mary
Gary Monks
(xiv) I do not know as I do not have access to the system but D will e-mail the CPS.
(xv) Just because there is a withdrawal statement does not mean the CPS will withdraw the charges.
(xvi) They have the discretion to continue.
(xvii) You will appreciate Mary that I have numerous other matters to deal with.
(xviii) We are doing our best hence my getting him bail enlarged last week.
Thanks
Gary Monks | Partner | For Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors
Mary Moss
Gary,
(xix) I am out of my mind and so is my family so aware of that and that is why I would like to know if the CPS even have the withdrawal statement.
Best
Mary
Gary Monks
(xx) Ruth will certainly make enquiries with the CPS but even if they withdraw it Edward should still be there.
(xxi) If he is not the court may issue a warrant and when he picked up on that warrant put a bail act offence to him which can carry a custodial sentence.
(xxii) I am obliged to advice on this Mary.
g
Gary Monks | Partner | For Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors
Mary Moss
(xxiii) Dear Gary,
I cannot be there either at this stage and since the withdrawal statement has been made and signed and that took hours of waiting, can Ruth chase to see if the case can be withdrawn or it’s a steep edge potentially for Edward which would mess up all our heads.
I think we would all like to get on.
Best Mary Moss
(xxiv) (Note for Court of Appeal; Police know Mary has not ever seen her abusive father in 4 decades, so she cannot attend the hearings at all, as that would put them together)
Gary Monks
Donjeta Canolli
(xxv) Thanks Mary,
This is just to let you know that I cannot be there on Thursday as I had a pre-existing commitment.
My colleague and fellow partner Ruth Harris will be at court and I have forwarded your e-mail to her.
KR
Gary Monks | Partner | For Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors
Mary Moss
Gary Monks;
Donjeta Canolli
Dear Gary and Donjeta,
(xxvi) I asked Edward to come over yesterday morning to attend hospital due to his mental health.
(xxvii) We contacted the Camden mental health crisis team today and they suggested taking him to A&E.
(xxviii) We asked him to access the services by attending A&E and he became highly verbally aggressive to a family friend of thirty years, my brother and I. This was at John's placement and I had alerted the staff beforehand that we would try and get him to attend A&E.
(xxix) Edward's deteriorating mental health hasn't been witnessed like this since 1991 by us all.
(xxx) He became unusually verbally aggressive, not like him and so we then called an ambulance on him, in front of him.
(xxxi) He left the building and so we called the police and explained his current needs and situation mentally that he is a danger to himself as he has no realisation of his current situation and how much trouble he could be in by Wednesday. He said "I have done nothing wrong, the charges were dropped, I shouldn't be on bail, they want me locked up, what have I done to the police for them to want me so badly".
(xxxii) He also didn't understand that his brother is being evicted from his one bedroom with shower and kitchen on Monday due to him staying, to a room.
(xxxiii) He just can't come back there. He really is in need of help and currently Elsbeth Malone doesn't seem to understand
(xxxiv) the 2015 care and support act that someone who has come from high support like him after being mentally ill for 28 years should not be left without the services he needs and as the Supreme Court rightly put it in 2015, a homeless person cannot have his care and support needs met if he is, 'homeless'.
(xxxv) He shouts and is horribly aggressive to us all.
(xxxvi) The CAD number is CAD 4428.
Kind Regards
Mary Moss
73.
(A) Mary and Edward did attend A&E as suggested by Camden however they locked us both in the emergency mental health suite at A&E and despite Mary putting her foot in the door, the realisation was that they could both be locked up and not helped.
(B) They were free to leave and so they did but insisted on seeing an A&E doctor.
(C) When explaining the circumstances, the A&E doctor said Edward was of sound mind and neither a danger to himself or others.
(D) This Camden advised attempt to place Edward in supported mental health, therefore failed.
(E) Another email from Gary re more charges laid against Edward when he was regularly picked up in the pandemic and put in cold cells for hours all to amount to nothing.
(F) Once they picked him up as he got off a bus on the Wandsworth Bridge Road, they surrounded him with police vans, stopped the traffic and put him in handcuffs, he’s just got his personal drugs and was on the way home to take them.
(G) Another time, when Charing Cross police picked him up, they privately sectioned him to the Priory in Chichester for 4 days drugging him up so that he knew nothing about what happened, driving him past the scene of the London Bridge attack on the day it happened in a police van.
(H) Edward was transferred to the Priory in Roehampton where he was able to contact his family.
(I) Edward said when he awoke from the Chichester priory he had a vile worth of blood coming out of arse.
74.
27/10/20 19:24
gmonks@hja.net
Dear Gary,
1. I got your email but was really ill and never saw Ed or chased him.
2. I spoke to him just a few days ago and I told him about the cancelled theft of bike/attempted theft of bike.
3. He's very pleased.
All the best as always.
Mary
75.
1. The next part of what happened to Edward after all the charges were withdrawn or dropped was that Camden placed Edward at St Mungo’s hostel in Covent Garden in June 2019 and everyone was happy about that. We moved him and all his suitcases into a cell like room where he would die in Sept 2021 at the hands of the police and Camden mental health services.
2. The day Edward died, he had been accepted by the Parliamentary Ombudsman Services over the complaints to them of what happened next and therefore I will just outline here:
3. The complaint against Camden & Islington Mental Health Services for ease of reference.
4. I wrote this for the Parliamentary Ombudsman as they wanted the SCOPE, 22nd Sept 2022.
5. Misuse of the MHA to administer drugs without consent, under an unlawful section, where Edward was witnessed by family as acting normally.
6. The drugs were administered by deception, with Camden having a recent history of sectioning him on about five occasions since 2019, when he joined the borough and by prevarication and so-called ignorance of me being the ‘next relative’, when this was or should have been available in his medical notes, as to who Edwards ‘next relative’ was, and despite knowing from Edward and me, who repeatedly told them and they knew.
7. Tribunals deliberately being cancelled to then prolong use of non-consensual medication, doing further damage to Edward, knocking him senseless for the tribunals and then not waking him up on request from his next relative, just saying to her, ‘he is sleeping’, staff being rude and evasive, condescending, short tempered and aggressive.
8. Transcripts and minutes of meetings not being provided and ‘strict proof’ that Edward is a ‘danger to himself or others’ or even adequate plausible ‘reasons’ for the section, not being made available to Edward, the ‘next relative’, or the legal advisor for Edward, Fernanda Stefani of Duncan Lewis solicitors.
9. Sections and paperwork for them, not being signed off with two doctors, or even one, and no independent advisor or number given to Edward to call.
10. The psychiatrist did not have recourse to any medical notes, in 2019 before medication was administered. This endangered Edward.
11. Subsequent sections, still had no historical medical notes from Hammersmith & Fulham.
12. Psychiatrists and practitioners as well as people who had never met Edward, were given platforms at meetings as If they knew him and whole reports where concocted by them and given weight and credence. There was no duty of care. This was a shambles.
13. The zoom connection was interrupted so that Edward could not even hear the judge at the tribunal and then when asked something he couldn’t hear, he was told to leave his own meeting. He managed to say, ‘no assistance required’ and ‘this is a farce’.
14. This meant he could not advocate or communicate with the tribunal and since he potentially, deliberately, was severely drugged, leading up to the tribunal, when this avenue of a tribunal was potentially deliberately compromised, he was then at the mercy of the mental health practitioners, to be drugged up again and again, weakening his constitution.
15. Notably, extreme dosages of medication were given in days leading up to important meetings, where he as the patient could easily miss the meeting or may as well since he would be seemly awake but unable to communicate either bodily or mentally.
16. In the tribunal we were told that Edward was in danger from the others in his ward, this was a reason to dismiss him from there, as he was not in danger outside but this was ignored. He was then assaulted by others in there.
17. When the mental health practitioner could see that Edward was fighting for his right to not be at his mercy, he strategically, used his sectioning powers, to pervert any kind of administrative safeguards or historical informed consent. In fact Edward was privately sectioned by Charing Cross police prior to his Camden saga and that was illegal too.
18. A reasonable person would not make barring order if the patient posed no history of threat, no immediate threat and so that was a grave and unjust use of the practitioner’s powers that seemed timely, only when the ‘next relatives’ normal legal functions had been restored. I would suggest they kept back this power to not act in the patients best autonomous interests but to outwit us in a system they understood and therefore abused and regularly do so.
19. The practitioners frustrated due process and safeguards, using the MHA incorrectly.
20. This happened unlawfully and could potentially be common practice, if a practitioner’s do not get their ways.
21. A ‘ban on discharge’ should be reserved for extremities, when a person is evidenced as a danger to themselves or others and not misused to get around a person’s objections, be that through the clear communication with their legal representatives or through their next relative.
22. Mis-interpreting emotional events as crisis points, which can be a common failing as staff have often no knowledge of persons real life events, such as an illness or death in the family or of a friend. They often don’t ask ‘what is the matter’ so that non-trained or non-accountable staff can make dangerous and poor decisions around care, allowing points of easy entry by police, leading to false imprisonment, without a fair and full trial, or any bail or holding period, to represent themselves with the help of their legal representative, or next relative, especially in any setting with care co-ordinators.
23. Deprivation of essential well-being items such as nicotine, routinely being with-held.
24. Addictions, such as in Edwards case crack, containing cocaine (a rich person’s drug) and baking soda, should easily be able to seek treatment for, as soon as possible and for assistance with withdrawal symptoms, if self-withdrawing, followed by blood tests. In blood tests, for side effects of pharmaceuticals, a close eye, for illicit substances should be obtained, or else the research on these effects, do not follow correctly.
25. Since the side effects of crack withdrawal, such as nausea, depression & suicidal thoughts, anxiety, fatigue, and muscle pain, can be very intense they should be monitored by a healthcare professional and in Edward’s case in hospital, they were not.
26. Neither was his blood monitored for the vast amounts of pharmaceutical drugs given.
27. In fact, Edward and his next relative, Mary attended the Camden Mental Health drug services, and saw psychiatrists there voluntarily on five different occasions and were refused any help whatsoever. They said they can only deal with heroin.
28. Edward during covid asked his GP also for help, for a replacement, such as codeine.
29. The substance crack is so addictive, the subject of that addiction can begin to lack agency on the addiction, so if they ask for help they clearly want it, it therefore should be provided.
30. Instead, Camden’s unspoken policy is to lock up addicts and ignore drug addictions diagnosing them as mental health issues.
31. This is wrongful incarceration for taking drugs and people should be immediately redressed.
32. The two cannot be joined together and therefore many are locked up illegally right now.
33. One requires rehabilitation, that is not available for crack, only heroin, Edward and his next relative were told. Yet it was used against him to obtain wrongly obtained detention and torcher by way of the administration of more lethally dangerous drugs, to his particular system as well as wrongful sedation and incapacity of normal bodily functions causing him embarrassment and humiliation too.
34. The components of cracking coca leaves, is arguably less dangerous than clozapine or sodium valproate (*recently banned for men, under 50, March 2023) or even a mix of the two causing myocardritis.
35. Clozapine according to Imperial College London’s research in April 2022 shortened life expectancy by 14 years.
36. Mental health cannot be considered in most cases to be permanent, it’s like breaking an arm, the mind can also heal after a good supportive plaster cast and with the right support.
37. Drugs in hospital of a pharmaceutical nature are very often it would seem, given in experimental cocktails by practitioners with no consent or information given as to what they are for just an elite ‘I know best’ attitude but are proven by research, to be more dangerous to addicts and have more side effects than street drugs.
38. Taking the pharmaceutical do not lead to better outcomes, in fact they have poorer outcomes for addicts, who now have two lots of drugs in their system and are being falsely monitored for one set.
39. One is the chemical cosh, often forced on them by way of humiliating and definitely non-consensual pinned to the floor injections, either initially on the hospital premises, where in Edwards case, he woke up naked or in other cases bribed into them, by way of release into the community, if, the patient complies, and the other set of drugs is the street drugs.
40. Patients with low self-esteem and an irresistible, drug fuelled, reliance on randomly dated, enormous, amounts of mental health disability benefits money, only encourages drug use.
41. For complying to injections, addicts will simply take whatever drugs they are told to take and use their then enriched mental health status, Edward called the ‘mentally nil’ syndrome, and he had a website about it, to purchase street drugs, as soon as they are freed.
42. They are then vulnerable to dealers often already in the fabric of the psychiatrist culture and long stay hostels, woven into police cultures, such as traps by the home office ICE, initiatives in the control of drugs.
43. Patients who find themselves in this cycle of abuse by the authorities, can be rightly paranoid and as such this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, with undercover officers patrolling parks and hostels, for small drug use, sectioning/arresting extremely vulnerable people leaving them in danger this psychiatric abusive system.
44. Mental health has to be treated with kindness as a social care issue with safeguards, there is no place for dual diagnoses, non-accountably. Either you are mentally ill or you are committing a drugs crime like the rest of society.
45. One does not excuse the other.
46. Mental health is not permanent, if it was, we should all worry, if we have a mental health issue such as a bereavement or a term or episode of anxiety and stress leading for good and real reasons to a breakdown. If we allow society to see the person who may have been abused to become the target of more abuse by a system without wellness being its goal. If we cannot offer accountable social care, we are effectively offering nothing.
47. Edwards views on mental health drugs were well known, he had a right not to be drugged. He was with Hammersmith and Fulham mental health and was only on aropriprizole 5mg or 15mg mainly, so he did not give informed consent, and when asked he refused to give his consent. He was a 50-year-old middle aged man he knew his own views up until the point where Camden took his views from him and his dignity.
48. In 2021 his next relative obtained his medical notes which were doctored to show he had a history of being given sodium valproate, this was an attempt to-revert the course of justice following the initiation of this complaint and this was to back up Highgate hospital sedating the sense out of him and abusively completely knocking him out. I warned him that Camden now knew that the complaint was with the Parliamentary Ombudsman and to be now very, very, careful as of Sept 2021. Yet we are just only now dealing with this a year on. That’s not right. It protects, no one, immediately. Systems with lawyers and connection’s protecting themselves first and foremost.
49. Relatives weren’t informed when they had Edward locally to myself at A&E, a five-minute walk and therefore, we were not able to judge the validity of sectioning him, for ourselves except that some members of family, forced their way in and found him scared but normal. Being held for 12 hours without sectioning him and then suddenly sectioning him.
50. It can be argued that if he had broken his leg, a relative would or should be told and can see for themselves that the is true and/or valid. This became a pattern where he was forcibly taken and no information was forthcoming until was way too late to prevent harm.
51. There was no financial accountability for the services that were not provided to him prior to admission, for example a lack of a care co-ordinators input and then an electronic fabrication of events, that did not take place, easily signed into a lying and fabricated system.
52. This caused him enormous anxiety. Edward put his mattress on the floor by the door the night he died and slept with his feet to the door, so worried by the constant sectioning led by police.
53. We still don’t know what happened at 1am was it, Charing Cross police, we still don’t know, except PC James from Kentish Town, who found him, face down (only7% of people die face down) in his room. Did they come to section him with a dog, to arrest him and it went horribly wrong? Hence the dog bite marks on his face. Hence hiding his body for four days. Hence not producing the body worn. Hence St Mungo’s not producing the CCTV. Hence a campaign against me since to get me either evicted, on anti-social behaviour allegations or sectioned?
54. Despite Mary his next relative writing explanatory emails rightly, so that the injustices Edward was now facing, about how his human rights were so regularly breached like a prisoner of war, being taken whenever, they wanted from a cell, they called his home. Mary was ignored too and even Edwards solicitors found the whole incarceration unlawful.
55. The CQC does not respond in timely manner to stop abuse occurring and should be made redundant as an aid to continuing the abuse.
56. It has no immediate alarms in place to safeguard against abuse.
57. Even A&E found it difficult to access Edward when he was found unable to breathe since he had been drugged up so much so, that his respiratory system was at collapse.
58. He contracted pneumonia twice in two separate occasions, of the five sections, in two years, due to respiratory suppressing drugs and the damaging, administration of them. He had a heart condition a hole in his heart since birth and yet they administered large doses of experimental drugs, damaging his heart and made him ill when he was very fit.
59. Edward cried so much, he told his sister, ‘Mary I will die crying’ the abuse was criminal.
60. His Father had physically abused him as a child, so that would be a bad trigger for him, mentally as a man of great dignity, with no criminal record, to end up being ‘restrained’.
61. Then to add insult to injury as if possibly on purpose or certainly with knowledge as all family members 6 siblings told staff and authorities, they suggested his Father, was his ’nearest relative’ prompting a cycle of events to effectively have his Father sign him over to his own, well established ‘next relative’ and next of kin, for she had had no contact with their Father for three decades.
62. As if anyone would have their abuser, that prompted care proceedings, as their next relative. That abused his family in itself and was never really repaired due to arguments over contact with someone no one had contact with, yet, were now forced to.
63. They knew of this by way of email from the 18th March 2021 yet they continued bizarrely.
64. This can only be, to have abused the MHA, in any abusive way possible, to keep Edward.
65. The lengths that they went to showed no duty of care and no common sense. They even obtained his father’s number and spoke to him to give him authority if they could have managed to, by way of sending him the paperwork. He to his credit saw the game and did not appreciate it either. That was very abusive to our family of seven siblings that had been in care.
66. Edward and his family of six siblings, were all very much abused in a ripple effect, by the situation of abuse and injustice, of their loved brother, so much so they had a WhatsApp group called ‘Ed Care’ that can be provided for contemporaneous investigation evidence.
67. They attended meetings and sent parcels and yet money was taken, in one incident, £100, for days and vapes were said to be ’lost’ yet turned up later upon enquiry sometimes lasting days. Edward spent his 50th Birthday locked up, which was so upsetting for him and for us all, so we all attended the ward during covid to cheer him up.
68. Edwards liberty was played with, leave was not provided and had to be hard fought for.
69. Edward upon every legal avenue being ignored by way of discharge eventually broke out.
70. With being chemically coshed his motor movements were compromised and he was again caught sleeping in his bed and was sent back to square one, at the mercy of his captors.
71. People who had already discharged him before with me, as the next relative, still played the game of me not being recognised as ‘next relative’.
72. Meanwhile the torcher continued as they had all the power and the wilful ignorance.
73. If in April 2021 they were told formally again by email he had a hole in his heart, why was this not taken into account when providing sodium valproate.
74. Were they weakening his system and causing long term or even short-term damage wilfully or just ignorantly.
75. These emails took time to construct, causing stress as it dominated an entire part of the’ next relatives’ life every time he was sectioned. Only to be ignored in the same disrespectful and abusive way he was.
76. With a complaints system not actively fit for purpose and a long-winded inquiry type injustice being seen as normalising abuse, in a culture that is an elitist authority, with an outrageous ability, to put a chairperson of an independent tribunal as an in-house Camden figure. How can that be seen to be impartial. The chair was so condescending.
77. I as the ‘next relative’ had already attended meetings and ward rounds in covid and to my horror as a mask wearer, witnessed numerous staff without masks, with no vaccines being given or offered, to patients at all and wonder how many died therefore of covid?
78. After Edwards release no monitoring of his bloods or side effects was offered.
79. It took over a month to establish me a ‘next relative’ even though it was known.
80. Then the MHA 1983 was abused again, when the practitioner abused it by banning my formal request to release him. This was now game playing. Uphill-struggle for justice.
81. Since I cannot complaint to the you about the clinician, I refer you to the abuse of the MHA by others, assisting the clinician, in false detainment by means known to them under the act and the use of the act whenever they could to delay release.
82. They did not use the banning order clause before my attempt to secure his rights to justice, and they used, through systems known to them, and not available to him and to me, that as their last card.
83. The MHA therefore was in effect abused by the hospital MHA staff to assist them and that is not the function of the MHA office.
84. They showed no attempt protect the rights of the patient, which is their function.
85. I believe that should their function as that is what they are paid for.
86. This in-house system is often on the premises, therefore shows that there is room for familiarity and abuse by the staff. They are using the MHA office for their own protection.
87. These places cannot be therefore on-site, should be regularly changed, to prevent familiar abuse, or behaviour. Conflicts of interest should be declared where known and therefore avoided, in a system that prides itself with a MHA office for safeguarding patients. This case shows that to be compromised and therefore of no service to patients.
88. It was not designed to help practitioner’s getaway with bad practice aided and abetted by workers that know each other and protect one another in meetings. It’s corrupt.
89. I complained separately to the GMB about the clinical practitioner and safeguards should have been place for a second opinion and a second doctor outside of the practice area.
90. This did not happen as it was meant be under the MHA 1983.
So that is a valid complaint for you the PHSO.
91. Edwards medications, dosages and timelines, further to me being established as the next relative, were not sent to me in timely fashion or at all.
92. Meanwhile Edward was bribed to take a further cocktail of meds or he could not go out to the shop with staff. Namely lithium which he stated that he hated and had terrible side effects where he could not walk.
93. I could no longer communicate with him coherently and he was still saying he was being assaulted.
94. The barring order meeting was held and I was skilfully banned by the chair from speaking. This was abusive. However, despite this I had also written evidence which was not looked at, by the panel, that stated, again and again the dangerous situation that was occurring, namely that medically he has a hole in his heart and was born with that. He has a hernia so that cannot burst with fat inducing lab drugs. He has respiratory problems on the lab drugs also some of them are prescribed for dangerous dogs.
95. Leaving the complaint with that, if I was, as his ’next relative’ removed, I would accuse them of attempted corporate/medical manslaughter, such was my belief that it was their intention to harm him, as this was in no way seen by all our family as ‘mental health care’.
96. I think it’s difficult to argue with what is given precriptively to persons under the MHA and if you read the side effects and to whom the relevant dosages are given to and they say for example, epilepsy or bi-polar or extreme schizophrenia and the person you know does not have those diseases or disorders, you feel incapable of complaint due to deference to psychiatrist, even when your relative is sedated in the community.
So there has to be a pharmaceutical drug’s watch line, to immediately alert that is a medical policing authority emergency response or these places are murdering your relatives and you feel helpless to stop it happening.
97. I turned up and begged them once in the middle of the night to take him to A&E, as I had got a mobile to him, so he alerted me, he could not breathe.
98. I turned up with an ambulance and staff and still was denied access to what is after all a hospital.
99. He had pneumonia and could have died and that was the first section in 2019.
100. They had many attempts on him thereafter.
101. They eventually had him in A&E emergency care the next day.
102. A society with no mental health accountability will and has been abused, as if date raped by the system.
103. Not only compensation needs to act as a warning but corporate heads must roll and jail must be an option if found lethal.
104. Only then will justice be served.
Thank you
Mary
Skeleton for Court of Appeal
Written by Mary Moss
Without legal assistance
Acting in Person
18th April 2023
For the case law this will go to a ‘direct access’ bar council barrister as soon as any funding is made available to Mary. Or pro-bono work can be obtained potentially or if the court of appeal orders some from any pro-bono friends, they might have, who finds this area worth looking at, or a charity like MIND or Shelter or Human Rights Act.
ATTACHED BUT COPIED HERE FOR THIS BLOG
Ground. 2.
Harassment by police of outrageous and extreme proportionality causing intentional infliction of emotional distress.
IIED a tort in civil law with liability of the causality of Edward’s homelessness, poor mental health, addiction, depression, fear.
IIED Equally Mary’s profile became international with reputational and practical ‘interference’ to a then current and valuable landlords and tenants litigation case in 2013.
Ground 3. Contempt
Contempt is an attitude towards individuals, social groups and eventually ideologies, which involves disgust and anger while generally triggering maladaptive behaviours.
Ground 1. This ground and the skeleton argument paragraph’s;
(4) Recent ‘welfare visit’ by police to Ms Moss, 15th April 2023, (now subject to IOPC complaint), reference ‘the same as was afforded to my brother’, this ground, ‘right to life’, was the lead up to Edward’s death and the cover up until this day, of that day, by the police.
Ground 2. (7) & (8) These paragraphs are of the time period for Edward of 2011/22 where he found himself duped into being in a ‘forensic unit’, essentially under surveillance, without any crime being committed by Edward.
and in the parallel time frame in paragraph (11), (12), (13), (14) & (15) is the time period of 2011-2013 for Mary, where Mary was raided by nine police officers, she too without any criminal record, was associated to a crook, in a multi-million public inquiry, causing, guilt by association, as well as defamation, without recourse to the equality of arms in equal public reply.
Ground 3
Paragraph (2) Show’s Edwards social status, work wise and moral high ground in his kinship care role, albeit challenging for him, which is not statistically unusual for the care-experienced community, whom many now recognise as having or should be awarded protected characteristics.
Paragraphs (11) & (12) Shows the former social status, reputation and quiet enjoyment of Mary’s life, in her early professional role in children’s rights and
later in her social entrepreneurial position.
Ground 4. Fraud
'a false representation has been made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false ...
The Ellison Review
2016 The public inquiry, led by Lord Justice Pitchford, was set up by the home secretary, Theresa May, to scrutinise what she has called the undercover spies’ “significant failings of judgment, intrusive supervision and leadership over a sustained period”.
By paragraph 4 (A) Edward and Mary and associates have now suffered, raids, flawed complaints systems, incarceration, fatality, as well as malicious attempts at prosecution and eviction in Mary’s case.
Ground 4.
In Paragraphs (20) 2016 Edward faces an exaggerated charge of ‘attempted burglary’ when he had not put one foot into any building.
In Paragraphs (15) an established, secret police operation, raids the home of Mary. This is a disproportionate act causing lasting and fatal damages anyone associated to Mary’s work historically.
The raid is not for restorative justice and criminal prosecution, where Mary would be treated as a professional witness, subject to special measures protection and an element of personal protection and certainly legal protection and aid, via the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service.
This raid constitutes a violation of the police and criminal evidence act and by laws and statues and not least the data protection act.
The personal data and evidence gathered is used at the discretion of the police, to do as they wish with it.
Therefore, it serves only them.
It is intelligence gathering at great cost to the public purse but without public scrutiny.
This case was brought in June 2022 following Edwards inquest in May 2022.
Following part 6 CPR the claim has not been acknowledged and the court can rule at this stage against the defendant for that.
However, Mary needs the disclosure, the coroner said she and her family could have from the Met police. Please bear that in mind in any ruling and the harassment.
Thursday 4th May 2023
Laws made by the claimant
Ms Mary Moss (& Edward)
By Order of Master Eastman
5th April 2023
This is not an exhaustive list.
ATTACHED BUT COPIED HERE On 8th Sept 2023 my brother's death anniversary of 2 years today FOR THIS BLOG
The laws that were used in the Ellison Review into the death of Stephen Lawrence will be used for the illustration of lack of police investigation and ‘otherness’ to the family.
Historically Edward had been arrested and sectioned, by police but the trail has gone cold
Police Constable James, confirmed death, at the scene around 11.49am on 9th Sept 2021.
The family have never had the report he wrote at the scene, instead one from PC Actor.
A material witness who attended from the ‘Oasis’ with a defibrillator was concealed.
Mary managed to locate Edward’s location after 4 days, an attack to the face can be seen.
The police asked for CCTV by St Mungo’s and that is retained, yet there was no investigation.
Edwards body was kept in his room for 8 hours after the alleged time of death he was found.
The family were not contacted, with a visit by police, or a call, ever to this day.
The CCTV produced to date was a 14 seconds image of Edward before he went to see Mary.
This is the same small space there and back, for just 15 seconds, when he went to the dealer’s room to ‘order’ a £10 bag of heroin, after drinking one bottle of prosecco.
The images are not original, zoomed in, dirtied and hide the dealer’s face entirely. The two CCTV cameras have been concealed yet the police have full disc’s, including a 1am incident.
The morgue denied Edward was at the St Pancras Morgue upon enquiry actively hiding him.
No consent was asked for regarding if the family wanted an MRI or Edward to be cut.
The hygienist wiped Edwards face of blood, before the examination into the cause of death.
Edward talking to room 103 to ask him to keep one of two bags for the £10 he just called to get from his budget of £40 a day.
Edward seen here entering the second floor male cluster in a long corridor, doors between, before returning through his own section of corridor, room immediate left, opposite the showers, in front of another CCTV camera that is seen in this footage, yet has been concealed. He changed outfit to cream polo shirt, the same jacket with leather elbow pads, with trainers, to ride the mountain bike and not slippers, as can be seen here, to see Mary.
