TOPIC:

PLEASE READ THE DOCUMENTS HERE BY DEREK ELLIS
www.alternativeconcepts.co.uk/

These documents will help prevent such dishonesty happening to any reader. Key concepts will be added here to help prevent government agencies using dishonesty, force, fraud and deception against innocent individuals who do not use force or fraud and offer values to others through FREE CHOICE, EDUCATION and a desire to improve life.
UNCOVERING THESE DECEPTIONS WILL BE SHOWN BY READING THE COMMUNICATION


Dear Friends,

On the 17th of November 2010, 19:00. Approximately 10 to 15 people from various, local government departments, which included officers from trading standards and police entered my home under the force of a warrant issued by the Barrow In Furness Magistrates court.

This action is based on the premise of certain infringing goods and Regulation 23 of the General Safety Regulations 2005 www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1803/pdfs/uksi_20051803_en.pdf stated on the warrant issued to me.

At the time I was not home; My wife was at home alone and the above officers forced entry to our home by preventing my wife from closing the door. Thankfully my 19 month little boy of was sleeping and was not subjected to this totally unnecessary, irrational, behaviour from the very people who present themselves as the caring protectors of individuals within society.

As I engaged in dialogue with the officer from the trading standards, Mr Eamonn Quinn from the Ulverston, Trading standards office, I asked the reason for his presence; I was informed firstly, there has been a complaint from a person who bought a product from my web site www.alternativeconcepts.co.uk. I was then, informed, later this complaint was from Trading Standards Central office, and then again, from a person, of whom I have no details.

Through the fear of protecting my wife and son from the potential danger from these individuals i directed them to the MMS solutions stored in my garage they claim are in infringement. All items were seized, along with my computer and mobile phone. The computer is the only item which has been returned. My mobile phone has not. So please do not try to call me on it, please call 07831550765.

I cannot support the actions of these organisations that will go to these lengths on the strength of ONE CONPLAINT. It is incomprehensible and completely unjust that such extremes are within the guidelines of Trading Standards. Imagine a business man coming to your home, forcing entry because you complained about their product, imagine how unacceptable this would be. Imagine owning a business and a customer complained about your product, you can expect Trading Standards to seize all your products, computers, imagine the damage to your business, your livelihood, your personal well being yet this is what has happened to me.

I would like it to be known publically that I find it completely unacceptable, unjust and irrational behaviour from the above agencies that have entered my PRIVATE home through the use of force because there is a complaint; one complaint from an unknown individual.

The social structures and organisations like the Trading Standards who openly claim, safer stronger communities are principle functions designed to PROTECT individuals within our society from criminal elements of consumer goods is now very debatable and the competency of those who are in public office, using public money is uncertain based on the events above.

I think, this is a very clear example why this country is bankrupt and local authorities employ individuals who do not care nor have experience to spend public money. Our current television and newspapers continue to tell you and me, we have a massive debt. You and me do not have debt. Local authorities and banks have debt through irresponsible spending, mismanagement, fraud, incompetence and the inability to produce free competitive values for all in society. Our council taxes are rising, yet the forced value is reducing, we are paying more and receiving less, we are working harder and resting less.

When you compare this, to the amount of tax which provides the very generous salaries of £100,000 plus to local authority senior heads which are non completive, employ thousands of people they do not need and provide the worst services within society, it is clear why our financial structures have failed.

Please excuse me I have gone of the point, as you can read I am extremely upset about this whole situation and hopefully when the facts are presented, based, on solid science, WHO statistics and documents, substance amounts, hazards and risks, mixers and substances, official independent documents, ADR, REACH, CLP and the EPA data then this matter will be completely seen from a whole new context.

The issue of this warrant is a very clear example of how neither REASON nor communication was attempted from the trading standards to resolve an alleged single complaint regarding this solution. Who will protect the innocent? Who have not defrauded or used force against any single person, I base my core principles on being honest, my family and producing objective values so these values can be exchanged freely between all people for whatever reason they choose to benefit from them.

On the 17th November 2010 my life changed forever, I am now made to feel that I am the criminal, the killer of life, values and peoples happiness. The Trading Standards will now attempt to show through the dishonest uses of Non sequiturs and out of context facts and statements that I am a criminal who has no regard for people’s health safety and well being.

For those of you who know me, you will know that I am none of the above and it is to you, that I write this letter to inform you I will no longer be able to provide the water purification solution, which I have never conducted this as a business as many of you know I have always provided my knowledge and support so that people can safely engage through free choice in the areas which they choose.

However I need to now focus on protecting my wife and little boy from irrationality which is legally allowed to operate within OUR society. My whole ability to live productively, feed my family and pay my way through life is now, I fear, in grave jeopardy due to these people entering my place of employment with a warrant, without regard for the embarrassment or implications that this has caused which may result in the termination of employment from a company that I have produced and provided values for more than 12 years.

If I am to be a criminal for helping others, then my ability to feed my family will be destroyed. It will be destroyed in the public interest because Mr Quinn at Trading Standards claims to operate from the premise of safer stronger communities.

As demonstrated in these events, agencies and individuals can, without regard to honest objective law, which protects individuals and earned property from force and fraud, can terrorise, steal and use force against anyone whom they believe will pose a threat to others without verifiable evidence, facts or basis. These are the very same principles we can observe from history e.g. Nazi Germany before the Second World War. Is history repeating it’s self?

We have spent Billions of pounds and lost 100’s of innocent British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the 1.5 + million innocent citizens in these countries who work like you and I to support their, families are now dead because of lies and dishonesty expressed by the British government. Weapons of mass destruction deception are a clear example, of which, after ten years have never been found. If our leaders, past and present that use dishonesty, fraud and deceptions to invade other countries and claim monies through bogus expenses and are legally exempt from their actions and responsibilities then our local social structures will also be protected and exempt from crimes, fraud, force and deceptions committed in our name.

Our future, our children’s future will be doomed if this nothingness is not prevented by hard working people like you and me. I can assure you, I will do EVERYTHING in my ability to prevent these social crimes being committed and not prosecuted in front of the public. This is you and me, we are the public.

What do I ask of you?

· Please send this email to everyone you know who uses MMS water purification solution on your contact lists
and everyone who does not.

· I am looking for help in the following areas:-

· Legal cost, donations, which will be returned if not used.

· Legal guidance from honest individuals.

· Qualified Chemist, scientist and other professionals in regulatory areas.

· Honest media who can present facts in context, and not use deception, collusion.

· Psychologist

· Language Linguist

· Video cameraman and editor.

These unjust actions most be prevented from happening in our society; our freedoms must not be lost to these individuals in government agencies who exist through force or the threat of force to justify their existence. Who hide behind subjective laws created only for the purpose of uncompetitive individuals gaining favourable advantages which they would otherwise not gain through MORAL AND ETHICAL principles. We are reputedly a democracy and we can choose our HEALTH, HAPPINESS and WELBEING.

I must also state that not all of our public servants are lazy and dishonest, in fact, the largest majority are hard working and really make a difference to people’s lives. However, there are small proportions who are destroyers of values and happiness through their irrational, life threatening harsh actions.

My email address is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Thank you for your time


Important Definitions

* infringing goods = goods which are made in infringement of a copyright or patent

* Non sequitur = 1. a statement having little or no relevance to what preceded it, 2. a conclusion that does not
follow from the premise. (This word should be understood over all others. Once understood, dishonest destructive
individuals will no longer be able to trick your mind or use statements out of context to defraud you and make the
innocent guiltily.)

* Premise = A statement that affirms or denies something upon which an argument is based or from which a
conclusion is drawn.

* Context = 1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its
meaning. 2. The conditions and circumstances that is relevant to an event, fact, etc.

ALL INFORMATION WILL BE ADDED TO THIS SITE, LETTERS ETC

The facts are if the trading standards operate from a premise of SAFER STRONGER COMMUNICTIES when why do they knowingly allow poisons in our drinking water? This can be supported with evidence!
Also Trading Standards should be investigating known chemicals, which HAVE DOCUMENTED evidence to cause genuine health concerns.


FIRST LETTER SENT TO TS

Derek Ellis
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sunday 27th November 2010

Mr E.J.M Quinn
Principle Trading Standards Office
Neville House
Neville Street
Ulverston
Cumbria
LA12 0BL.


Dear Mr Quinn,

After having time to reflect on the event which took place at my home on Wednesday 17th November 2010 approximately 19:00.

There are various points I would like explained to me so I am able to logically understand and place into context the facts which justified the amount of officers entering my home and on what premise.

· Please can you provide details of regulation 23 of the general product safety regulations 2005.
· Provide all the names and full contact details of the people who entered my home.
· Provide contact details of the Justice of the Peace who signed the Warrant.
· Provide Full contact details of the individuals who were taking pictures and using a video camera.
· Provide a full in context explanation and details of individuals who are victims of crime which relate directly
to my actions which caused this warrant to be issued.
· You said their maybe a labelling issue which caused these events, can you explain.

For me to comprehend the motives and basis from which your actions are based, can details can be provided, preferably by email to my email address above. This will allow me to keep a detailed record of all communications to help resolve this issue.

I have full respect for the fundamental principles of English law and always have had. I understand clearly that English law operating premise is to protect individuals and their property from Fraud and force. Any claims which directly relate to the above points should be supported with in context facts, based on physical evidence, with any claimed violations and supported with factual evidence.

Clearly there is an issue with this water purification solution; I cannot understand why you did not communicate with me highlighting a problem. This matter could have been addressed rationally and from a basis of solving a problem, rather than creating one.

As displayed on the evening of the 17th November 2010, I had no reason to object nor prevent access. However this raises many questions on my freedom of liberty from your department. Had you communicated in a manner based on reason rather than force then this matter could have been resolved.

I have not used any deception or fraud to extract a living from any person. All items i have supplied were provided from an hobby basis and not from any business basis, I would not have the time to operate a business nor do i wish too.

This whole event has caused total unnecessary emotional harm and embarrassment to me and my wife, not only this; this has been extremely embarrassing at my place of employment.

I will be also publically announcing via my web site that this hobby or business as you term it will be suspended until the problem is resolved in a rational manner and people who choose to use this water purification solution should obtain it from the many other outlets.

I would like to arrange a meeting with you at your earliest convenience so this matter can be resolved and all seized items returned.

Derek Ellis


TS NON SEQUITUR RESPONSE

Safer and Stronger Communities
Trading Standards South Area Office ? County Offices ? Kendal
Cumbria ? LA9 4RQ ? Fax 01539 773592
Tel 01539 713577 ? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Dear Mr.Ellis,

Thank you for your e-mail of 30th November 2010 which the Department received on 1st December 2010. I have been asked to respond to your email, as Eamonn Quinn's Area Manager and I must apologise for only responding to you now.

Our visit to your premises, which was discussed at the formal interview on 17th November 2010, was in respect of alleged criminal offences committed under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005.

To answer the points that you raised in your email:
1. There is a link to the General Product Safety Regulations from OPSI below;
<www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1803/pdfs/uksi_20051803_en.pdf>
Plus a link to guidance from BERR below;
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/Safety/products/general-regulations/index.html <webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/Safety/products/general-regulations/index.html>

2. The only people who entered your home were Trading Standards Officers under the supervision of the investigating officer and Police Officers acting in a support role. The Police also had subsequent separate concerns about firearms and air-weapons found on your premises, which they dealt with separately.

3. A copy of the warrant was left with you, together with a copy of the seizure log and a copy of the appeals procedure under the General Products Safety Regulations

4. Trading Standards Officers took photographs as part of the operation. This is part of our evidence gathering and they will be disclosed to you if proceedings are considered. Media representatives were present but were instructed not to enter your premises.

5. These actions arose from a complaint received from our regional fraud team. If proceedings are considered you will get full disclosure of all witnesses.

During the interview you were informed that our actions had arisen from a complainant who had bought your product and from the subsequent findings of the Public analyst who had analysed the products that you sold.
These findings were read out to you during the interview and you had opportunity to comment on them.

Our investigations into the alleged offences are still progressing and until they are concluded and we have a second formal interview with you, we cannot release any further information at this moment. You will however have every opportunity to ask questions at the time of the second formal interview.

If proceedings are considered, then you will be given copies of all relevant information by way of advance disclosure.

These are serious criminal allegations and I would strongly advise you to take legal advice.

Thank you for your co-operation in these enquiries to date, which will be duly noted.

Yours sincerely

Sheralee Cornthwaite
Trading Standards Area Manager | Trading Standards
Safer Stronger Communities | Cumbria County Council
South Area Office | County Offices | Kendal | LA9 4RQ

t: 01539 713595
f: 01539 773592

www.cumbria.gov.uk


TS NON SEQUITUR RESPONSE

Dear Ms Cornthwaite / Mr E.J.M Quinn,

Thank you for your email of 9th December 2010. For this issue to be resolved it is very important full disclosure, honesty and clarity are applied in context where allegations are made which justify such extreme actions from your department / organisation.


Firstly I would like to make very clear, your department / organisation will have my cooperation in dealing with this matter to ensure ALL actions provide “Safer Stronger Communities” of which I fully support. To allow me to publicly justify my actions, I must ensure all the facts are present which require disclosure of all parties involved.

I do not believe your department / organisation has acted within the guidelines of your own standard operation procedures. The reason for this conclusion is justified as based on the actions of 17th November 2010.

From ONE complaint your department, through force entered my home. If this is the operating procedure of the Trading Standards then we clearly have a national issue which the public has a right to be aware off. Considering your actions are based on “Safer Stronger Communities” which cost the tax payer annually billions of pounds.

I also base this on your response to my reasonable request for information, which i again request.

Your response also raises several other questions and confirms as I stated in my first letter, I need to keep a detailed record of all communication “This will allow me to keep a detailed record of all communications to help resolve this issue”.

To clarify the reasonable request for information I will colour code our communications so there can be no mistakes in understanding. Should you not understand any request then please contact me and I will attempt to clarify in detail each request even further.

Derek Ellis communication (GREEN, (30th November Email), (BLACK).

Trading Standards Communication (BLUE).

“Thank you for your e-mail of 30th November 2010 which the Department received on 1st December 2010. I have been asked to respond to your email, as Eamonn Quinn's Area Manager and I must apologise for only responding to you now“ .

Considering, Mr Quinn is the Principle Trading Standards Officer and the officer who entered my home, why was my letter requesting basic information escalated to the Trading Standards South Area Office? Mr Quinn could have clearly provided this information himself.

“Our visit to your premises, which was discussed at the formal interview on 17th November 2010, was in respect of alleged criminal offences committed under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005“.

I recall at this interview Mr Quinn stated it would be followed by a written transcript and copy of the recording should I request it. Firstly, due to the unexpected actions from your department and emotional stress this caused, I cannot recall clearly all the contents of the interview. I now request the transcript and a physical copy of the recording.

“To answer the points that you raised in your email:”

The majority of the points I raised in my email have not been answered. Not only have they not been answered, you have made statements which are not honest nor accurate and you have linked unrelated facts which do not follow, (non sequitur/s) from my later dated 27th November 2010 request for information.

The questions I asked are as follows;


. Please can you provide details of regulation 23 of the general product safety regulations 2005.

1. There is a link to the General Product Safety Regulations from OPSI below;

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1803/pdfs/uksi_20051803_en.pdf


Plus a link to guidance from BERR below;

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/Safety/products/general-regulations/index.html


Thank you for the links, this question is answered.

· Provide all the names and full contact details of the people who entered my home


This question was asked for the reason stated above, I do not believe that the behaviour of the Trading Standards justify such irrational actions. I make the request again; please provide all the contact details of the people who entered my home. If you are unable to provide these details due to some regulation, then please state which regulation. If you are unwilling to provide this information then please state why. For me to competently deal with this issue then this information is required based on the premise, ‘I do not believe your actions are justified’.


2. The only people who entered your home were Trading Standards Officers under the supervision of the investigating officer and Police Officers acting in a support role. The Police also had subsequent separate concerns about firearms and air-weapons found on your premises, which they dealt with separately.


The people who entered my home did indeed enter my home under supervision of Mr Quinn. This entry was gained through force, by an officer who used force to prevent my wife from closing the door. Therefore your statement claiming police officers were acting in a support role is false. One officer used force to prevent my wife from closing the door until she contacted me, as I was not present at this time and my wife would never allow unconfirmed entry to our home. At all times a police officer was present in my home and followed me when I chose to leave or enter my home, making me feel like a criminal. How exactly do these actions come under the heading of support? More alarmingly, I find your last sentence totally unacceptable and would like details of your motives for this sentence and its deceptive use.

“The Police also had subsequent separate concerns about firearms and air-weapons found on your premises, which they dealt with separately.”

The fact, I have memorabilia of a 100 year old plus riffle in my garage does not support your statement. Firstly this memorabilia is not a firearm nor is it classed as “firearms” as you claim. A firearm is; ‘A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.‘ The single item Memorabilia I have is not capable of firing a projectile and has no ability to cause an explosive charge.

Can you please explain your motives and reasons for placing such a sentence in your response when it does clearly not follow from the question I asked? The use of such non sequiturs is extremely misleading and do result in incorrect conclusions formed by person/s reading such sentences and statements.

You also use the word “firearms”; making reference to more than one can you explain this?

Again what is your motive for making reference to “air-weapons”, as this does not follow and these obvious points of fact, you have taken out of the context. The fact that I have air weapons has nothing to do with your reasons for entering my property so I would also like an explanation why such points have been raised. Details of any claims must be clear in context and logical. Anything contrary to this will misinform and lean to false conclusions of which I am sure you are already aware of this, considering your position.

· Provide contact details of the Justice of the Peace who signed the Warrant.

This request is also reasonable; the reason for my request is to ensure correct information was given under oath to her Majesty’s Justice of the Peace by Mr Quinn. I believe that such information is unsatisfactory and there are no reasonable grounds for a forced entry into my home.

3. A copy of the warrant was left with you, together with a copy of the seizure log and a copy of the appeals procedure under the General Products Safety Regulations

Again your response does not follow, nor does it answer my basic request. I made a reasonable request for contact information based on the reason above. My question did not relate to a copy of the warrant being left with me and fails to answer my request. Also, I did not ask about the seizure log or the appeals procedure. I again make the request; ‘please, provide contact details of the Justice of the Peace who signed the Warrant.’ If you are unable to provide these details due to some regulation, then please state which regulation. If you unwilling to provide this information the please state why. For me to competently deal with this issue then this information is required.


· Provide full contact details of the individuals who were taking pictures and using a video camera.

4. Trading Standards Officers took photographs as part of the operation. This is part of our evidence gathering and they will be disclosed to you if proceedings are considered. Media representatives were present but were instructed not to enter your premises.


Thank you for the answer, With reference to your department taking pictures. In relation to the media, please can you provide evidence of authorisation from the property / land owner (which I assume you have) which allowed the media to enter private premises. The premises on which the building resides is private property and the point of entry leading to the property is private. Again your statement does not follow and raises serious concerns from your department on property rights by authorising media personnel to enter private premises. These concerns cannot be actioned until you provide contact details. What also, is the motive of the trading standards for allowing media who knowingly use facts out of context, dishonestly use non sequiturs and mislead the public into drawing false and harmful conclusions. I again make the request; ‘Provide Full contact details of the individuals who were taking pictures and using a video camera from the media.’ If you are unable to provide these details due to some regulation, then please state which regulation. If you are unwilling to provide this information the please state why. For me to competently deal with this issue then this information is required based on the premise, I do not believe your actions are justified and you have authorised media personnel to violate private premises.

· Provide a full in context explanation and details of individuals who are victims of crime which relate directly to my actions which caused this warrant to be issued.


5. These actions arose from a complaint received from our regional fraud team. If proceedings are considered you will get full disclosure of all witnesses. During the interview you were informed that our actions had arisen from a complainant who had bought your product and from the subsequent findings of the Public analyst who had analysed the products that you sold.

You confirm these actions relate to a single complaint. Is it the policy of the trading standards to enter people’s home through force based on ONE complaint? Please provide the documented procedure/s which outline enforcement I am not able to find such details in your Trading Standards Institute Manifesto.


Please provide communication details for the regional fraud team. Please also clarify the meaning of “subsequent finding”. Provide details and contact information for the public analysed. What exactly did the public analysed analyse, which analytical methods were used and which national standard were the Item/s analysed against. Please state clearly based on facts not what you believe your issue/s is with these water purification solutions. Without this submission/s from yourself I cannot clearly demonstrate before the public exactly what this water purification solution is and is not, based on current scientific data not whim based statements or false claims.


· You said their maybe a labelling issue which caused these events, can you explain.

These findings were read out to you during the interview and you had opportunity to comment on them. Our investigations into the alleged offences are still progressing and until they are concluded and we have a second formal interview with you, we cannot release any further information at this moment. You will however have every opportunity to ask questions at the time of the second formal interview.

If proceedings are considered, then you will be given copies of all relevant information by way of advance disclosure.

Please list the alleged offences and please provide a written list of all questions which will be asked at the voluntary second interview. This will allow me to present facts in context and in a clear manner, thus eliminating any confused thinking and irrelevant information.

I am fully willing and you have my complete attention to ensure that ALL questions which are relevant to the person I have harmed or defrauded will be answered honestly, logically and objectively. I will assume that all questions will be logical and relate to the premise as mentioned above.


I also request this interview takes place in public at a local location convenient to both parties, which I will pay for. So please provide adequate time for me to arrange this. If you have objections to this, then please provide your reasons in writing.

In the public interest this should be heard because I consider myself to be a productive member of society who does produce genuine values to maintain my own life and the lives of my family.

These are serious criminal allegations and I would strongly advise you to take legal advice.

I live based on objective, honest, moral, ethical and philosophical principles which provide a solid objective reality from which I base my life. Based on this, every allegation will be nullified to ascertain facts and factual data based on logic and reality, not emotional whims. This and only this will determine the severity of such allegations.

Please be assured, I will completely work with you to resolve this issue, I do not live by knowingly harming others or taking from them by means of fraud, deception or force and for the many people who know my life and know me personally from inside and outside of the professional community within our society, will verify this.

Until I know what the serious allegations are and the reasons all the items were seized. (Please explain in simple clear words the reason/s why you seized the many items from my home). I cannot make comment. However, please be assured I am confident this issue can be resolved without the excessive wastage of public resources. Should you choose to ignore facts and waste public funds then you will be held accountable.

The moral and ethical basis of the Trading Standards you have brought clearly into the dispute, I am still shocked to learn that a department who claims openly “Safer Stronger Communities” uses force to enter my home and then try to legitimise these actions by declaring it a supportive role. Such dishonesty is completely unacceptable and I would ask that future communications are based on facts, honesty and a genuine concern.

Furthermore, please do not under estimate my intelligence to deal thoroughly with any issue you may have, real or imagined.