HOLLY MEI-YU STAFFORD AND THE PEOPLE SHE REPRESENTS ARE TRYING TO RUIN MY LIFE

WEB DEVELOPER, 38, 'BRANDED A SOLICITOR A "CURRY-SMELLING P*** B******"

in a foul-mouthed racist rant when the lawyer refused to hire him'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4114242/Web-developer-38-branded-solicitor-curry-smelling-p...

BELOW IS A TRUE ACCOUNT OF THE INCIDENT BY MR PATRICK AYEMIEYE.

I was approached by two Asian men of Pakistani heritage who called themselves solicitors lets call them (A&B) they asked for the price of a business website, I told them the price and explained the process and then sent them an invoice to this effect. I spoke again with subject A later that same day and then the following day also but he said he had to speak with B as he was unable to make a decision without his input.

A few months later I was arrested at 4:30pm after returning back from picking up my wife from work, manhandled and cuffed by 5 police officers with their knees on my back. I wasn’t resisting arrest. I was then locked in the cells and antagonised by the officers at Birmingham Bournville police station for hours. They tossed a porn magazine through the letterbox of the cell, so that I would play with myself while they watched via the monitors... (Not every detainee is an alcoholic or addicted to hard drugs or a weed head) but I guess if you have been in the same job for a while, it becomes hard to differentiate.

      After hours in the cell, I was transported to another police station in East London and arrived there around 4am. The heating in the cell was turned up so high that I couldn’t rest. I repeatedly asked for it to be turned down but they refused.

I felt like a Turkey on Christmas day. Later that evening, I was released (systematically I had now been detained for more than the 24 hours allowed by the law of the land) Officers including the officer in charge on the day at East London told me that, I would need to accept a caution, or risk being refused transport fare back to Birmingham and so I would be stranded in London. I refused to accept the caution. My phones were already confiscated at Birmingham Bournville Police Station so I was unable to call anyone for help.

       I had to get on the train without paying and approached a fellow black man on the train, who after hearing what had happened agreed to pay for my ticket when the ticket master came through. He also allowed me to use his phone to call my wife so she could have cash ready on my arrival. I then took a taxi home and my wife paid the fare and kept the receipt. I am forever grateful to this man from Northampton, the money was refunded to him by the following day.

 
     I was then summoned to The Magistrates Court in East London (I had to travel down and pay for a hotel). The hearing was adjourned so had to return again. I then chose to take the case to crown court, for the case to be heard in front of a jury of my peers and it resulted in a hung jury, but there was something else I noticed during the trial my barrister seemed scared but also subject B kept saying that I am very good at what I do... How does he seem to know me so well?

The Crown Prosecution Service then retried me but this time, it was at The Old Bailey where I was finally found guilty.

 
       I was found guilty solely because the text message came from my mobile number and ordered to pay over a thousand pounds in court fees, could this also mean I was guilty even before the trial? At the time, I was working with three Asian brothers (PRESIT a family owned business on Ladypool Road Birmingham) who were helping create the; Business Cards, T-Shirts and Key Holders for my website customers upon request.

        After the case was finalised, my two phones were never returned to me. I followed this up with the police, who accused me of breaking into their evidence locker and stealing the phones. How I was supposed to have done this will forever remain a mystery. Thank God for the Police Complaints Commission who ordered that I be compensated £50.00 for each phone that were stolen by the police, I received this compensation a few years later and I am still grateful.

 I have now lived with this for over 5 years, not forgetting the 2 years before the actual verdict at the Old Bailey. It has affected my work and ability to secure permanent employment. It has also affected my family life, financial and mental wellbeing. All of this has been over a text message. I asked the various news outlets The Sun, The Mail Online, Mend etc. to remove the articles due to the negative impact they were having on my life and most agreed that 5 years was enough and took them down. All except this lady, who sees fit to continue to punish me in pursuit of her career... Collateral damage or just plain witchcraft?

The letter below was sent by myself to Holly Stafford;

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing further to my emails dated 3/12/21 & 9/12/21, sent to your news@dailymail.co.uk email address, to which i am yet to receive a response.

The emails were to request that an article on your website that relates to me, is removed. The article is from January 2017, relating to a case that I was in court for. The case related to a text message that was not sent by me, but because it was sent from my phone, I was found guilty.

I was asked to pay a fine and informed that if I paid that fine then nothing would be added to my record. I paid the fine, nothing was added to my record and this is now spent.

I believe that once a conviction Is spent, I have a right to request the removal of this article from the internet, otherwise protections afforded under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are being undermined.

This case was 5 years ago and whilst I do not have a criminal record, I am still unable to gain employment due to this article. If I can not work, I can not provide for my family and this is having a severe effect on my mental health. I had to close my website design business because of the bad press and I have retrained to try and move away from this but it is still holding me back.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and I beg that you show some empathy in removing this article. It is old news that is not relevant today but it is ruining my life and the lives of my family members. I just want to move on with my life and earn an honest living.

I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience.

Regards,

Mr Patrick Ayemieye

Below is the response received from Holly Stafford

Dear Patrick,

Thank you for your email that has been passed to me for my attention. Please note that this address deals with editorial matters which is why we have no record of the previous emails ​which you ​sent to an incorrect address.

For the avoidance of doubt, we are treating your emails as a request for erasure under Article 17 GDPR.  

It is our firm position that continued publication by MailOnline is defensible under Article 17(3) GDPR which states that the right to erasure does not apply to the extent that processing is necessary for the right of freedom of expression and information.

We do not agree that your rights outweigh the fundamental right of MailOnline in these circumstances. The information is an accurate report of your trial as heard at the Old Bailey. It is both the right and the duty of the media to report on court proceedings. Such reporting is the cornerstone of journalism and the importance of such reports is clear by the privilege afforded to them.  

The age of the incident does not alter our position, the public have a right to receive such information.    

We do not remove articles as a matter of course as retention of all stories maintains the integrity of our archive that MailOnline has a right and duty to protect.

Further and in the alternative, our decision to refuse erasure would also rely on paragraph 26, part 5, schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018. Your personal data is processed for the purposes of journalism and is plainly in the public interest. We again emphasise that we believe reporting on court proceedings is one of the most important functions of a news organisation in a society which enjoys a system of open justice.  

We would note that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is not applicable under these circumstances, and that we would not be legally required to remove the article.

We trust that my response clarifies our editorial position.

Yours sincerely,

Holly

Holly Stafford

Editorial Assistant

"We trust that my response clarifies our editorial position."

It may seem like there is more than one person involved here...

HOLLY STAFFORD WORKS FOR THE DAILY MAIL (MAIL ONLINE) A COMPANY THAT SAYS YOU CAN WIN MORE BUSINESS CLIENTS IF YOU USE THEIR PLATFORM "UNLUCK MILLIONS OF CLIENTS" BUT THEY ADVERTISE THIS ON FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM. WHY NOT JUST USE YOUR PLATFORM?

Thank you to all the people who have been in contact... Home and Abroad.

I appreciate you all dearly... today I pray that only blessings from God- (The God of Moses) shall befall you and your loved ones.

No weapon fashioned against you shall prosper!