Part two of ‘MY COMPLAINT REVISED 30TH July 2022’ is published here mostly intact, with minimal edit. The meeting between Wanda Reynolds, Vicky Long and myself held at the Bridge Centre on the 20th May, 2022 is addressed first. I make reference to the ‘therapy session notes’ made by Sally Mungall during my therapy sessions with her and which had been requested by me.

Wanda Reynolds handed over a set of ‘therapy session notes’ which I had assumed at the time to be complete. They were not. I now believe that Wanda Reynolds had hoped that this incomplete set of ‘therapy session notes’ would satisfy my curiosity, that she would not be asked by me to hand over the rest. I requested the remaining ‘therapy session notes’ immediately after the meeting of the 20th May, 2022. Further ‘therapy session notes’ were disclosed by Katie Rees at Information Governance SPFT in the following weeks. Those additional ‘therapy session notes’ divulged information that was of extreme concern. Of even greater concern was the conspicuous absence of ‘therapy session notes’ for two particular sessions. I have made multiple requests for the remaining sets of ‘therapy session notes’ but been refused. WHY? I was, sadly, forced to raise a ‘fitness to practice’ complaint against Sally Mungall with her regulatory body, the Health and Care Professions Council in September, 2022. HCPC caseworker, Cleo Fearon, informed me during the investigation, that their registrant and or the Trust, were uncooperative in forwarding information requested, including one or both of these outstanding ‘therapy session notes’. So! Questions are raised! WHY THE OBFUSCATION? WHAT IS REGISTRANT, SALLY MUNGALL AND OR THE TRUST, PURPOSELY HIDING FROM ME? 

I have removed the extensive ‘rebuttals’ section  following the line ‘My medical records contain the following entries’ to shorten the length of this post. The information removed is already published under blog entries ‘A MURDER OF CONSPIRATORS  # 2 Access to Records 1‘ to ‘A MURDER OF CONSPIRATORS # 6 Access to Records 4‘.

 Here follows part two of ‘MY COMPLAINT REVISED 30TH July 2022’

‘Part Two of ‘MY COMPLAINT REVISED 30TH July 2022’ addresses my reaction to the meeting I attended with Wanda Reynolds and Vicky Long on the 20th May 2022. Part two also addresses the disturbing contents of my medical records disclosed to me at that time and offered rebuttals to the false, misleading and defamatory information contained in those records.

‘THE MEETING OF THE 20TH MAY 2022’

The meeting with you, Wanda, Vicky Long and myself held at the Bridge Centre on 20th May 2022.

I agreed to accept an invitation to meet with both yourself and Vicky to see if you might be able to resolve my complaint. The invitation was originally extended to Dr Natalie Roberts, clinical psychologist for Camhs. You informed me at the start of the meeting that Dr Roberts had been unable to attend due to work commitments. I asked you at the time and have asked you since, what was the purpose of Dr Roberts invite to attend the meeting. I remain highly suspicious of the motive behind Dr Roberts invitation to attend, especially in light of the disturbing revelations of my medical records released after this meeting. In the section after this entitled ‘MY MEDICAL RECORDS’ I unpack the disturbing revelations that prove that I was being lied to, emotionally manipulated, monitored and surveilled by both Camhs and the Bridge Centre. It is my belief that Dr Roberts was likely invited to psych-evaluate me on behalf of Camhs and the Bridge Centre as a part of the ongoing strategy to monitor and surveil me. Your stated explanation for Dr Roberts to attend the meeting was to answer any questions I might have had about the therapy that took place with Sally Mungall and myself at Camhs between September and December 2021. If that was the genuine reason for Dr Roberts invitation to the meeting then why was she never made available to me to answer such questions both BEFORE the meeting or at any time SINCE the meeting? Before I attended that meeting I had made an Access to Records request to the Sussex Partnership. That ATR request was being unduly delayed and was a source of growing frustration to me at the time. I had asked you, Wanda, for the ‘therapy session notes’ relating to the therapy that took place with Sally Mungall and myself and you managed to find them and print them off just prior to the actual meeting of the 20th May ( *see below ). Both yourself and Vicky had time to read through those ‘therapy session notes’ before I arrived for the meeting. It was the first time that either of you had been privy to the information that described the intensity of my therapy with Sally Mungall. Your actual words, informed by those ‘therapy session notes’, to me during the meeting were ‘WE HAVE DAMAGED YOU.’ Vicky’s actual words to me were ‘ ALL THE MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS THAT WE HAVE GIVEN YOU ARE NOW WRONG AND WE NEED TO HAVE A NEW LOOK AT YOUR CASE.’ I am highly suspicious that Dr Roberts might also have had access to those ‘therapy session notes’ and advised yourself and Vicky that the those notes showed compelling evidence of the inappropriateness of the therapy delivered by Sally Mungall between September and December 2021. I have since asked you to put those same words, ‘WE HAVE DAMAGED YOU’ into writing but, to date, you haven’t. I am also highly suspicious of Dr Roberts having since learned that she was part of the ‘extensive meeting of leadership’ team that ruled against my arranged meeting with Sally Mungall scheduled for the 3rd of February 2022.

( * Wanda Reynolds actually presented me with a PARTIAL set of Sally Mungall’s therapy session notes. She had omitted the remaining highly contentious collection of the therapy session notes. I believe she held back these additional therapy notes because they were likely to incriminate Sally Mungall. – Added on the 22nd June, 2025 ).

‘MY MEDICAL RECORDS’

It had long been my suspicion that I was being stonewalled by Camhs and that The Bridge Centre were collaborating with Camhs in a culture of obstruction and obfuscation designed to mislead me and misinform me. Eventually I made ‘access to record’ requests to obtain my medical records. The second of the access to records was severely delayed due to administrative errors and significant IT technical issues at Information Governance & Health Records at Sussex Partnership and I only received that disclosure on Tues 21st June 2022. When I was finally able to read what had been written about me I was absolutely sickened.  Disclosure of my medical records by The Sussex Partnership and Southern Health revealed disturbing and inflammatory information including assertions that were completely without foundation in reality  ie I was being accused of ‘stalking’ and was considered a credible ‘risk’ to my former therapist at Camhs along with other current members of Camhs and the Bridge Centre staff. Staff from both Camhs and The Bridge Centre had also engaged in an ongoing covert campaign to surveil my telephone conversations, monitor my reactions and expectations, notify the police and even to deliberately use manipulation to provoke emotional responses in order to gauge my feelings and intentions. The disclosure has had a profound effect on my mental health, further damaging my already poor sense of self-worth and exponentially increasing my desire to end my life by suicide.

I had started to become suspicious that something was wrong as soon as my appointment of Feb 3rd to meet Sally Mungall was cancelled at the last minute. I remember the call that I received from Camhs admin on Feb 2nd didn’t sit with me well at the time. The caller was unnecessarily brusque despite the fact that I received the disappointment of the cancellation in good spirit.

My suspicions were further aroused as the days and weeks went by. I had a mental health assessment at The Bridge Centre on Feb 8th with Kirsty Henry and was alerted to her persistence in eliciting an emotional response around my feelings towards Sally Mungall at Camhs. …***… I was being emotionally manipulated to elicit an emotional response. The purpose of that mental health assessment should have been focused upon determining the best and most appropriate mental health treatment for me as a patient and NOT risk-assessing me on behalf of those with a separate agenda. I remain appalled.

 I am reminded by these disclosures of a telephone conversation between myself and Kirsty Smith, mental health nurse at my GP clinic where alert her to my suspicions. I even said to her that I thought she too was withholding information and knew more than she was telling me. Kirsty said about me in a report to CMHT that ‘he said that he feels people are doing things behind his back and are not being honest.’ My instincts were spot on.

After almost six weeks silence from Camhs after being told my appointment with Sally Mungall had been cancelled along with all other appointments of that week due to ‘unforeseen circumstances’ I emailed both Sally and Gail Grey via Camhs reception. I sent emails dated 14th and 21st March. The following is an extract from my 21st March email...             

‘It makes me think that the strategy has been simply to ‘manage’ me, to keep me in the dark and ignorant and wait it out until I lose interest, some other agency finally takes over or worse. I am mindful of the effects of complex ptsd and I am striving to remain objective but all evidence points to a complete and catastrophic breakdown in trust. I would be horrified to learn that I am being manipulated or deceived. It would go against the spirit of the complete openness, transparency and trust in which I entered into our work together, Sally.’

My medical records contain the following entries’

…******….

THE PREVELANCE OF ‘STALKING’ ALLUSIONS

AND OTHER EXAMPLES OF DEFAMATION ASSIGNED TO MY CHARACTER BY VARIOUS MEMBERS OF CAMHS AND BRIDGE CENTRE STAFF

Going into definitions used by police, cps and the wider academic community to rebut the fallacious allegations in my medical records

It was probably within the first week of February that I first began to suspect that important information about me was being withheld by both Camhs and The Bridge Centre. There was a festering air of perceived conspiracy that I initially attributed to my constant state of hypervigilance, a symptom of my Complex ptsd which I know can sometimes manifest as paranoia or persecution complex. As the evidence stacked up it became obvious that I was being deceived. Another agenda was being followed and I wasn’t being informed. I resolved to seek disclosure of my medical records and made formal access to records requests separately from The Bridge Centre and Camhs. The first disclosure from The Bridge Centre was sent to me via email on 15th June 2022. I was appalled at what I read and could barely find the right words to describe my reaction.

I spoke to Wanda Reynolds and emailed Vicky Long almost immediately. My email to Vicky explained that

‘I am absolutely sickened to the core, Vicky. So much of what has been entered into the record is CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. In other instances I have been mischaracterised, misquoted or my words reframed or taken out of context. I am really overwhelmed and can’t even begin to know how to respond other than by registering my complete shock in emails to both you and Wanda Reynolds. My current complaint being processed jointly by yourselves and Camhs doesn’t even begin to address the accusations levelled at my character evident in my medical records. I have never felt more suicidal.’

The most inflammatory parts of the disclosure were the implied statements  that I might be ‘stalking’ and the idea that I was a perceived risk to members of Camhs staff, particularly Sally Mungall. I was and still am incredulous that such speculation spread like a contagion throughout the medical community at The Bridge Centre and, consequently, into my medical records. Evidence suggests that this escalated to the point where members of Camhs staff were persuaded to notify the police. All the while I was struggling to persuade The Bridge Centre to steer me towards the appropriate treatment for my mental health issues, staff from both The Bridge Centre and Camhs were wasting time and energy trying to surveil me, monitor my actions and reactions, strategise against me, pathologies ma and criminalise me. I BELEIVE THIS HAS RESULTED IN IMPLICIT BIAS OR SUBCONCIOUS BIAS ON THE PART OF STAFF AT THE BRIDGE CENTRE WHO HAVE BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN MY CARE  and has negatively influenced the decision-making around provision of mental health care.

As I read and re read the disclosure, the gravity of the situation dragged me down into spirals of dark depression. One word in particular turned my insides to ice. ‘STALKING’.  That accusation sprang out of one man. IAN WHAITES.

Ian Whaites is a man who I barely know. I have spoken to him once, maybe twice over the telephone. He isn’t somebody who has taken any real time and trouble with me directly so he doesn’t have any real insight into me or my mental state ( I can see in my medical records that he is an incompetent individual. He makes two senseless comments 1) 17th Jan says of me ‘He believes he has been told that he has complex ptsd’ I have categorically been told that I have complex ptsd. Indeed, Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck state in their referral of me to Crisis CRHT Jan 13th that ‘We believe him to have complex trauma?ptsd from transgenerational trauma, and 2) On April 6th in ‘progress notes uses Joiners Suicidality to make false claims of my risk to self (see full ‘Bridge Centre Medical Records Rebuttal on Selected Points’ included in this document. ) and yet, during his first conversation with Sally Mungall he feels he knows enough about me and my past therapeutic relationship with Sally to speculate on my behaviour. Indeed, he goes beyond speculation when he talks to colleague, Weston Henry later on. The JANUARY 31ST Telephone call received from WESTON HENRY by IAN WHAITES IS THE FIRST OCCOURANCE OF ALLEGATION OF ‘STALKING’. It comes from Ian Whaites and is unfounded. There is no evidence of me ‘stalking’ Sally.     ‘ tc received from Ian Whaites re Mr Stock . Ian reports he has had a discussion with the referrer (SM) and sheers some of the concerns raised. Ian feels based on his discussion with Sally Mr Stock requires a more urgent approach. We had a discussion around what appears to be stalking behaviour which should be reported to the police . However according to IAN WHAITES , Sally DOES NOT FEEL AT RISK to this gentleman. We discussed that she could potentially be at risk a sat the point he receives this  letter and hence the police needs to be informed. Ian suggest CRHTT have a discussion with Sally to appreciate the gravity of concerns. We left it that I will have a discussion with Carole B and potentially have an MDT . Also CRHTT will have a discussion with Sally.’

So, IAN WHAITES isn’t satisfied with Sally’s feeling that she DOES NOT FEEL AT RISK.

I take particular exception to IAN WHAITES and his attempt to inveigle his opinion. It is from this point on that a wider narrative begins to evolve but, for now, I want to focus on that accusation of ‘stalking’.

I was initially paralysed after reading that accusation and it took me a long time to recover my wits. The first thing I wanted to do was really understand what ‘stalking’ was. I regularly attend the Safe Haven, an evening drop-in service for people like me who are experiencing mental health crises and was lucky to meet a member of staff one evening who had first-hand experience of ‘stalking’. I spoke with her for about an hour and a half and she kindly walked me through the realities of ‘stalking’ including definitions and examples. I learned that the motivation behind ‘stalking’ is ‘power and control’. The ‘stalker’s’ intent is to harass and/or threaten their victim in order to exercise psychological control over them, to intimidate and cause emotional distress. It involves persistent and unwanted attention, following, turning up at a home or place of work or even spreading rumours, stories and gossip.

Where is IAN WHAITES evidence of any of the above? There isn’t any. I have deliberately and purposefully NEVER tried to contact Sally using social media or by use of her private art therapy practice and I have never attempted to follow her nor loiter outside her home or workplace. All contact with Sally has been through Camhs and I have encouraged transparency with all letters written to her through Camhs reception. She has never felt it necessary to alert me to any perceived boundary violations nor has she ever made me aware of any unwanted attention.

Following the long conversation with the member of staff at the Safe Haven and the advice and information that was offered I decided to research ‘stalking’ in further detail and sought out governmental and police policies and guidelines on the subject. One of the first things I discovered was this https://www.sussex.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/sussex/policies/stalking-and-harassment-policy-578.pdf . The immediate take away from reading this police policy document was the definition of ‘harassment’ in context to ‘stalking’ proper’ ie ( paraphrased ) ‘Harassment is a course of conduct, unwanted by the victim with the purpose of causing alarm, distress... creating a intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment... that included an element of oppression...once it had been made clear by victim  that they consider it offensive’.  Where is the evidence that I ever indulged in such a course of conduct?

Esp note the language ie ‘victim’. Did IAN WHAITES believe Sally was a victim? Seriously? I draw attention to this definitional statement to pave the way to the most seriously egregious part of this police policy document. It comes at 1.2 STALKING ‘In cases of stalking there is a pattern of unwanted ‘FIXATED’ OR ‘OBSESSIVE’ behaviour. Those two terms rang like alarm bells. Those very specific terms have been used by Bridge Centre staff to describe ME. Terminology that is used by police in determining judicial intervention in cases of criminality is being used to describe ME.

This police policy document highlights a mnemonic FOUR- FIXATED, OBSESSIVE, UNWANTED, REPEATED

The Bridge Centre and the wider healthcare community involved in my case are adamant in framing me as a ‘fixated’, ‘obsessive’ ‘stalker’. Nothing could be further from the truth.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. 

My medical records are regularly punctuated with words and phrases like ‘risk’,‘ perceived threat to therapist’, ‘risk to others’, ‘infatuated with therapist’ ( that’s a demeaning way to treat my feelings), ‘should be reported to the police’, ‘she could be at risk’, ‘hence the police needs to be informed’, ‘stalking or threat to Sally should be reported to the police’, ‘presenting risks perceived and actual’, ‘ perceived risk to art therapist’, ‘potentially put art therapist at risk’, ‘risk to those around him’, ‘reports of fascinations with Sally’, ( that’s a really weird word to use ), ‘evidence we have of concern shared to police’,   etc

ALL of these words and phrases are troubling for me to read. There seems to be as much effort being expended into mitigating against perceived threats from me as there is energy into actually helping me. I AM CONVINCED THAT UNCONCIOUS BIAS FORMED AMONG CAMHS AND BRIDGE CENTRE STAFF HAS FRAMED ME IN A NEGATIVE WAY AND UNDULY INFLUENCED STAFF IN STEERING ME ALONG THE WRONG CLINICAL PATH.

MY POINT HERE is the use of the words ‘stalking’, ‘obsession(al)’ and ‘fixated’. As previously explained, this is terminology that is used by police in determining judicial intervention in cases of criminality. These words are being used to describe ME.

Feb 1st CRHT Team MDT meeting states ‘RISK TO SELF LOW. RISK TO OTHERS MODERATE. ( Completely wrong there. It’s me who is at risk and yet I’m being identifies as a problem ). Describes my ‘OBSESSIONAL BEHAVIOUR’ then later refers to ‘stalking Sally’.

Feb 2nd Urgent Request for Professionals Meeting States ‘Mark has developed an OBSESSIONAL idealisation on art therapist Sally Mungall’. Later states again ‘OBSESSION’ with Sally.

THE OTHER POINT HERE is the involvement of the police. It isn’t exactly clear from the medical records to what extent the police were eventually involved but there was pressure being brought to bear on other individuals to contact the police. IAN WHAITES seems positively disappointed in Sally during his first conversation with her back on January 31st, discontent with her refusal to regard me as a threat. By the end of the ‘professionals meeting’ he appears to have worn her down as she finally concedes ‘factual evidence we have of concern being shared with police’. When the words ‘OBSESSED’, ‘FIXATED’ AND ‘STALKING’ are added to those concerns being shared to police I become a criminal suspect.

I AM SICKENED AND APPALLED. I’ve found this very hard to process and difficult to live with and I have had suicide on my mind hourly since I first read these accounts on 15th June.’