9^th August, 2022  Out of all of my questions asked of Wanda Reynolds during the summer of 2022, the most important related to ‘meetings’ attended by CAMHS clinicians and leadership to discuss me and my letter to Sally Mungall. My own investigations had already uncovered damning evidence that I had been cynically misrepresented by clinicians and leadership within CAMHS and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SPFT). That misrepresentation of me had found its way into my medical records and informed communication between them, their mental health colleagues at CMHT, The Bridge Centre and Hampshire Police. This amounted to a very real conspiracy against me, a conspiracy that had been Machiavellian and covert. I would have been none the wiser had I not thought to access my medical records.

By the beginning of August, 2022, it had become patently obvious to me that Wanda Reynolds had been the sole, desperate gatekeeper to the truth. She had been trying to counter my tenacity, divert my enquiries and use whatever tool of deception available to her to deceive me. I wasn’t having any of that.

What I did want was access to the minutes and records of ALL meetings attended by CAMHS clinicians and leadership to discuss me and my letter to Sally Mungall. I wanted to understand the rationale behind the appalling decisions made but, more importantly, I wanted to check the veracity of the claims being made against me.

I will remind you, the reader, of this response by Wanda Reynolds, delivered as part of the ‘Initial Response’ to my original complaint, designated SP22020 and dated 20th July 2022,

‘7) Why was the meeting with Sally on the 3rd February really cancelled? And what at such short notice? And 8) Why did I have to wait patiently and politely for almost 6 weeks without a follow up call regarding the missed 3rd February meeting?

The discussions that were had (as mentioned above) were delayed due to senior clinician's annual leave. Sally was also off work unexpectedly and these factors led to a delay in informing you that the final session could not happen. As we discussed; in hindsight, I recognise that it may have been more helpful if I had called and had a conversation with you rather than informing you by letter. I recognise that the waiting and not knowing what was happening further exacerbated your distress and apologise for this. You have subsequently asked for minutes of these discussions. The discussions that managers and clinical leads had were at an operational level are not minuted in care records. The outcome of this discussion was that there would be a request for a professionals meeting with our colleagues.’

I draw your attention to the lines ‘You have subsequently asked for minutes of these discussions. The discussions that managers and clinical leads had were at an operational level are not minuted in care records.’ Wanda Reynolds is explicit in her answer to my request.

Wanda Reynolds lied.

On the 8^th August, 2022, I received the following email from Katie Rees, Head of Information Governance, FOI & Records Management for the SFPT.

‘Mon 08/08/2022 16:57

Good Afternoon Mark,

I have received the Professionals Meeting minutes with CMHT and these are attached, these are the minutes which Sally was requested to check for accuracy. Please note some third party information has been redacted as per our Subject Access Request policy. This information is redacted as default in all Subject Access Requests.

I have been advised that we won't be disclosing the Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion from 1st February 2022. Unfortunately I am unable to comment further on this but you are more than entitled to detail this within your complaint to PALS or contact Wanda Reynolds for more information.

I will send your password to the attached in a separate email.

Many thanks for your patience and understanding whilst we got these to you, it is incredibly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Katie Rees CISMP

Head of Information Governance, FOI & Records Management’.

The ‘Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion from 1st February 2022’ is one of the meetings that was convened to discuss me and my letter to Sally Mungall. I had been asking for access to minutes to these meetings and yet Wanda Reynolds had maintained that such minutes had not been recorded. Now, Katie Rees was acknowledging the existence of recorded minutes, although now, Katie Rees was telling me that they would not be disclosing the ‘discussion’. Decisions to redact or withhold records are usually made in collaboration with clinicians and leadership. Katie Rees had been ‘advised’ to withhold the ‘Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion from 1st February 2022’. This advice would have come directly from Wanda Reynolds. She was using her managerial authority to deny me access to records.

And then, inexplicably, the very next day, Katie Rees disclosed the ‘Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion from 1st February 2022’.

‘Tue 09/08/2022 16:00

Hi Mark

The only other documentation I can find is the attached. Unfortunately it may be that you need to escalate what you require to PALS.

I'm sorry I cant be of more help. I can confirm however that redaction is done in line with our Subject Access Request Policy and ICO guidance.

As we are a mental health trust we complete very strict checks on redaction so we cannot comment on Southern Health's practices which may differ.

Many thanks

Katie

Katie Rees CISMP

Head of Information Governance, FOI & Records Management.’

I do not know if Katie made an error in sending me this information or if she was prompted by her good conscience. I want to believe in the latter.

The information was delivered in PDF format. I have accurately transcribed the words contained in that PDF file which were recovered from SPFT ‘CareNotes’. They are published here for the first time, redactions highlighted *****

‘Status

Date 01/02/2022 February 2022   Time 11.26

Confirmed by Julie Yalden Job title; Named nurse for Safeguarding Hampshire CAMHS

Clinical Note

Author Julie Yalden   Date 01/02/2022

Type Clinical Note - Nursing Entry   Time 11.26

Summary SAFEGUARDING - INTERNAL CASE DISCUSSION   Entered 01/02/2022 11.26

Clinical Note  From: YALDEN, Julie (SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST)

                         Sent: 01 February 2022   11.23

                       To: HODGSON, Sarie (SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST); REYNOLDS, Wanda (SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST); MUNGALL, Sally (SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST); BIRBECK, Mark (SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST)

                       Cc: GOUVEIA-SCHOFIELD, Dora (SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST); PARKE, Amanda (SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST); DRAKE, Emma (SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST)

Subject: RE: 1365700 Mark Stock dad of Meg

Dear All,

Sally, Mark and I had a long conversation about this case (we met for approx. 1 hour and 15 minutes) Discussed the potential/actual risks, the level of trauma experienced by both Meg and especially dad and the way that Mark presents

******6 lines of copy redacted******

This the plan that we have collectively devised any thoughts welcomed.

·       Wanda, Julie and Sarie to review and agree the letters for Sally.

·       We cancels Thursday’s meeting. We ask admin to cancel due to unforeseen circumstances ****** heavily redacted******

·       Due to presenting risks/perceived and actual we call professional meeting across network to share known information, potential risks and create a mutually agreed action plan. It is important any perceived risks are mitigated against and shared collectively across this professional group

·       Invitees to include CAMHS, crisis/ adult MHT perhaps senior manager/ safeguarding lead/ adult services should be invited we have discussed how to do this and also the GP who was concerned about this case

·       We prepare a document with history-bullet points of risks, where we are now, what we want to achieve so this can be circulated pre-meeting with the expectation everybody has read and are coming to mutually devise and agree an action plan.

·       Any communication from dad to monitored and if there are concerns they are reported in the interim

·       Sally made headway yesterday with adult colleagues/ crisis team- we have agreed that if they do happen to assess before the 3^rd we tell of our plan and request the prof. meeting goes ahead so we can use their assessment of Mark to also I form any action plan

In Summary   This case requires a network meeting to mutually agree and plan best action to ensure every agency is in agreement and sharing any potential risks.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Yalden

Named Nurse for Safeguarding Children Hampshire CAMHS.’

So, actual evidence of a very real conspiracy against me, planned to monitor me and lie to me and to ask mental health colleagues in adult services to co-conspire against me. All convened and organised behind my back and without any opportunity afforded to me to challenge misleading or outright false information.

WHERE WAS MY FUCKING RIGHT TO REPLY?

There was none.

AND WHERE ARE THE MINUTES AND RECORDS OF ALL THE OTHER MEETINGS HELD BY CAMHS CLINICIANS AND WIDER SPFT LEADERSHIP, CONVENED TO CONSPIRE AGAINST ME, CONVENED AND BENIGNLY SHARED BETWEEN A VERITABLE BENE GESSERIT?

What the actual fuck?!

Next post, 'A MURDER OF CONSPIRATORS #24 Sussex Safeguarding Policy and Procedures Edition 4 May 2019' to be published here on the 31st July, 2025.