The following is the beginning of a breakdown of my medical records partially disclosed by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust on the 15 June, 2022 along with rebuttals to the multiple falsehoods, deceptions, misquotes and outright lies contained in those same records.
Introduction
A decision was made to combine my grievances against CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and CMHT, the Bridge Centre into a joint complaint and give oversight to CAMHS General Manager, Wanda Reynolds. Shortly after the 10th August, 2022, Wanda Reynolds relinquished responsibility and handed oversight of my complaint to the Patient Advisory Liaison ( PALS ) appointee, Andy Ashby, ‘Lead Nurse’ within the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust ( SPFT ). At this point a new decision was made to separate the joint complaint and Andy Ashby continued investigating my grievances against CAMHS. Adam Smith, Head of Nursing at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust ( SHFT ) and Farayi Nyakubaya, Head of Nursing Mid and North Area, SHFT were appointed to investigate my grievances against CMHT the Bridge Centre. Vital evidence that I had provided was later omitted and or overlooked by Andy Ashby. I was highly sceptical of Andy’s professional conduct while carrying out his investigation and appalled by his final response to my complaint.
The SPFT part of my complaint was given the reference ‘SP22020’.
ACCESS TO RECORDS
Part One
My original complaint was ‘revised’ and updated on the 30th July,2022 following disclosure of my medical records. The appalling revelations contained in those records, addressed and rebutted in my complaint document ‘MY COMPLAINT REVISED 30th JULY’ are published here and in subsequent posts under the chapter title ‘A MURDER OF CONSPIRATORS’.
‘Dear Wanda,
Thank you for your response to my formal complaint made against Camhs and the Bridge centre, received by me on Wednesday 20th July. My formal complaint was received and acknowledged by Stephanie Pearson Senior Complaints and PALS Officer by email on the 23rd May 2022. Stephanie Pearson informed me that I should expect a response by 29th June. Your response was sent via Stephanie Pearson and received by me three weeks behind schedule. In between the date that my complaint was acknowledged and today, 23rd July 2022 I have received my ( partial?) medical records following an access to records request that I made separately of the Sussex Partnership with respect to Camhs and to Southern Health with respect to the Bridge Centre. I was also invited to attend a meeting with you, Wanda Reynolds General Manager of Hampshire Camhs and Vicky Long, Meadows CMHT Service Manager on the 20th May 2022. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss my concerns around the care that I received from both services and to see if you or Vicky were able to resolve this for me. With all of this in mind I have deemed it necessary to revise my original complaint in order to address the new information now at my disposal.
I have reshaped my formal complaint into three parts. Part One addresses your response to my original complaint and revisits my original questions. Part Two addresses my reaction to the meeting held with you, Vicky Long and myself on the 20th May 2022. Part two also addresses the disturbing contents of the medical records that have so far been released to me along with rebuttals to information entered into those records that I believe to be false. Part two also questions the integrity of record-keeping, particularly with reference to Camhs. Part three includes a list of things I want you to take action on. That list takes into account both Part One and Part Two of this document. Part Three also includes three letters and a final summary. I apologise in advance for the length of this document but I believe all the information contained is necessary to this reaction. ‘ – extract from the opening paragraphs.
SP22020 findings and rebuttals Part One 30th July 2022
‘ 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 had twice tried to evade her conversational manoeuvring around the subject because my feelings were private. She tried a third conversational tactic ie suggested that I was heartbroken over Sally Mungall to which I finally broke down in tears saying repeatedly ‘Yes! Yes! Yes!’ I was heartbroken.’ I knew then that Kirsty had prior intimate knowledge of my therapeutic relationship with Sally Mungall. What I didn’t know at the time was that Kirsty had been given instruction to dig at me to gauge my feelings towards Sally Mungall, a tactic that I find morally repugnant. 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
JANUARY 31ST Telephone conversation between Sally Mungall and Ian Whaites. SM says ‘yes it is possible any RISKS to myself might increase on receipt of the letter’. She goes on to suggest ‘Marks feelings towards me after reading the letter could be part of the more full assessment when he is supported to receive the letter by the crisis team ( I never received a letter. Instead, the cowardly tactic employed by Camhs staff was to phone me the day before I was to have an appointment with Sally to pick up artwork and lie to me telling me that ‘Sally could not attend to any of her appointments for that week due to ‘unforseen circumstances’.’ No letter was sent to me at that stage and no need for crisis team. Instead, Kirsty Henry was obviously instructed to dig at me to assess my RISK to Sally. Ian Whaites goes further and suggests ‘they ( Weston ) need to speak to you ( SM ) about RISK to yourself as I could sense the urgency in your voice.’ THIS IS CLEARLY IAN WHAITES DELIBERATELY MISLEADING SALLY. The urgency in Sallys voice is down to her concern for me as the telephone conversation goes on to say ‘Sally believes that Mark is a high risk to himself’. Ian Whaites even acknowledges that ‘SALLY DOESNT FEEL AT RISK FROM HIM. It seems obvious to me that IAN WHAITES is ATTEMPTING TO CRAFT A NARRATIVE framing me as a RISK and escalating the perception of me as a RISK to Sally.
JANUARY 31ST Telephone call received from WESTON HENRY by IAN WHAITES. THIS IS THE FIRST OCCOURANCE OF ALLUSION TO ‘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 , 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.’ I regard this as CLEAR PROVOCATION BY IAN WHITES. INFLAMMATORY REHTORIC DESIGNED TO MISREPRESENT ME AND CRIMINALISE ME. ALSO DESIGNED TO UNDULY ALARM SALLY MUNGALL. There has been absolutely no evidence to suggest that I have been ‘stalking’ Sally and there has NEVER been any evidence to suggest that I could or would EVER be a RISK to Sally.
IAN WHAITES accusation is unfounded. If there was any substance to IAN WHAITES accusation then I would expect him to have been alerted to the possibility that I might be suffering from a mental health disorder. I have since learned that two types of the four categories of ‘stalkers‘ are usually diagnosed as being mentally ill. IAN WHAITES wasn’t interested in logical clinical thinking.
The previous telephone conversation between Weston Henry and Ian Whaites leads to MDT meeting following day where ‘Risk to self’ is considered LOW ( despite the referrer, Sally’s, concern that my ‘Risk is to self’ is High ) but more incredibly, my ‘Risk to others’ is deemed MODERATE ( Obsessional behaviour’! ) I am left incredulous as to the use of the words ‘obsessional behaviour’. My behaviour is categorically NOT ‘obsessional’. The nature of my feelings towards Sally are described in other parts of this full document as ‘innocently romantic’ and informed by intense and harrowing therapy leading to probable maternal transference with Sally during ‘parent work’ back between September and December 2021, information that Ian Whaites remained wilfully ignorant of.
CLINICAL UPDATE Again states the ‘Sally ( therapist ) has expressed NO concerns for her own safety’ but this is dismissed and overruled with ‘Any concerns for stalking or threat to Sally ( therapist ) should be reported to the police’.
JANUARY 31ST Telephone call SM AND Fiona Croombs SM says ‘If we were concerned for my safety then to call the police’
FEBRUARY 1ST Email by Sally Mungall ‘ Because of the perceived risk to Art therapist ( herself ) we ( CAMHS ) have cancelled his appt 3rd Feb. Admin let him know HE SEEMED CALM ON HEARING THE CANCELLATION. Only concerned for the art therapist. Communication from Dad ( me ) to be MONITORED.’ Who exactly at Camhs put forward the idea to Sally that she was at perceived RISK from me?
FEBRUARY 8TH Kirsty Henry’s mental health assessment of me states my ‘Risk to self HIGH My Risk to others LOW. I addressed the circumstances surrounding my mental health assessment with Kirsty in a letter to Wanda Reynolds of Camhs very recently. The following is an extract from that email,
‘ as if I weren’t suffering enough staff were deliberately provoking me so as to gauge my state of mind over Sally. For example I can see in the medical records that Kirsty Henry was deliberately poking me during my mental health assessment of 8th February to get a reaction regarding Sally. The medical records show that Sally spoke to Ian Whaites of the Bridge Centre prior to my assessment with Kirsty on the 8th February, Sally specifically suggests ‘IDEALLY MARKS FEELINGS TOWARDS ME AFTER READING THE LETTER ( letter to be sent to be cancelling appointment of the 3rd Feb-no letter even sent, cowardly deceitful phone call received by me from Camhs rec instead. ) COULD BE PART OF THE MORE FULL ASSESSMENT ( with Kirsty ) I made mention of that assessment with Kirsty Henry in other emails I suspected even at the time of the assessment that Kirsty knew more than she was letting on. I found her line of questioning very suspicious as I DID NOT WANT TO UNDULY UPSET MYSELF IN FRONT OF KIRSTY. I had a deep conviction at the time that I wanted my feelings towards Sally kept more or less private but Kirsty BADGERED ME ON THE ISSUE, USING DELIBERATE TACTICS TO GET ME TO OPEN UP. When she suggested that I was ‘HEARTBROKEN’ I BROKE DOWN IN TEARS. This was DESPICABLE MANIPULATION OF ME. I was disgusted to learn this of this yesterday but it proves that my instincts were spot on. I was being monitored during that assessment. It makes me physically sick.... I should say that I don’t blame Kirsty Henry. I established a good rapport with her during my assessment with her on the 8th Feb and believe she was being asked to do something she wasn’t necessarily comfortable with. She engaged in conversational tactics designed to elicit an emotional response from me and, she def did get it. I was visibly upset, in tears at her suggestion that I was ‘heartbroken’ being separated from Sally. Kirsty showed me a lot of sympathy and I appreciated her sincere warmth. She told me that she didn’t think the way I was being handled was right ( incidentally, every professional that I have met over the last six months in relation to my mental health has conveyed genuine incredulity at the way that I have been treated by both Camhs and the Bridge Centre ). Her opinion was that I deserved more and that I should have been given the opportunity to meet with Sally so that I could find some closure. I remember Kirsty being very kind to me.’
FEBRUARY 9TH Professionals meeting 3pm NH thinks ‘it would be good for there to be a face to face appt with myself and SM ( Sally ) ‘to see MARK’S REACTION’ SM goes on to ask if ‘ending letter from CAMHS’ to me could be handed over CMHT? Attendee Julie Yalden says if we need to hand over artwork needs to be ... carefully risk assessed. MONITOR HIS REACTION, CONSIDER SAFETY, Mark hanging around afterwards for example... we need a really considered plan for handing this artwork over WE MONITOR PHONES, HIS REACTION NH says ‘once notes have been validated the assessment will be shared with SM by KH – A reference to the previously described mental health assessment with Kirsty Henry on Feb 8th
Sally Mungall says ‘SM to discuss with senior management re police involvement Flagging concerns just in case future call needs to be made to police. Factual evidence we have of concern being shraed with police’ !!! DOES THIS ACTUALLY MEAN THE POLICE WERE CONTACTED?? This has escalated beyond reason and the police have almost certainly been contacted. This is truly appalling
Mark ( Birbeck?) says ‘doesnt want to lose support rather than the OBSESSION with SM. AGAIN this inflammatory use of the word ‘obsession’
FEBRUARY 11TH Safeguarding Professionals Meeting Clinical notes ‘Some potential concerns about personal safety for Sally discussed Nic fro Crisis team recommended making police aware this was supported by all’.
FEBRUARY 18TH Kirsty Henry telephone discussion with SM. ‘Sally says never felt threatened by Mark.’ Kirsty (correctly ) tells SM that Mark had come to terms with the ( therapeutic ) relationship coming to an end.
APRIL 29th BASINGSTOKE CMHT Outcoming discusion
Present; Vicky Long, Dr Augusta, Sean Dale Molloy, Laura Jones and Kendall Howard Outcome ...Vicky Long would like Laura to reach out to CAMHS to let them know that Mark is still FIXATED on Sally. ( I have since learned that the word ‘fixated’ along with the word ‘obsessed’ are terms in judicial policy used by police forces through the country to determine cases of ‘stalking’ ).
AND this message sent to Vicky Long at The Bridge Centre on Sat June 18th,
‘Remember when you phoned me on Friday to talk to me about my reaction to my disclosed medical records, Vicky? Remember my visceral response to the disgusting and dishonest accusations against my character, the fabrications and false allegations of criminality? Remember pulling me up on my reference to Sally, your misunderstanding, thinking I had been in contact with her? You were alarmed, weren’t you? You thought I’d spoken to her, didn’t you? I’ve been processing your reaction. You’re still at it aren’t you? Still monitoring me, still thinking of me as a risk, still believe I’m a ‘stalker’? Were you triggered to reach out to Camhs and let them know I was still ‘fixated’ on Sally? You’re all still at it. I don’t trust you, Vicky. I really, really want to but I don’t trust you. You’ve all lied so consistently. Your lies, dishonesty and deceit is in virtually every entry of my medical records .You’ve all treated me appallingly and you’re all still doing it. Treat me with respect. I’m not a criminal, for God’s sake!’
I tried to rewrite my feelings later on the same day
‘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, the Crown Prosecution Service 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, strategize against me, pathologize me and criminalise me. I BELIEVE 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’…’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 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?’ …
‘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.
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 identified 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.'
END OF PART ONE.
In Part Two I examine and rebut the falsehoods, deceptions, misquotes and outright lies engineered by Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck stitched into my medical records partially disclosed by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust on the 15 June, 2022 ‘
