I am a little behind with the publishing schedule for 'A Murder of Conspirators'. This is because my attention has been diverted by the controversy revolving around the recent referral of me to the government's counter-terrorism initiative, Prevent.
There are three entries to 'A Murder of Conspirators' still waiting to be published. The final entry will be published on the 25th of September, 2025, a significant anniversary and deliberately chosen. This final entry coincides, by day and month, with events that played out in 2022.
After this I will commence with Chapter Three of my story which is titled 'Just Caws'. At the same time I will commence with a new campaign designed to raise widespread public awareness of my story. I need to engage with a wider audience and turn my current readership from a few hundred to hundreds of thousands, even millions of visitors. I have been working very hard behind the scenes on a project that I believe will draw the attention of vast numbers of people. It maybe that I am able to avoid future protesting in central London and demonstrating outside CAMHS and CMHT in Basingstoke and the potential for arrest by police. It maybe that I am also able to avoid future hunger strikes and the potential damage to health and risk to life.
Please do check in next month for the unveiling of that new campaign.
Back to the Prevent referral.
After an unusually protracted wait on my recent access to records request of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust I was finally disclosed medical records, two days ago, on Tuesday the 9th of September. Those medical records contained references to the Prevent referral, including the actual referral form submitted to the counter-terrorism department. This prompted the following response addressed to Gemma Stubbington who made the Prevent referral.
'Dear Gemma,
Thank you for your email.
The Prevent referral has affected me beyond distress. When John Kelly first made me aware that a Prevent referral was being considered I became extremely angry, an immediate reaction due to the fact that I was already fully aware of Prevent and the concerns raised by its critics. I protested to John and he convinced me that he would not be advising the referral.
When it was confirmed that you had actually proceeded with the referral my anger turned to disappointment and extreme sadness. I felt betrayed by you.
You assured me that you had been advised by the Safeguarding Board of the Trust to go ahead with the referral to Prevent and to also contact Hampshire Police. This seemed to absolve you somewhat.
After an unusually protracted wait my latest access to records request was finally granted just two days ago. I have noted, with concern, some irregularities in the information being recorded, including factually incorrect information referencing Hampshire Constabulary’s false allegations about my contact with CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall. I will deal with those irregularities later. My immediate concerns are over the actual National Prevent referral form that you completed, specifically the following
Section 2 asks ‘What is the person’s ideology or belief or concern if known?... You replied with a copy and paste of one of my blog entries confirming my intention to protest outside the Houses of Parliament. AN INTENTION TO PROTEST SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS A PRETEXT FOR A REFERRAL TO PREVENT.
1) I invite you to justify this entry.
Section 2 also asks ‘What specific concerns do you have?’…You replied ‘Concerns that he may draw attention to himself and cause a nuisance.’ THE PURPOSE OF PROTEST IS TO OBJECT AND DISAPPROVE A POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. THE VERY ACT OF PROTEST IS TO DRAW ATTENTION. THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO PROTEST AND SOMETIMES PROTEST CAN CAUSE NUISANCE. NUISANCE IS NOT TERRORISM. PROTEST SHOULD NOT BE CONFLATED WITH ACTS OF TERRORISM!!
2) I invite you to justify this entry.
Section 3 ‘Relevant or concerning behaviours you have noticed’ asks you to tick boxes. You ticked the following boxes
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR. I have absolutely NEVER engaged in any acts of anti-social behaviour. I have completed the Prevent training awareness course and noted the examples of anti-social behaviour cited https://www.support-people-susceptible-to-radicalisation.service.gov.uk/awareness-course .
3) Please explain why you ticked this box.
CLOSED TO CHALLENGE.
4) In what way am I ‘closed to challenge’?
CONCERNING USE OF THE INTERNET. This one is particularly concerning to me, particularly in context of the Prevent program and aspects of Prevent training.
5) In what way is my use of the internet concerning? What evidence did you draw upon to support this judgement of me?
FIXATED ON A TOPIC OR GROUP. This one is also particularly concerning to me, particularly in context of the Prevent program and aspects of Prevent training. ‘Fixated’ is a loaded word that has been used previously INAPPROPRIATELY and ILL-ADVISEDLY by some members of the CMHT Bridge Centre staff against me. ‘Fixated’ is also part of the pneumonic, FOUR, Fixated, Obsessive, Unwanted, and Repeated, used by police to help recognise patterns of harassment that cause distress. Prevent are clear about what is meant by topics and groups.
6) What topic or groups do you believe that I am ‘fixated’ on that relate to Prevent?
‘THEM AND US’ LANGUAGE.
7) In the context of Prevent, what do you mean by ‘them and us language’?
At the end of this section you are asked to provide more detail. You conclude by writing ‘Mark has complained about police due to an incident named by police as stalking for a health worker.’ THIS MAKES ME SO FUCKING ANGRY.
Your words here are a perfect example for the whole reason that I am protesting against Hampshire Constabulary. For as long as Hampshire Constabulary refuse to remove false, discriminatory and psychologically damaging information under my name on their database, that information can be used against me.
I ABSOLUTELY AND CATAGORICALLY NEVER STALKED ANYONE. I HAVE REPEATEDLY CHALLANGED HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY TO OFFER EVIDENCE OF ME STALKING. THEY HAVE NEVER OFFERED EVIDENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
THE FACTS ARE THAT I WAS VISITED BY POLICE AT MY HOME ON THE 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 AND OFFERED ‘WORDS OF ADVICE’ ABOUT CONTACTING CAMHS ART THERAPIST, SALLY MUNGALL. APPARENTLY, THE LETTER AND COMPLAINT DOCUMENTS THAT I SENT TO SALLY MUNGALL WERE ‘UNWANTED’. HOW WAS I TO KNOW THAT MY CONTACT WAS ‘UNWANTED’? SALLY MUNGALL HAD NEVER ADVISED ME THAT SHE DID NOT WANT CONTACT WITH ME.
I WAS LATER INFORMED BY PC A LOWE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY THAT THE VISIT BY POLICE AT MY HOME WAS NOT A HARASSMENT WARNING. NEVERTHELESS, THE ‘OCCURRENCE’ WAS RECORDED UNDER A HEADING OF HARASSMENT AND STALKING. THIS IN ITSELF IS AN OUTRAGE AS I NEVER HARASSED SALLY MUNGALL AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF ME STALKING SALLY MUNGALL BECAUSE I ACTUALLY NEVER STALKED SALLY MUNGALL.
AFTER EXHAUSTIVE EFFORTS ON MY PART AND AFTER BEING GIVEN THE RUN AROUND BY AT LEAST THREE POLICE DEPARTMENTS FOR OVER A YEAR, A SPOKESPERSON FOR HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY CONFIRMED THAT RECORDS THAT ACCUSED ME OF HARASSMENT WERE BEING HELD UNDER ‘CATEGORY 2 VIOLENT AND SEXUAL OFFENCES’ FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS AND QUITE POSSIBLY UNTIL I AM DEAD BECAUSE I AM SOMEHOW DEEMED TO BE A RISK TO THE PUBLIC. WHY? BECAUSE I SENT SALLY MUNGALL A LETTER AND A COMPLAINT DOCUMENT, IN GOOD FAITH. I EVEN GAVE HER EXPICIT INSTRUCTIONS TO INFORM ME IF SHE DIDN’T WANT ME TO CONTACT HER. SHE NEVER INFORMED ME. I NEVER SUSPECTED MY CONTACT WITH HER WOULD LATER BE DEEMED AS ‘UNWANTED’. SO NOW HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY HOLD RECORDS ON THEIR DATABASE UNDER NAME, ACCUSING ME OF VIOLENT AND SEXUAL OFFENCES BECAUSE I SENT SOMBODY A POLITE AND RESONABLE LETTER THAT HAS BEEN DEEMED ‘UNWANTED’.
SALLY MUNGALL WAS ACTUALLY OBLIGED, UNDER THE ETHICS AND STANDARDS OF HER OWN REGULATORY BODY, THE HEALTH AND CARE PROFESSIONS COUNCIL, TO RESPOND TO MY CONCERNS. SALLY MUNGALL, INSTEAD, SOUGHT TO USE THE STATE POWER OF THE POLICE TO ABSOLVE HERSELF OF HER PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATION.
HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY ACTUALLY HAVE THREE ‘OCCURRENCES’ RECORDED AGAINST ME. TWO OF THOSE ‘OCCURRANCES’ WERE, IN HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY’S OWN WRITTEN WORDS, ‘DUPLICATED’ AND SO RECORDED IN ERROR BUT AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, THOSE DUPLICATES, EMBELLISHED WITHOUT FURTHER EVIDENCE, REMAIN ON THEIR DATABASE.
THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS INJUSTICE.
MY PROTEST AGAINST THIS INJUSTICE IS RIGHTEOUS.
THE WORDS THAT YOU USED ‘INCIDENT NAMED BY POLICE AS STALKING FOR A HEALTH WORKER’ ARE MUCH THE SAME WORDS BEING USED EVERY TIME THERE IS AN MDT MEETING AT CMHT THE BRIDGE CENTRE IN OPENING STATEMENTS WHENEVER I AM BEING DISCUSSED.
THIS HAS TO STOP.
I WILL BE WRITING A SECOND LETTER TO ADDRESS THE IRREGULARITES IN MY MEDICAL RECORDS. I WANT CONTEXT APPLIED TO QUALIFY ALL FUTURE STATEMENTS THAT REFERENCE ME BEING ‘REPORTED BY THE POLICE FOR STALKING’. THAT QUALIFIER WILL STATE THAT THE ACCUSATION OF STALKING IS MADE TOTALLY WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND ROBUSTLY DISPUTED AND DENIED BY ME.
8) Will you support me in my request that future statements used in opening statements during MDT meetings and or recorded onto my medical records that accuse me of stalking are qualified by my denial?
WITHOUT CONTEXT THESE WORDS IMPLY THAT I AM SOMEHOW ACTUALLY GUILTY OF STALKING. WHEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PREVENT REFERRAL IT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE READER AS A STATEMENT OF GUILT AND INFLUENCES DECISIONS BEING MADE BY THOSE CONSIDERING THIS REFERRAL.
I WILL NEVER, EVER STOP PROTESTING THIS INJUSTICE.
FOR AS LONG AS HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY HOLD THIS FALSE, DISCRIMINATORY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGING INFORMATION ON THEIR DATABASE I WILL ALWAYS BE IN FEAR OF MY REPUTATION, LIVELIHOOD AND FREEDOM.
IS THIS WHAT YOU MEAN BY ‘FIXATED’? I CALL IT TENACITY AND DOGGED DETERMINATION.
Section 4 ‘Additional factors’ asks you to tick boxes. You failed to tick the following boxes.
ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCE
SEXUAL ABUSE
SOCIALLY EXCLUDED
TRAUMA FROM CONFLICT
VICTIM OF ABUSE
These are all factors that have been identified in therapy delivered while I have been a patient at CMHT the Bridge Centre. Did you or have you ever consulted with any of the three psychotherapists who have worked with me or the three psychologists that have assessed me before completing this Prevent referral form?
I wanted to follow a process.
First I wanted to collect all the evidence.
I am still waiting for records of your correspondence with the Safeguarding Board of the Trust, particularly the Designated Safeguarding Lead. You have led me to understand that it was the Safeguarding Board that made the ultimate recommendation to refer me to Prevent and to also refer me to Hampshire Police. I need to know who exactly needs to be held to account before I make a formal complaint.
I would like you to put your response to my questions above in writing. Please would you account for your entries in Sections 2,3 and 4? Alternatively I would be happy to meet with you face to face and collect your response to my questions by electronic recording.
I am happy for you to raise all my emails as a formal concern for the Trust ahead of my formal complaint.
I would have preferred to meet you personally to resolve these issues as they arise out of actions taken by you though I appreciate that your secondment is, rightfully, your priority and takes up much of your time. In which case I will accept any invitation to meet with Joe Jackson.
In the same spirit of ‘openness’ referenced by you in your reply, please be aware that I will be sharing correspondence on this matter with the rights group, PreventWatch, intel at Hampshire Police, Prevent Gateway, other relevant individuals within Hampshire Constabulary and my own blog at www.fourandtwentydeadcrows.com.
With kind regards,
Mark
