I received a letter from the Health and Care Professions Council on Tuesday, 10th December,2024 with an update on my 'fitness to practice' complaint. The letter is marked 'Private and Confidential' so I will not publish it at this moment in time. I have, however, started drafting a response which I freely share below. I intend finishing this lengthy document by Monday next week and will post the remainder on the same day.
It is important that the HCPC investigate this complaint fairly and thoroughly if they wish to abide by their own stated objective to protect the public and maintain confidence in services by properly regulating 15 health and care professions in the UK.
It is particularly important as I draw attention to my other complaint currently lodged with the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman. That complaint was first lodged in September, 2022 and yet still awaiting a caseworker almost 27 months later. There is little evidence to suggest that my grievences are being properly investigated or prioritised despite my tenacity and dogged determination to hold individuals and institutions to account. I hazard a well informed guess that most other people in my position are simply ground down by the process and remain unheard and unrepresented. Most other people give up.
SPOILER ALERT If you are reading my entries to Four and Twenty Dead Crows and don't want to know what happens then don't read the letter that follows
12th December 2024
Revised 14th December 2024
Your reference *********
RESPONSE TO LETTER DATED 9TH DECEMBER, 2024 PART ONE
Dear Claire
Thank you for your email and the attached ‘fitness to practice threshold decision’ letter dated 9th December, 2024.
I am pleased to be informed that one of your Senior Decision Makers has decided that the following fitness to practice issues should be referred to your Investigating Committee Panel
- Working beyond the scope of role/inadequate maintenance of boundaries
I am in complete disagreement with the current decision that the following does not meet your threshold
- Misrepresentation of service user
- Delay in responding to service user
- Failure to provide appropriate care
- Informed consent
- Record keeping
- Failure to respond to complainant’s concerns
- Failure to refer complainant’s daughter
In fact it would be more accurate to say that I am somewhere between distraught and outraged. I did not make ANY of my allegations lightly and I know that I supplied the HCPC with irrefutable evidence that, under any reasonable circumstance, would be upheld and used to hold your registrant to account.
I am going to take this opportunity to respond to each of the issues that your Senior Decision Maker has dismissed and ask for them to review each decision.
1) Misrepresentation of service user
This is the most egregious issue beyond the one that you intend to forward to the Investigating Committee Panel, namely ‘Misrepresentation of service user’. I contend that Sally Mungall deliberately lied to me and misled me and lied about me, misrepresented me and deceived others about me. I believe those lies, misrepresentations and deceptions were designed to frame a narrative that would shift blame onto me, the patient while absolving Sally Mungall of responsibility, protecting her reputation and safeguarding her employment at CAMHS and enjoying future opportunities to practice as private art therapist.
Those lies, misrepresentations and deceptions influenced her clinical cohorts at CAMHS and leadership within the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. Those same lies, misrepresentations and deceptions were shared with colleagues at CMHT The Bridge Centre and had a profoundly negative influence on clinical decisions and outcomes for me when I was referred there as a patient. An initial Mental Health Assessment carried out by a Senior Mental Health Nurse on the 8th February 2022 determined that I was of no risk to others but a risk to myself. After Sally Mungall intervened and spoke to colleagues within the Crisis team, the Senior Mental Health Nurse and other members of the CMHT The Bridge Centre, my original ‘risk’ evaluation was overruled and reversed and I was regarded as a ‘risk’ to others. This new ‘risk’ evaluation remained on my medical records held by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust for the rest of the year 2022. It wasn’t until Farayi Nyakubaya, the Head of Nursing at The Bridge Centre carried out exhaustive investigations into my complaints through the autumn of 2022 and concluded that there was no evidence that I was a ‘risk’ to anyone other than myself. Farayi wrote to Wanda Reynolds, General Manager of CAMHS, challenging my ‘risk’ status. Wanda Reynolds consulted with Sally Mungall and was forced to admit in writing, on behalf of all clinicians at CAMHS including Sally herself, that there was no evidence of my being a ‘risk’ to anyone other than myself. Sally is quoted as saying that she felt ‘uncomfortable’ having received email and or documents from me. I believe that Sally Mungall’s lies, misrepresentations and deceptions were contributary to CMHT’s own initial decision not to accept me into their service. I was eventually accepted as a patient at the end of September, 2022. In the meantime, I had been so psychologically damaged by Sally Mungall’s inappropriate and incompetent therapy and by the subsequent poor treatment by the investigating leadership at CAMHS that I made a credible attempt to take my own life in April, 2022. Sally Mungall’s lies, misrepresentations and deceptions were also shared with Hampshire Police and led to a serious miscarriage of justice that has blighted my life for over two years and counting.
It wasn’t until I started to request access to my medical records that I discovered evidence of Sally Mungall’s dishonesty. I have been denied access to complete records held by the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SPFT)and believe this to be evidence of corruption. Complete access to medical records has been denied based on decisions made by the same clinical staff that I have accused including CAMHS General Manager Wanda Reynolds, likely acting on spurious information supplied by Sally herself. Further evidence was later disclosed either inadvertently or deliberately by someone in Information Governance within SPFT who acted according to their conscience. Additional evidence was disclosed following an access to records request made by my daughter. Some of this new evidence was likely disclosed by accident or by way of oversight.
It is almost certain that Sally Mungall would not have felt a need to lie, misrepresent or deceive me or others had I not suffered a catastrophic mental health breakdown during the Christmas holidays of 2021. Sally and I had mutually agreed to meet in the new year so that I could review and process my art therapy drawings. I had made it clear that I intended to ask Sally to see me socially beyond the end of therapy. Sally was fully aware of my romantic feelings and my intention to ask her to dinner. She absolutely agreed to this. She told me that she would be indefinitely available for the meeting and would take as much time with me as I needed. I also informed her by word and in writing that I would accept her refusal should she decide not to accept my invitations. I told her that, under those circumstances, I would gracefully move on and trouble her no more, all of which was implicit in the letter that I handed over to her on the 23rd December, 2021. I am sure that I supplied the HCPC with a digital copy of that letter but I can resupply if you request it.
My mental health breakdown during the Christmas holidays of 2021is well documented. I kept an appointment with my GP, Dr Kashif Minhas on the 29th December, 2021 to discuss my mental health .
My mental health breakdown became apparent to Sally Mungall when I attended my daughters ‘review’ on the 13th January, 2022 and alluded to my suicidal ideation. I believe this to be the moment that Sally panicked. Her motivation to act dishonestly was likely based on preserving reputation and career, at all costs.
a) Medical records confirm that she telephoned my GP, Dr Kashif Minhas at 15.26 that same afternoon. Dr Minhas’ account of the conversation included reporting that Sally said ‘dveloped affection for the counsellor ( Sally) and is on the edge thinking that she would not be marrying him’. This is a LIE. I was entirely confused by my feelings towards Sally at the time. I had genuinely deep romantic feelings towards her but I never entertained the idea of ‘marriage’ and certainly NEVER alluded to such in any conversation or writing. All I knew for certain was that I wanted to continue seeing Sally socially, ask her to dinner and get to know her better. So, why would Sally tell my GP such a thing if not to MISREPRESENT me. This is the beginning of a concerted effort to frame me as a ‘FIXATED’, ‘OBSESSED’ problem, later to be embellished as a ‘risk’ to others including other clinicians in CAMHS and others beyond the wider NHS Trust.
b) Medical records confirm that an email sent by Sally Mungall to Mid and North CRHT on 13TH January,2022 at 19.33 included the wording ‘he ( me) believes that I will provide his family with the perfect mother’ which is categorically NOT true. I never said such a thing, never believed such a thing nor even thought it. I expressed a romantic interest in Sally and intended asking her to dinner. End of. Sally was indulging in hyperbole, likely intending to frame a narrative. By MISREPRESENTING in this way Sally turns me into a ‘FIXATED’, ‘OBSESSED’ problem and, in doing so, diverts attention away from herself. Sally went on to write ‘I have clearly told him that this is not the case’. Sally never told me anything of the sort because I never said I believed that Sally would provide my family with the perfect mother.
c) My daughter’s medical records disclosed almost two years later confirmed that Sally Mungall called Hampshire Police in February 2022. They visited her at her home during the same month to discuss me. Why? Evidence previously disclosed to me had suggested that Sally had called the police. I had sought confirmation in September 2022 but Hampshire Police denied access to any potential records that might have incriminated me citing third party confidentiality. There was no opportunity for me to challenge the veracity of any accusations that might have been made by Sally in February 2022 but it is absolutely clear that information gathered then was later used against me when I was visited at home by Hampshire Police in September 2022. I believe it reasonable to suspect, based on Sally’s other recorded statements, that she misled Hampshire Police
d) Medical records confirm telephone conversation between Ian Whaites (MH&LD) and Sally Mungall on 31st January, 2022 at 16.44. Ian writes ‘Phone call from Sally Mungall. Full on what Mark has been saying to Sally about her joining the family and being a surrogate mum to his daughter’, again a repeated LIE. I never said or even insinuated such a thing.
Sally went on to say ‘Mark has been talking in front of his daughter about his imminent suicidality.’ MISREPRESENTATION/LIE. I never talked openly about my imminent suicidality. When I was in the ‘review’ meeting with Sally Mungall, Mark Birbeck and my daughter, Meg, on the 13th January I was careful to code my words and use my eyes to convey my suicidal ideation. I was so successful at this that my daughter never suspected what I was alluding to and wasn’t even aware about my suicide attempt the following April until her mother irresponsibly let slip the fact during the Christmas holidays of 2022. Sally likely embellished this idea so as to exaggerate my instability.
Ian continues to record Sally’s words, including ‘Mark has printed off photographs of Sally to put up in the house, and Mark talks to these photos at night.’ UNTRUE. I had clipped two photos of Sally and they were kept on my laptop. I certainly did NOT pin up photos of Sally around the house and talk to them. That’s an absurdity. It IS true that I heard Sally’s voice in my head, especially during quiet moments but Sally herself explained this to me during art therapy sessions as INTROJECTION. In psychology, introjection is the unconscious adoption of the thoughts or attitudes of others. It occurs as a normal part of development, such as a child taking on parental values and attitudes or, as in this case, a trusted therapist. Sally Mungall’s framing of this normal process makes me seem unhinged or psychologically disturbed. I believe this to be deliberate on her part, framing me as pathologically disturbed while distancing herself from culpability.
Finally, Ian relates the following ‘…when he receives the letter from Sally (the letter was never sent to me) Sally thinks that he will react strongly to it. All practitioners in CAMHS do not think it will end well’. Meaning what exactly? What was Sally telling practitioners at CAMHS? More LIES?
e) Ian Whaites wrote to Weston Henry (MH&LD) on 31st January, 2022, at 18.14, expanding on his conversation with Sally Mungall saying ‘We (he and Sally) had a brief discussion around what appears to be stalking behaviour which should be reported to the police.’ There is absolutely NO evidence of me ‘stalking’ Sally Mungall. It appears that Sally had fabricated a story sufficient to plant a suspicion of stalking. It maybe that it was Ian Whaite’s collusion on this matter that decided Sally’s resolve to invite Hampshire Police to her home to discuss me and suggests that Sally made repeated reference to ‘stalking’ in front of police officers (see 3 above).Ian Whaites goes on to refer to the ‘gravity of concerns. It is clear at this point that I am being framed and the MISCHARACTERISATION of me is starting to take on a life of its own.
f) Weston Henry then initiates a MDT meeting with several members of the Mid and North Hants Crisis team on the 1st February, 2022 at 11.04. It is at this point that my ‘risk’ status is erroneously graded. I am regarded a ‘LOW risk to self’ but ‘MODERATE risk to others’ – ‘Obsessional behaviour’. Goes on to repeat Sally’s false claim ‘talks about suicidality in front of daughter’. ‘Mark has become infatuated by with the therapist and has pictures of her in his home and talks to the at night. Mark has suggested that he would like her to be a surrogate mum’, again, repeating Sally’s previous false claims.
g) Sally Mungall wrote an email in conjunction with Mark Birbeck on the 1st February, 2022 that is received by the Mid & North CRHT on the 2nd February, 2022 at 08.05 and repeated previous false claims writing the following ‘ Mark has developed an obsessional idealization on Sally Mungall… ( AGAIN this use of the word ‘obsessional’. I vehemently dispute the use of the word ‘obsessional’. This word is loaded. This description is inappropriate. I am now being MISCHARACTERISED as ‘obsessional’ which becomes a focus point for consideration when being investigated by the police. I am absolutely being framed at this point and Sally is responsible.) ‘He believes that Sally could come and live with him being the idealized mother for Meg. Mark has looked Art therapist up on the internet ( Sally Mungall actually had, and still has at the time of writing, a private psychotherapy service advertised online. Absolutely anyone with access to the internet is able to access Sally Mungall’s website. Indeed, her website, including the photo of herself and her actual home, is completely available to the public. By writing ‘Mark has looked Art therapist up on the internet’, Sally frames me as some kind of online stalker. This is deliberate, intentional MISCHARACTERISATION designed to damage me, undermine my character and distance Sally from culpability.
Sally goes on to repeat baseless accusations such as ‘printed off photos of her…speaks to her all through the day in his mind, and at night when he wakes.’ Sally is now embellishing her own story. Sally concludes by writing ‘Mark may switch in terms of his presentation from being infatuated to potentially, angry and aggressive. This could potentially put the Art Therapist at risk’. A baseless accusation. I had NEVER shown anger nor aggression and did not show anger or aggression at any time after.
Later in this email Sally repeats the false accusation that I spoke openly about my suicidal ideation in front of my daughter and makes a new but equally false accusation that I am ‘angry’ at my daughter, Meg and that ‘he (me) wants to be rid of her’.
Kirsty Henry wrote a clinical entry on the 18th February,2022 at 14.00 after a discussion with Sally Mungall. Sally is recorded as having repeated previous false accusations about printed pictures of Sally pinned around the house and talking to those pictures. Sally makes further embellishments on other accusations, now telling Kirsty that I had referenced Sally as being a ‘part of his family and ADOPTING his daughter.’ Again, all UNTRUE. The ‘adopting’ LIE is really stretching incredulity. Kirsty actually questions Sally’s assertions, drawing comparison with her own observations and conversations with me during her mental health assessment of me on the 8th February, 2022. Kirsty wrote ‘…although during my assessment it would appear that Mark had come to terms with the relationship coming to an end however he was struggling with having no ongoing support’. Indeed, it wasn’t until some of my medical records were released to me by Jan Knapp, MOD administrator on behalf of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust on the 15th June, 2022 that I first became aware of gross MISREPRESENTATION of me by staff at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke, including Sally Mungall and CAMHS General Manager, Wanda Reynolds. Those disclosed medical records changed everything for me and I properly engaged in serious investigations and initiated formal complaints, first, through Wanda Reynolds, then the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) and, ultimately, the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
h) There was a ‘professionals meeting’ organized and convened by Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck (SPFT CAMHS Child psychotherapist who carried out my daughter’s therapy between Feb 21 and Jan 22). Other attendees were Nicola Hoyle, Team lead for the Crisis Resolution Home Treatment Team, my GP, Dr Kashif Minhas and Julie Yalden, also of CAMHS. Benice Tigwell, Basingstoke CAMHS Team Leader wrote up the minutes of the meeting, including the following ‘SM, (Sally Mungall) had a proper ending session with Mark, then with Mark and Meg. Normally would hold onto art work for 6 months, was planned to keep hold of indefinitely until dad ready to collect. SM agreed to meet dad to hand over work, since then Mark handed over 12 page letter of love.’ This is a LIE by omission. Sally Mungall fails to disclose her own part in the arrangement, mutually agreed long before I handed over my letter on the 23rd December, 2021. This MISLEADS the attendees, framing my letter as a new, escalating factor. The attendees are deliberately left unaware of the inappropriate nature of the therapy delivered by Sally Mungall during ‘Parent Work’ and the fact that Sally had accepted and agreed that I would be asking to see her socially and invite her to dinner long before I handed over my letter on the 23rd December, 2021. This leads Nicola Hoyle to later state ‘this will support showing Mark that boundaries has been crossed so access has now gone to SM.’ This proves that Nicola Hoyle is under a MISAPREHENSION, believing me to be a transgressor. This MISAPREHENSION is reiterated later in the meeting when Nicola Hoyle states ‘SM to log with police, if logged with police would act properly if it was recorded. Safety of SM is paramount. Discussions to have the line manager to look at working from home until outcome of meeting.’ See how Sally Mungall’s MISLEADING of the attendees escalates the situation. I am, at this point, being MISREPRESENTED as a potential ‘RISK’ to Sally Mungall and to others. This eventually leads to involving Hampshire Police and a gross INJUSTICE that continues to blight my life to this day. Sally Mungall’s MISCHARACTERISATION of me and her MISLEADING of eventually results in Hampshire Police visiting me at home on the 25th September, 2022 followed by an accusation of ‘stalking and harassment’ then logged on Hampshire Police database under a ‘CATEGORY 2 VIOLENT AND SEXUAL OFFENCES’ heading, to be retained for at least 10 years because I am now deemed to be a ‘RISK’ to the public. That INJUSTICE has roots in Sally Mungall’s MISREPRESENTATION and MISCHARACTERISATION of me. Sally adds’ when MB and myself were alone with him, Social services had offered him a property at ‘the Holly’, this is SMs home address, Mark S has googled SM. Police not notified’. This statement falls somewhere between MISLEADING and an absolute LIE. Sally Mungall was fully aware that I had been offered social housing by the local council, a particular property called the Hollies, situated on the Old Basing/Mapledurwell border. I had informed both Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck of this offer during my daughter’s ‘review’ on the 13th January, 2022. I even went into minor details about the location being advantageous as it was within walking distance of the family home where her mother still lived. Sally was fully aware of these facts but chose to frame them in such a way as to suggest I was going to move into her house or at least next door to house. Sally Mungall lived, and still lives, according to her online presence and publicly available https://www.sallymungall.com/, in an end of terrace house on the London Road in Hook, part of a group of connected properties called ‘The Hollies’ and situated many miles away from the property that was being offered to me. The attendees were left with the false impression that I was seeking to live at Sally Mungall’s home address or next door. And yes! I had Googled Sally Mungall. I Googled her at the very beginning of the ‘Parent Work’ with her. I made her abundantly aware, many times, that I ALWAYS Google new healthcare professionals that I meet. Sally was fully aware that this was a habit that I had formed over many years in direct response to the long history of my daughter, Meg, being underserved, abused and neglected by other healthcare professionals. At no point during the ‘professionals meeting’ did Sally make the attendees aware of the true purpose for my Googling. She frames me as some kind of ‘online stalker’. LIE BY OMISSION. I have absolutely NO doubt that Sally MISLEAD Hampshire Police using the very same DISHONEST tactics described above. Final statement by Sally Mungall concludes the ‘professionals meeting’, ‘ 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 shared with police.’ What ‘factual evidence? The account so far suggests that Sally will be sharing factual evidence. What ‘evidence’ did Sally actually share? As previously stated, I requested access to information held by Hampshire Police relating to Sally Mungall, CAMHS and the wider SPFT but was denied. Is anybody that is in a position to investigate, HCPC!?, able to request of Sally that she give her consent for such information to be shared? I should have the right to see Sally’s written accusations so that I can challenge the veracity, accordingly.
i) Medical records disclosed an email communication written by CAMHS General Manager, Wanda Reynolds and received by Service Manager at CMHT The Bridge Centre, Vicky Long on the 21st September, 2022 at 18.28. Wanda Reynolds words included ‘an escalation in Mr Stock’s behaviour this week…Mr Stock over the weekend emailed the clinician (SM)’ (Sally Mungall) ‘on her personal email account. We don’t know how he got this, although it is possible that it is shown on SM’s private practice website account rather than a link to send a message. The email was long and described preparing a meal for SM and hoping that she would come, and his love for her.’ I am absolutely certain that I provided the HCPC with the actual email referenced by Wanda Reynolds but I can resupply it at your request. REREAD that letter. That letter was SUBSTANTIALLY a request for help in understanding what had gone wrong during ‘Parent Work/art therapy’ and help in understanding why I had been so grossly MISREPRESENTED by Sally and her clinical cohorts and leadership staff following the end of ‘Parent Work/art therapy. That letter was actually a follow up to a copy of my complaints document addressed to Sally Mungall’s private therapy address which was widely advertised online. The email address that I used for that letter was also obtained from Sally Mungall’s private therapy address which was widely advertised online. Why does Wanda Reynold’s frame her email in the way that she does? Wanda Reynolds obviously wrote her email to Vicky Long following contact with Sally Mungall. Did Sally Mungall properly appraise Wanda Reynolds as per the contents of my email? I now have evidence to suggest that Wanda Reynolds was colluding with Sally Mungall, engaging in a deception designed to protect Sally Mungall’s reputation and career and, possibly, protect the reputation of CAMHS, Bramblys Drive. I believe there to be credible evidence of ‘reputation management’. My polite and respectful email to Sally Mungall was sent in good faith, following advisements from the websites of both the British Association of Art Therapists AND, more pertinently, the Health and Care Professions Council. I will go into further detail below in my response to ‘Failure to respond to complainant’s concerns.’
j) And finally, at least for now and unless further evidence is disclosed, I made access to information requests of the Joint Information Management Unit of Hampshire Constabulary, Mottisfont Court, Tower Street, Winchester and obtained records of three ‘occurrences’, 44220331362, 44220305219 and 44220382742, relating to complaints made about me by Sally Mungall. Hampshire Police themselves are on record admitting to mistakes which resulted in two of the ‘occurrences’ being generated when there should only have been one. Regardless, one occurrence, 44220331362, is logged as ‘CIMU’ and dated 31/08/2022 at 09.27 and recorded as an ‘Occurrence Type Stalking/Harassment’. This would correspond with the time that I sent Sally Mungall a copy of my complaints document. This is the actual letter copied intact and unaltered from my files
Covering letter sent with ‘MY COMPLAINT REVISED 25th July 2022’ sent on the 25th July 2022
Hello Sally,
I hope you are well.
I’m sorry if you are alarmed at this email from me. I am writing to you after much deliberation and maybe against my better judgement. I have endeavoured to treat you with respect and have maintained self-imposed boundaries that have kept me from contacting you until now. I see that you have recently updated your art therapy web page and that all of your contact details are in the public domain. You have an open channel of communication for the rest of the world so why not me? You have never had cause to tell me that my attention towards you is unwanted. You have never told me not to contact you . Hopefully you will accept this message without undue concern or the need to report to Camhs. I am contacting you privately. I wanted you to be aware of the complaint that I am pursuing against Camhs and the Bridge Centre. My complaint is partly a protest against the culture of dishonesty and deceit fostered by staff at Camhs and the Bridge Centre. I believe that I have been treated appallingly by both healthcare providers and recent disclosure of my medical records provides damning evidence. I wanted to keep true to my own word and not contact you and have, instead, requested of Wanda Reynolds that she occasionally act as a medium to alert you to pertinent information. I am, however, certain that I can no longer trust Wanda. Having just finished compiling this complaint document and while details are painfully fresh in my mind I thought it would be right to send you a copy and so be assured that you were aware of all the details. I have been made to feel voiceless and invisible over the last six months and my life is in ruin. A huge part of my despair comes from the fear that you have not been kept informed. I hope you find the time to read what I have written and to understand things from my perspective. I need you to know the truth. The truth was, is and always will be foundational to my very existence. I still haven’t gotten over you, Sally. I probably never will.
Yours sincerely,
Mark
I draw attention to the following
‘I am, however, certain that I can no longer trust Wanda. Having just finished compiling this complaint document and while details are painfully fresh in my mind I thought it would be right to send you a copy and so be assured that you were aware of all the details. I have been made to feel voiceless and invisible over the last six months and my life is in ruin. A huge part of my despair comes from the fear that you have not been kept informed.’
It should be obvious that my intentions were honourable, that I was showing respect and courtesy in forewarning Sally Mungall of my intentions to make a serious formal complaint. I had every reason to no longer trust Wanda Reynolds to properly investigate my complaint and did not want Sally to be caught by surprise. It should also be noted that I had, up until this point, enforced my own boundaries. Additionally, it should be acknowledged that I was under the reasonable apprehension that there was no prohibition regarding contact with Sally Mungall.
A second occurrence, 44220382742, again recorded as an ‘Occurrence Type Stalking/Harassment’ states ‘INFT (Sally Mungall) reporting stalking/harassment from an…’ and goes on to state ‘This incident is in relation to a continuation of on-going harassment between MARK STOCK (suspect). I am refer you to the second paragraph above. To reiterate
‘It wasn’t until Farayi Nyakubaya, the Head of Nursing at The Bridge Centre carried out exhaustive investigations into my complaints through the autumn of 2022 and concluded that there was no evidence that I was a ‘risk’ to anyone other than myself. Farayi wrote to Wanda Reynolds, General Manager of CAMHS, challenging my ‘risk’ status. Wanda Reynolds consulted with Sally Mungall and was forced to admit in writing, on behalf of all clinicians at CAMHS including Sally herself, that there was no evidence of my being a ‘risk’ to anyone other than myself. Sally is quoted as saying that she felt ‘uncomfortable’ having received email and or documents from me.’
I now include the actual email forwarded by Farayi Nyakubaya to me on the 13th February, 2023. It is the email that Wanda Reynolds wrote to Farayi and was received by him on the 3rd February, 2023 at 11.49.
‘Hi Farayi,
I have now discussed your question with both Sally and the senior leads that were involved we all agreed the following:
Senior staff were concerned about the level of 'obsession' with the long letters and persistence in wanting to have a further appointment with Sally.
Sally did feel uncomfortable when she received emails and letters at home.
Mr Stock did not engage in a way that left any staff feeling that they were at immediate physical risk to themselves. As mentioned above the concern was more about we didn’t know what Mr Stock would do to manage his feelings. Evidence of the past year or so would indicate that Sally and staff are not at physical risk fro
Sally consistently said that she was not worried about risk to herself but was worried about his risk to himself.
I hope this is helpful.
Kind Regards
Wanda
It is self-evident, by virtue of this admission alone that I did not stalk or harass Sally Mungall. Sally herself describes feeling ‘uncomfortable’. ‘Stalking and harassment is when someone repeatedly behaves in a way that makes you feel scared, distressed or threatened - https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/sh/stalking-harassment/what-is-stalking-harassment/ ‘
I ask you, does ‘uncomfortable’ equate with ‘scared’, ‘distressed’ or ‘threatened’?
‘Harassment may include: unwanted phone calls, letters, emails or visits.’ - https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/sh/stalking-harassment/what-is-stalking-harassment/ ‘
I remind you that I was under the reasonable apprehension that there was no prohibition regarding contact with Sally Mungall.
I, therefore, bring into question Sally Mungall’s reporting me to Hampshire Police. If Sally
Mungall had made an accurate report to Hampshire Police then it is reasonable to presume that she would have been advised to inform me that contact was ‘unwanted’. The fact that Hampshire Police chose to act on Sally Mungall’s report suggests that she MISLEAD them and/or MISREPRESENTED me.
Here end Part One of my response
