I sent the following email to the office of Luke Murphy, MP for Basingstoke

From: Mark Stock [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent: 15 October 2024 19:15To: 'Luke. Murphy MP'Subject: RE: Enquiry (Case Ref: xxxxx)

Dear Aideen,

With reference to our conversation last Thursday, please find attached information as promised. 

This includes a ‘covering letter’ entitled ‘Luke Murphy, MP, formal request for assistance’.

I have also attached ‘Brief account of what happened at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive Basingstoke’ for context and

HAMPSHIRE POLICE Complaint ALL Documents’. Please read this document under advisement as it contains distressing references to suicidal intent while under extreme psychological duress.

If you have any questions or require any further information then please do contact me at any time.

With kind regards,

Mark

The 'covering letter' titled 'Luke Murphy, MP formal request for assistance'

Your Ref   xxxxx

The office of Luke Murphy, MP for Basingstoke

14th October, 2024-10-13

Dear Aideen,

Thank you for calling me last Thursday morning to discuss my serious issues relating to Hampshire Constabulary and to hear the wider conversation around NHS CAMHS Art Therapist, Sally Mungall.

As agreed, I have collated and attached the pertinent documents relating to this case, including letters and emails received from the various departments within Hampshire Constabulary so that Luke can properly assess the facts before deciding how he might be able to assist, going forward.

This covering letter identifies each attached document for Luke’s ease of reference.

This covering letter also sets out additional important information to

a)      Identify the areas that I need assistance with and

b)      Give context to my case

I have separated this covering letter into the following sections

1)      SUMMARY OF EACH OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS

2)      SUMMARY OF THE FALSE, DISCRIMINATORY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGING INFORMATION CURRENTLY RETAINED BY HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY

3)      THE ACTION I WANT TAKEN

4)      AN ACCOUNT OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY

5)      THE ACTION I AM CURRENTLY TAKING AND MY PLANNING TO CONTINUE PROTEST BY FURTHER HUNGER STRIKES

1)      SUMMARY OF EACH OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS

a)      Acknowledgement Letter to Mr Stock from the Professional Standards office of Hampshire Constabulary received 22nd November, 2022

b)      Mr Stock complaint Response by the Professional Standards office of Hampshire Constabulary received 9th February, 2022

c)       RTE-23-163 response from the Joint Information Management Unit, Hampshire Police response to my request to remove records received 19th June, 2023

d)      ICO to Mark Stock Information Commissioners Office request for removal of records sent by me on the 20th July, 2023. Acknowledgement received 8th August, 2023

e)      ICO to Mark Stock Information Commissioners Office response received 10th August, 2023

f)       LPB079-23 Review outcome

g)      IOPC Complaints – New Submission sent on 28th June, 2024. I have never received a reply to this new complaint.

2)      SUMMARY OF THE FALSE, DISCRIMINATORY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGING INFORMATION CURRENTLY RETAINED BY HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY

To reiterate, I am seeking assistance in having false, discriminatory and psychologically damaging information about me removed from the database of Hampshire Constabulary. As I understand things, Hampshire Constabulary has, since September, 2022, retained information that

1)      Accuses me of committing an ‘offence’ or ‘offences’ of making ‘unwanted contact’ with NHS CAMHS Art Therapist, Sally Mungall

2)      The ‘offence’ or offences’ are recorded under ‘Occurrence details’ that denote ‘Occurrence Type’ as ‘Stalking/Harassment’

3)      There are THREE ‘occurrences’ recorded, one of which is a mistake by Hampshire Constabulary and noted in their records as being generated as a result of ‘crossed wires’. Log entry dated 03/10/2022 suggests ‘additional occurrences being created when all updates should have been placed on this occurrence as the master.

4)      Hampshire Constabulary records further state ‘This incident is in relation to a continuation of on-going harassment between MARK STOCK ( suspect )...’

5)      The ‘occurrences’ denoted as ‘Stalking/Harassment’ are being retained under Category 2 of the MoPI guidelines which is defined as ‘VIOLENT AND SEXUAL OFFENCES’

6)      The MoPI guidelines state that the records are to be retained for at least 10 years or possibly until I am 100 years old!

7)      The MoPI guidelines suggest that records are to be retained because I am deemed to be a ‘risk’ to the public!

I CATEGORICALLY DENY

a)      Any alleged offence of making ‘unwanted contact’

b)      Any alleged offence of either ‘stalking’ or ‘harassing’

c)       Any alleged ‘violent’ or ‘sexual’ offences

There is absolutely NO evidence of ‘violent’ or ‘sexual’ offences having been committed by me

There is absolutely NO evidence of ‘stalking’ or ‘harassing’ offences having being committed by me

Any contact made with NHS CAMHS Art Therapist was done so out of professional courtesy, being both reasonable and polite and in accordance with advice embedded within the ‘standards, performance and ethics’ of the Health and Care Professions Council, the same regulatory body to which Sally Mungall is registered. The HCPC ‘standards, performance and ethics’ sets out, in general terms, how they expect their registrants to behave and also outline what the public should expect from their health and care professional. It was Sally Mungall’s professional obligation to respond to my contact. Hampshire Constabulary should have advised Sally Mungall to request of me directly, or by proxy, to make no further contact before carrying out their investigation. I was NEVER made aware by Sally Mungall that ‘contact’ was ‘unwanted’, indeed, my contact letter explicitly informed her that I would make no further contact if she made me aware that doing so would make her feel ‘uncomfortable’.

3)      THE ACTION I WANT TAKEN

I am asking for assistance in seeking removal of ALL false, discriminatory and psychologically damaging information that identifies me from Hampshire Constabulary’s database. It may be that there is further information, as of yet undisclosed by the Joint Information Management Unit , ( JIMU ) within Hampshire Constabulary, which identifies me. If such information exists, and if that information also makes false, discriminatory or psychologically damaging accusations then I want that information disclosed. My own recent investigations have revealed that Sally Mungall was visited by Hampshire Constabulary at her home during February 2022 to discuss me. I had made access to records requests of the JIMU for any records that identify me following possible interactions with Hampshire Constabulary and Sally Mungall and was informed, by email on the 23rd September, 2022 that ‘no third party data will be disclosed’. If information obtained from Sally Mungall by Hampshire Constabulary was used as evidence to justify the later visit to my home by PC Newstead on 25th September, 2022 than I should have the right to examine that information and challenge the veracity of that information and request it be removed from their database if that information is false.

I should probably go much further and request an apology from Hampshire Constabulary and demand compensation for the psychological damage caused over the last two years.

4)      AN ACCOUNT OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY

I have been, categorically and provably, psychologically damaged by Hampshire Constabulary and their actions. I believe that Hampshire Constabulary should, in the first instance, have advised Sally to inform me to make no further contact. I would have then moved on and taken my formal complaint to her regulatory body, the Health and Care Professions Council. By affording Sally Mungall the opportunity to help me understand what had gone wrong during the time I had been under her therapeutic care and to explain why she had lied to me and misrepresented me in communication with her clinical cohorts, I was avoiding the far more damaging ( professionally, to her ) recourse by way of a ‘fitness to practice’ complaint. Sally Mungall’s ill-advised attempt to use the state power of the police in order to avoid her statutory obligations left me with no other recourse than to make that ‘fitness to practice’ complaint to the Health and Care Professions Council. That complaint is still under investigation.

I was, categorically and provably, psychologically damaged while under the therapeutic care of Sally Mungall and further damaged by the dishonest actions taken by her and her clinical cohorts. I have needed considerable mental health intervention since and have spent 21 months with one private psychotherapist, numerous additional therapy sessions with one NHS Cognitive Analytical Therapist and around 22 EMDR sessions with one NHS trauma therapist. I am scheduled to meet a second NHS CAT therapist on the 23rd October, 2024 with a view to continuing therapy. It has been the considered professional opinion that further therapy is still required to deal with the trauma associated with Sally Mungall AND Hampshire Constabulary.

It should also be noted that I am still currently a patient with the community mental health team at the Bridge Centre in Basingstoke and have been psychologically appraised numerous times by various mental health professionals including psychotherapists and psychiatrists. I have also spent much time at the Safe Haven and the Wellbeing Centre, run by Andover Mind here in Basingstoke.

I made a suicide attempt in April 2022 and was detained by Dorset Police under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and was committed to a hunger strike earlier this year that lasted nine weeks whereby I lost a quarter of my body weight. An ambulance was called out on my behalf on two occasions toward the end of that hunger and was eventually admitted to hospital. I intend to carry out a second hunger strike in protest at Hampshire Constabulary which is scheduled to start on the 6th January 2025.

The decision by Hampshire Constabulary to retain false, discriminatory and psychologically damaging records affect me in three significant ways

i)        INJUSTICE. The accusations of ‘violent and sexual offender’ are categorically false. The accusations of ‘stalking and harassment’ offences are likewise, categorically false. These accusations are an insult and perceived by me as unjust and damage my good character and reputation. I have already been forced to carry this burden of injustice around with me for over two years.

ii)       DISCRIMINATORY. The accusations detailed above can be used against me. I have been informed that ‘no further action’ was taken following the visit to my home by PC Newstead on the 25th September, 2022 and that I do not have a criminal record but ‘no further action’ is NOT an exoneration and the records being retained by Hampshire Constabulary ARE a defacto criminal record. ‘No further action’ means that there was no evidence was available to Hampshire Constabulary at the time to warrant prosecution. The ‘occurrence(s)’ are likely being retained in anticipation of future ‘offences’ being committed so that a ‘pattern of behaviour’ can be proved leading to prosecution.

This means that I can no longer safely engage in any adult relationship out of fear that any future relational grievance can be used against me. Future spurious allegations similar to those already made against me will almost certainly lead to prosecution. I am now condemned to spend the rest of my natural life in social isolation.

This also means that I will almost certainly be discriminated against when seeking future employment opportunities. I have, previously, been employed or held voluntary positions as a teacher and lecturer. Application for such position always requires a Disclosure Barring Service check. An enhanced DBS WILL preclude me from future job opportunities.

iii)     PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE. I have already outlined the categorical and proven psychological damage already caused by Sally Mungall, her clinical cohorts and Hampshire Constabulary. The effects of that damage only get worse over time and, as a result, I am suffering from daily suicidal ideation. In a meeting as recent as the 1st August, 2024 it was confirmed by an NHS clinical psychologist that I was still suffering from trauma. I feel so traumatised, so irrevocably damaged, that I do not see any reason to be alive.

5)      THE ACTION I AM CURRENTLY TAKING AND MY PLANNING TO CONTINUE PROTEST BY FURTHER HUNGER STRIKES

The only other course of action open is to protest Hampshire Constabulary’s decision to retain false, discriminatory and psychologically damaging information about me is to protest by way of continued hunger strike. My previous protest saw absolutely no movement by Hampshire Constabulary on the matter and I was forced to bring an end to the hunger strike. I realise now, that continued hunger strike will be exponentially more effective if carried out under national public scrutiny. To that end I have started a national social media campaign to raise public awareness. I have, until this week, been testing this strategy among a small, specially invited audience of close friends and family. Later this week I will begin intensifying my efforts and extending a blanket invitation among a wider audience including professionals in healthcare and the national press. I hope to have a significantly sized audience by the 6th January, 2025 when I commence my next hunger strike. I want the nation to watch my protest unfold in real time. I am willing to die by starvation and the nation will bear witness.

To conclude.

Before I am forced to risk my health and, ultimately, my life by protesting Hampshire Constabulary by way of hunger strike, I would ask that my Parliamentary representative, Luke Murphy, intervene and approach the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice with the details of my case.

Home Office Counting Rules have been cited as justification for Hampshire Constabulary retaining records of me. This speaks to a wider issue that I hope Luke can raise in the House of Commons. I am reminded of an interview that I listened to recently on the internet with Harry Miller, a former police officer from Humberside otherwise now known as the ‘Fair Cop’ www.faircop.org.uk. In that interview, Harry made reference to Home Office Counting Rules and told the interviewer that there were somewhere in the order of 250,000 British citizens who have their details retained on local police force databases, mostly without their knowledge. Everyone of those 250,000 individuals can, like me, be discriminated against, especially when it comes to enhanced DBS checks, even when ‘no further action’ was taken by the police. This has to be an appalling miscarriage of injustice on an unimaginable scale.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Stock

14th October, 2024