LATEST ISSUES 27th May, 2026

Finally, after ELEVEN MONTHS waiting, Hampshire & IOW Healthcare Foundation Trust have completed their investigation into my complaint about the wholly inappropriate referral of me to Prevent on the 18th June, 2025. I received the formal written response by Darren Humphrey last Thursday. The following is my rebuttal to some of Darren's findings.

I will be compiling another 'Open Letter' over the next day or so, to be addressed to individuals within the Trust, Hampshire Police, the Office of the Independent Prevent Commissioner, my local MP and the national press. This rebuttal will form the backbone of that 'Open Letter'.

Your Ref 6****

Dear Darren,

Thank you for your response letter dated 19^th May, 2026 and received by me on the 21^st May, 2026.

I am acknowledging receipt of your response to the complaints originally raised by me about the referral of me to Prevent and issued to Gemma Stubbington on the  on the 25^th June, 2025, ELEVEN MONTHS AGO.

The referral of me to Prevent by Gemma Stubbington on the 18^th June, 2025 was an overreach of power, a disproportionate response to an imaginary threat, a histrionic reaction to mitigate against potential liability under corporate governance and a cynical attempt to deny my Human Rights including my right to protest.

I harbour grave misgivings over the findings of your investigation, particularly the details surrounding the wholly inappropriate referral of me to Prevent. I cannot, in good conscience, draw a line under this matter while all those involved within the Trust still cleave obstinately to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Prevent Duty.

Indeed, there no indication contained in your response of a commitment to learn from my complaint.

Additionally, some fundamental concerns remain unaddressed.

You stated

‘It was noted that the referral form itself could have contained more analysis of the above detail, however this did not in itself affect the legitimacy of the decision to refer.’

( I suspect that Gemma Stubbington’s lazy attitude towards filling out the referral forms would not have been addressed had I not been given access to them by mistake ).

But your response made no attempt to explain Gemma Stubbington’s contentious box ticking. Without a full and reasonable account I am forced to consider these entries by Gemma Stubbington as fraudulent by which I mean acting with or having the intent to deceive. If Gemma Stubbington ticked these boxes in error or in ignorance then her professional integrity is in question and your investigation, Darren, is flawed. I will return to this issue below.

‘Section 1: Status and scope of the Prevent duty

3. …The term ‘due regard’ as used in the CTSA 2015 means that the authorities should place an appropriate amount of weight on the need to prevent people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism when they consider all the other factors relevant to how they carry out their usual functions.’ –

‘ Prevent Duty Guidance: for England and Wales’

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65e5a5bd3f69457ff1035fe2/14.258_HO_Prevent+Duty+Guidance_v5d_Final_Web_1_.pdf

So, to be absolutely clear, the status and scope of the Prevent duty, as defined in the Prevent Duty Guidance for England and Wales, is entirely and unambiguously concerned with terrorism, the need to prevent people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.

The ‘ Prevent Duty Guidance: for England and Wales’ goes further

34. For practitioners, it is key that, when carrying out functions under the Prevent duty, they are mindful of the need for proportionality. A risk-based approach should always be followed, using professional judgement and curiosity. There should be one consistent and proportionate threshold applied to Prevent activity across all extremist ideologies and radicalisation concerns. Where frontline professionals have identified a concern that they consider requires a referral into Prevent, it is important that they can indicate why this risk is relevant to Prevent. As Prevent is a counter-terrorism capability, the presence, or possible presence, of any terrorist or terrorism-linked ideology will be an important consideration.

Susceptibility to radicalisation

35. Radicalisation is the process of a person legitimising support for, or use of, terrorist violence…

40. …Frontline professionals, when deciding whether to make a referral, should consider whether they believe the person they are concerned about may be on a pathway that could lead to terrorism. 

So, again, to be absolutely clear, Gemma Stubbington’s referral should have been mindful of the need for proportionality applied across extremist ideologies and radicalisation concerns and consider whether they believe the person they are concerned about may be on a pathway that could  lead to terrorism.

The referral to Prevent was rendered unnecessary IMMEDIATELY following my written statement, made under duress, explicitly expressing my intent to PEACEFUL PROTEST and detailing my itinerary with times and locations for the 24^th June, 2025. I posted this statement to Gemma Stubbington , the Metropolitan Police, Hampshire Police and others on the 15^th June, 2026, BEFORE the referral was made. I will remind you, AGAIN, of my written words

 ‘…If my protests do not attract sufficiently high volume of traffic to my blog then I will be forced to escalate future protests, to push boundaries and to be provocative. AGAIN, I am aware that I may be arrested and accept this outcome. I am aware that the police may over-react and possibly use lethal force against me. The police have a reputation for over-reaction. I am prepared to accept this outcome.

 I reiterate

 I HAVE NO INTENTION OF HARMING OR THREATENING TO HARM ANYONE.

I ACCEPT THAT I WILL BE PUTTING MYSELF IN HARMS WAY AND ACCEPT THE RISK.

IF ANY POLICE OFFICER DECIDES TO SHOOT ME THEN BE ADVISED THAT THEY WILL BE SHOOTING AN UNARMED PROTESTER.’

I EXPRESSED MY INTENTION TO PROTEST PEACEFULLY!

You stated

‘It is not for clinicians to make the decision regarding the level of risk a person may or may not pose, either to themselves or others in relation to Prevent, but instead defer this decision to those within the Prevent system to make an informed decision as to whether any additional action is required.’

There was NO RISK posed by me in relation to Prevent and so there was NO NECESSITY to refer me to Prevent

There was NO RISK of me becoming a TERRORIST.

There was NO RISK of me supporting TERRORISM.

There was NO RISK of me becoming RADICALISED.

There was NO RISK of me supporting EXTREMIST IDEOLOGIES.

You stated

‘I was pleased to hear from you that no further action was taken and that the referral had been quickly closed. Having reviewed the evidence and documentation,’

Gemma Stubbington’s referral was NOT without consequence for me. My personal data is now being held by multiple government agencies for SIX YEARS!

I am unable to access any of my personal data due to exemptions being enforced by the Trust and by Hampshire Police. One of those exemptions, co-opted by both the Trust and by Hampshire Police, is Section 45(4)(b) of the Data Protection Act 2018.'

‘Section 45(4)(b) of the UKData Protection Act 2018(DPA) allows authorities to restrict a person's "right of access" to their personal information under Part 3 (Law Enforcement Processing)

It acts as a statutory exemption, commonly utilized by police and security agencies to withhold or redact information in Subject Access Requests (DSARs) if disclosure would prejudice the "prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties". - james bruce Lawyer

The use of this exemption implies that I am the subject under suspicion of criminal offences and or the execution of criminal offences.

By referring me to Prevent, Gemma Stubbington has made me the subject of suspicion of being a criminal, and that suspicion remains on various government databases for SIX YEARS!

The words used by you in your response

‘..that the action of referring you to Prevent had caused you significant distress and upset, and that you had felt very let down. You stated that those responsible had a flawed understanding of Prevent, which you stated was mirrored by the wider Trust. You felt that the impact of referring you to Prevent had been underestimated and that it has had a profound effect on your mental health. You stated that the referral had been based on significant misunderstandings of your behaviour, neurodivergence, and creative expression, rather than on any credible risk or safeguarding concern. You felt that the referral had been made in haste and without adequate justification, which had resulted in long term stigma and harmful consequences’,

are wholly correct.

Gemma Stubbington inexplicably ticked the following boxes found in ‘Section 3, Relevant or concerning behaviours you have noticed

a)      ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR. I have absolutely NEVER engaged in any acts of anti-social behaviour. I have completed the Prevent training awareness course TWICE and noted the examples of anti-social behaviour  cited ie ‘unwillingness to engage with people who are different-secretive-adopting terrorist symbols etc- https://www.support-people-susceptible-to-radicalisation.service.gov.uk/ Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is conduct that has caused – or is likely to cause – harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Where is Gemma Stubbington’s evidence of anti-social behaviour?

I have asked Gemma Stubbington, repeatedly, since the 12^th Sept 2025, to explain why she ticked this box but, to date, she has refused.

b)     CLOSED TO CHALLENGE. "Closed to challenge" in a psychological context typically refers to a rigid, dogmatic, or close-minded cognitive state. While this can be a general human trait associated with high anxiety or a need for control, it is frequently discussed in relation to autism and neurodivergence as a form of cognitive style. Gemma Stubbington does not mention, anywhere in the PREVENT referral form, of the psychiatrist diagnosis ( actually documented in my medical records ) of my ‘autistic traits’ nor John Kelly’s referral of me for a full clinical diagnosis for ADS. I would describe myself as highly-focused, detail orientated and evidence dependant. My opinions, ideas and beliefs are the result of diligent research and evaluation but I AM open to challenge. I have asked Gemma Stubbington, repeatedly, since the 12^th Sept 2025, to explain why she ticked this box but, to date, she has refused.

c)      CONCERNING USE OF THE INTERNET. This one is particularly concerning to me. What evidence is Gemma Stubbington drawing upon to justify ticking this particular box?

PREVENT DUTY TRAINING advises on behaviour that causes concern online example; having more than one identity and more time online accessing extremist content. Where is Gemma Stubbington’s evidence of me accessing extremist content?

I don’t believe I have shared any information about my use of the internet with anyone at CMHT, The Bridge Centre apart from talking and writing about my blog at www.fourandtwentydeadcrows.com. I did ask Darren Humphrey to account for this on Gemma Stubbington’s behalf. He suggested my ‘concerning use of the internet’ was based on my blog at www.fourandtwentydeadcrows.com. The fact is that Gemma Stubbington confessed to me during my meeting with her on 2^nd July, 2025 that she had NEVER read my blog.

Gemma Stubbington appears to have invented my ‘concerning use of the internet’ to bolster justification for her referral.

I have asked Gemma Stubbington, repeatedly, since the 12^th Sept 2025, to explain why she ticked this box but, to date, she has refused.

d)     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. I am intensely interested in many topics and groups ie art, film, music etc. Prevent are clear about what is meant by topics and groups. What topics or groups RELATED TO THE prevent duty ie interest in terrorism, radical and or extremist ideologies did Gemma Stubbington have in mind when ticking this box?

I have asked Gemma Stubbington, repeatedly, since the 12^th Sept 2025, to explain why she ticked this box but, to date, she has refused.

e)      ‘THEM AND US’ LANGUAGE. ‘Them and Us’ is used when describing disagreements or differences, especially between different social groups. Is this what Gemma Stubbington had in mind when ticking this box? The only ‘them and us language’ that I have purposely expressed to anyone at CMHT, The Bridge Centre has been related to my legitimate grievances and appropriate criticisms about mental health service providers responsible for the care of my daughter and me. I do talk with candid openness during my care coordination meetings, lately with John Kelly. John Kelly encourages the casual, free flow of conversation to help cement a trusting care coordination relationship. We have talked about many different things including guitars and Led Zeppelin. I would expect my conversations to be treated as confidential, especially when there is no clinical value. I have noted that John Kelly has a lazy approach to record-taking as evidenced in my recent access to medical records. I would be very concerned if John Kelly has been conveying inaccurate details of our care coordination ‘small talk’ to Gemma Stubbington. If casual conversation in a care coordination meeting can be weaponised against a patient without the patient’s ability to challenge then care coordination itself becomes a liability and rendered not fit for purpose.

I have asked Gemma Stubbington, repeatedly, since the 12^th Sept 2025, to explain why she ticked this box but, to date, she has refused.

At the end of this section Gemma Stubbington was asked to provide more detail. Gemma Stubbington concluded by writing

‘Mark has complained about police due to an incident named by police as stalking for a health worker.’

I HAVE NEVER STALKED A HEALTHCARE WORKER. I HAVE NEVER STALKED ANYONE.

‘Section 4 Additional factors’

Gemma Stubbington inexplicably avoided ticking the following boxes

ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES, PHYSICAL EMOTIONAL ABUSE, NEURODIVERSITY, SEXUAL ABUSE and VICTIM OF ABUSE.   Why? All of these issues are either recorded in my medical records or were comprehensively explored in CMHT-sanctioned psychotherapy with THREE separate NHS psychotherapists! Particularly why did Gemma Stubbington avoid ticking the box relating to ‘NEURODIVERSITY?’ My ‘Autistic traits’ has been formally diagnosed by at least one psychologist. The Prevent referral prompted a request by me for a formal diagnosis. John Kelly, my care coordinator made an application on my behalf for an autism diagnosis in July 2025. Research confirms a disproportionate number of referrals to PREVENT of autistic people!

Accountability

My lawful Subject Access Request for records held by the Trust has been continually denied by Sadie Bell and her team at Information Governance at the Trust.

The police have been particularly uncooperative in meeting my Access to Records requests. Jason Russell, Senior Manager for Public Access at the Joint Information Management Unit, Hampshire Police has been vexatiously obstructive and is currently denying access to ALL my personal data held relating to the referral of me to PREVENT over multiple police and government databases.

It is likely Jason Russell who instructed Sadie Bell’s team at the Trust to refuse compliance with my Subject Access Requests. I have repeatedly asked Jason Russell to i) confirm that it is he who instructed Sadie Bell’s team and ii) to rescind the instruction if it was him. Jason Russell refuses to answer my questions, simply redirecting me to Sadie Bell and the Trust.

Sadie Bell of the Trust and Jason Russell of the police have been playing tennis with my personal data while I remain tied to the net.

I complained to the Information Commissioners Office and Case Manager, Paula Flanagan at the ICO and she investigated to the limits of the legal powers conferred upon the ICO. The ICO cannot legally compel Hampshire Police to release my personal data. Paula Flanagan has informed me that the ICO cannot legally compel Sadie Bell’s team at the Trust to release my personal data and advised that I seek further legal advice. Sadie Bell’s team

The ICO issued the Trust with an ‘infringement outcome decision’ and stated to me, in writing, that

‘We recommended that HIOW Healthcare review their subject access request processes, staff training, and oversight arrangements for high risk cases, including those involving safeguarding and Prevent referrals.’

Sadie Bell’s team then went further and cynically applied another exemption I have

• Schedule 2, Part 3, Paragraph 18 DPA 2018 (Health, education and social work data): This permits restriction where disclosure would be likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of any individual.

 I have argued with Sadie Bell that use of this exemption is counter-productive as it is actually causing serious harm to my mental health and will, within the next few months, cause serious physical harm to me. My arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Why? Because it doesn’t suit Sadie Bell or the Trust. Sadie Bell and the Trust would further risk serious mental and physical harm to me, the mental health patient, in order to keep me from accessing my own personal data.

What is Sadie Bell and the trust hiding?

THIS IS SURELY EVIDENCE OF LAWFARE

The manipulation of the law or legal instruments to achieve political advantage is otherwise known as CORRUPTION

Law is meant to restrain power, not serve it. It can just as easily distort the legal system we all rely on.

One solicitor has recently explained to me that

‘In plain English, this means they may withhold some or all of the data only if giving you the information would risk obstructing an official or legal inquiry, investigation, or procedure. It is not a general power to refuse access because the data is embarrassing, disputed, sensitive, connected to Prevent, or inconvenient to disclose.The important words are “necessary and proportionate”. That means the police or Trust should be able to justify why withholding the data is genuinely needed, why a lesser restriction would not be enough, and why the restriction should apply for that period of time. They should also consider your fundamental rights and legitimate interests before relying on it. The exemption should be targeted, not automatic or blanket.’

IN SUMMARY

You have concluded your investigation into my complaint, Darren.

As stated at the beginning of this document, I cannot, in good conscience, draw a line under this matter while all those involved within the Trust still cleave obstinately to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Prevent Duty.

I do not have sufficient trust in the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman and will not be relying on your advice to simply escalate my complaint to them. I will lodge a formal complaint with the PHSO as a matter of course before any potential statutory period of limitation expires. The PHSO, as a matter of course, would usually instruct a complainant to seek private legal assistance first before they carry out their own investigation.

I am currently engaging with legal representatives over this matter and will continue for as long as necessary, at least until my next planned protest and potentially new hunger strikes this September. My understanding is the statute of legal limitations of many of my potential legal claims extends to SIX YEARS, coincidently the same period of time that the referral of me to Prevent  is likely to be held on record by various government bodies. I have prepared a 61 page document of evidence for legal consideration. I may, at some point in the future, forward this document to you.

I am thoroughly committed to my cause and reiterate now with absolute clarity that my life is at risk.

This is the lasting legacy of Gemma Stubbington, the Safeguarding Board of the Trust, Sadie Bell’s team at the Trust and Hampshire Police.

I will later include this document as part of an ‘Open Letter’ to be shared widely with the Trust, Hampshire Police, the Metropolitan Police, Luke Murphy MP, various government bodies including the Office of the Independent Prevent Commissioner, the national press, the independent press, social media and my own blog.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Stock

26^th May, 2026