I will be forwarding the following 'Open Letter' later today.
5th March, 2025
‘OPEN LETTER’
This updates my ‘open letter’ of 6th January, 2025
THIS 'OPEN LETTER' IS, OSTENSIBLY, NOTIFICATION OF MY PROTEST AGAINST HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY BY WAY OF HUNGER STRIKE. I AM ACCUSED BY HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY OF OFFENCES THAT I DID NOT COMMIT. I AM, EFFECTIVELY, PROTESTING FOR THE RIGHT TO LIVE FREELY WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR.
I HAVE LIVED FOR ALMOST TWO AND A HALF YEARS WITH THE WEIGHT OF A SERIOUS INJUSTICE HANGING AROUND MY NECK. THAT INJUSTICE, METERED OUT BY HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY, HAS, TO ALL INTENT AND PURPOSE, PERMANENTLY HANDCUFFED ME. HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY HAVE INFORMED ME THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE KEY THAT WOULD RELEASE ME. APPARENTLY I CAN ONLY BE RELEASED FOLLOWING A SUCCESSFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE ‘CALL-OUT’ CHARGE FOR THIS TYPE OF LOCKSMITH OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COSTS SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDER OF £30,000. THIS EXTORTIONATE COST IS WELL BEYOND MY FINANCIAL MEANS. I CANNOT AFFORD JUSTICE.
I HAVE SPENT THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS IN SOCIAL ISOLATION, LIVING IN A VIRTUAL PRISON, NOW FEARFUL OF THE OUTSIDE WORLD. I HAVE BEEN DENIED LIFE AND LIBERTY BECAUSE HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY ACTED ON A SPURIOUS, ILL-FOUNDED ACCUSATION. I AM DESTINED TO EKE OUT THE REMAINDER OF MY NATURAL LIFE ALONE AND DISADVANTAGED. I DARE NOT ENGAGE IN ANY NEW RELATIONSHIPS AND WILL PERMANANTLY FACE DISCRIMINATION WHEN SEEKING FUTURE WORK OPPORTUNITIES. MOVING OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY WILL NOT IMPROVE MY PROSPECTS AS MY GOOD REPUTATION IS NOW IRREVOCABLY DAMAGED AND HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY WILL CERTAINLY SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT ME WITH NEIGHBOURING POLICE FORCES. I AM PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGED. HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY HAVE UNJUSTLY LABELLED ME A ‘CATEGORY 2 VIOLENT & SEXUAL OFFENDER’, FALSLY ACCUSED ME OF STALKING AND HARASSMENT AND A RISK TO THE PUBLIC. I HAVE BEEN MADE TO FEEL LIKE A CRIMINAL AND A SOCIAL PARIAH.
I HAVE BEEN RENDERED INCAPABLE OF LIVING. I MAY JUST AS WELL BE DEAD.
This 'open letter' will be widely distributed to lawyers and solicitors throughout the UK AND
shared widely with the national press and social media internationally
Urgent appeal to lawyers and solicitors reading this
I am looking for legal representation with the assistance of Legal Aid, no-win, no-fee or pro-bono in order to challenge injustice metered out by Hampshire Constabulary by way of a judicial review AND to seek compensation for psychological damage
Urgent appeal to the national press and social media reading this
I am looking for widespread coverage of my story as I protest injustice metered out by Hampshire Constabulary by way of hunger strike. Please read and share my blog www.fourandtwentydeadcrows.com.
Urgent appeal to the Independent Office for Police Conduct
Following new advice from the Minister of State for the Home Office, Lord Hanson of Flint, I am making a new complaint about Hampshire Constabulary. I will copy and paste as much of this ‘open letter’ as I can to the IOPC website
And the following addressees
Gemma Stubbington, Head of Nursing, Professions and Quality, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust
Dr Chinu Simon, Consultant Psychiatrist, CMHT Bridge Centre, Basingstoke
Dr Viv Cowdrill, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, mid-north Hants psychological services
Luke Murphy, MP for Basingstoke
Lord Hanson of Flint c/o Luke Murphy, MP
Rt Hon. Yvette Cooper, Home Secretary, Home Department c/o Luke Murphy, MP
Rt Hon. Shabana Mahmood, Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice c/o Luke Murphy, MP
Scott Johnson, Chief Inspector, Basingstoke District, Hampshire Police
Donna Jones, Hampshire & IOW Police & Crime Commissioner ( CO/2642/23 and HC/RTE/23/001638/J and CO/29081/22 )
Claire Sharkey, Caseworker, The Health and Care Professions Council ( FTP88201 )
Rebecca Hilsenrath, CEO, The Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (C-2083579 )
Thomas Body, senior caseworker, The Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (C-2083579)
Colum Conway, CE, Social Work England (ref PT6650 )
Care Quality Commission, for the attention of Ian Trenholm, Chief Executive Officer (CAS-223543-Y5M5Q5 )
Andy Ashby c/o PALS, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust ( SP22020 )
A Lowe 17010, Professional Standards Investigator, Hampshire Police ( CO/02908/22 )
The following information is based on a letter sent to the Minister of State for the Home Office, Lord Hanson of Flint via Luke Murphy, MP for Basingstoke. Lord Hanson has declined to engage with me citing
‘It is important to note that the police are operationally independent of the Government. They make decisions about how to respond to specific incidents based on their professional judgement and the circumstances at hand, and the Home Office does not have the power to direct them to make any operational decisions.’
Lord Hanson went further, suggesting I complain to the IOPC
‘Police complaints are dealt with under a comprehensive legislative framework which sets out the duties of the police themselves in handling complaints; as well as the role and functions of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), the body which provides oversight of police complaints and investigates the most serious and sensitive matters involving the police.’
I have already made multiple complaints about Hampshire Constabulary but, as of yet, not had those complaints upheld. Lord Hanson has suggested that Hampshire Constabulary ‘make decisions about how to respond to specific incidents based on their professional judgement and the circumstances at hand’ but Hampshire Constabulary has cited ‘Home Office Counting Rules’ as justification for refusing to remove false, discriminatory and psychologically damaging information about me from their database. Hampshire Constabulary has, separately, informed me that they are following MoPI ‘GUIDELINES’. I will make another appeal to the IOPC though I am not confident of a successful outcome.
Your reference ********************
Luke Murphy, MP reference *******
Dear Lord Hanson,
I have recently read your letter dated 18th December, 2024 in response to Luke Murphy, MP.
I am disappointed that my original request has been misunderstood. I realise that my case is a little complicated and that I have provided a lot of information that is likely to have challenged Luke and his small and busy team here in Basingstoke but it is absolutely necessary that my request is understood. My life depends on it.
1) My grievance is NOT to do with records held on the Police National Computer. I have already applied to ACRO for ALL records held under my name on the PNC to be removed. ACRO informed me that there are NO records held under my name because I do NOT have a criminal record. It was Hampshire Constabulary who originally advised me to approach ACRO when they knew, or should have known, that ACRO would have no records under my name.
I then went back to Hampshire Constabulary and spent the better part of 8 months, enquiring through 3 to 4 separate departments, before they finally confirmed that it was THEY who were holding records under my name in their own database.
2) Hampshire Constabulary are currently retaining false information under my name following MoPI ‘GUIDELINES’. I was never criminally convicted so your assessment of my request is based on incorrect assumptions. It is Hampshire Constabulary’s subjective interpretation of the Professional Practice on the Management of Police Information ( PPMPI ) that needs to be challenged. I am no lawyer but my simple understanding of things is that the PPMPI is a ‘code of standards’ and NOT an actual piece of legislation.
3) There were actually two components to my case, one being the deletion of false information. The second was about Hampshire Constabulary’s original decision to send a police officer to my home on the 25th September, 2022 to ‘ADVISE’ me to make no contact with my abuser, Sally Mungall. As far as I understand things THAT decision is likely best addressed by the Ministry of Justice. Following my complaint originally made on the 27th September, 2022 (ref CO/2908/22 ) I advised that my ‘only avenue to pursue the complaint following your review outcome was a Judicial Review. A Judicial Review is well beyond my financial means. As far as I understand things, this second component is a matter for the JUDICIARY, and not the Home Office.
For clarification, THESE ARE MY ASSERTIONS
1) I did NOT commit an OFFENCE
2) I am NOT guilty of STALKING
3) I am NOT guilty of HARASSMENT
4) I am NOT guilty of a VIOLENT OFFENCE or CRIME
5) I am NOT guilty of a SEXUAL OFFENCE or CRIME
6) I am NOT a risk to the public
Hampshire Constabulary are refusing to remove information from their database that accuses me of all of the above.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO HAMPSHIRE CONSTABUALRY VISITING ME AT MY HOME ON THE 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
1) I was psychologically damaged by CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall, who operated beyond her remit and capability while, ostensibly, delivering ‘Parent Work’ at the same time that my mentally ill daughter was under the service of CAMHS. Sally Mungall recklessly exposed my intergenerational trauma, was unable to contain my transference, let her own counter-transference interfere with her work and failed to maintain professional boundaries. Her actions rendered me suicidal from December, 2021 onwards.
2) Sally Mungall, aided and abetted by her clinical cohorts and leadership staff, then misrepresented me, lied to me and to others including the Community Mental Health Team at The Bridge Centre, Basingstoke and likely Hampshire Constabulary from January 2022 onwards, almost certainly to manage the professional reputation of Sally Mungall and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. All of this happened behind my back and I wasn’t aware until I began accessing my medical records as of 15th June, 2022. In the meantime I made a suicide attempt in April, 2022, a direct consequence of the damage done by Sally Mungall during ‘Parent Work’ and following the dishonest way that I was treated by CAMHS General Manager Wanda Reynolds.
3) I challenged the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust by way of a formal complaint through their Patient Advisory Laision Service but the response to that complaint fell woefully short of expectations.
4) I then proceeded to escalate my complaint to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman but was advised by them by the beginning of September, 2022 that, due to a Covid-19 backlog, my complaint would not be allocated a caseworker for 11 months. As a matter of fact the PHSO continue to fail me. It is very nearly 28 months since I first lodged a complaint with them but they have still not allocated a caseworker.
5) It was my firm conviction that CAMHS General Manager, Wanda Reynolds, was being dishonest while managing me and my complaint. It occurred to me that Sally Mungall might not have been aware of the nature of my complaint and my accusations, some of which were aimed squarely at her. I did not want Sally Mungall blindsided by a complaint that would have significant repercussions for her. I forwarded my complaint document ref SP22020 and explained my reasons for sending. This was a courtesy afforded to her. This was sent in good faith and out of kindness.
6) I was still suicidal, still the single father and main carer of my mentally ill daughter and still to be taken on as a patient by CMHT The Bridge Centre. I was in a desperate situation. I checked with Sally Mungall’s online practice details advertised on the internet and discovered that she was registered with the regulatory body, the Health and Care Professionals Council. The HCPC website informs the public that their registrants are bound by a codified set ‘Standards of conduct, performance and ethics’, an ‘ethical framework within which our registrants must work’.
Section 8. of the ‘Standards of conduct, performance and ethics’ states, ‘Be open when things go wrong’
Openness with service users and carers -where applicable, alerting your employer of what has gone wrong and following the relevant internal procedures; - informing service users and where appropriate carers, or where you do not have direct access to these individuals the lead clinician, that something has gone wrong;- providing service users and carers with a detailed explanation of the circumstances in which things have gone wrong and the likely impact; and- taking action to correct the mistake if possible and detailing this action to the service user and where appropriate, their carer.
8.2 You must apologise to a service user and their carer when something has gone wrong with the care, treatment or other services that you provide.
7) Following the advisement from PHSO and in accordance with Section 8 of the HCPC ‘Standards of conduct, performance and ethics’ published I sent a polite letter to Sally Mungall asking for help in understanding a) what had gone wrong during ‘Parent Work’ and b) why I had been so grossly misrepresented by her and her clinical cohorts and leadership within CAMHS. That letter did contain minor overtones of my romantic feelings toward Sally Mungall. It should be noted that those feelings were a direct consequence of Sally Mungall’s own failures in recklessly exposing my intergenerational trauma, failures to contain my transference, failure to prevent her own counter-transference from interfering with her work and failure to maintain professional boundaries. It should also be noted that Sally Mungall and I had previously and mutually agreed meet each other on 3rd February, 2022. The meeting was arranged for me to pick up my art therapy drawings after Sally Mungall and I had spent time reviewing them. I had expressed my intention to ask Sally Mungall to dinner at the end of this meeting and or to see her socially after. I told her that I would accept her politely accept her rejection if she declined my invitation. Sally Mungall agreed to this. In the first paragraph of the letter sent to Sally Mungall I acknowledged that her failure to accept an invitation to dinner on the 16th September, 2022 was tantamount to a rejection, which I accepted. The substantive part of the letter was directed to asking for her help in understanding a) what had gone wrong during ‘Parent Work’ and b) why I had been so grossly misrepresented by her and her clinical cohorts and leadership within CAMHS. The final paragraph of the letter stated, implicitly, that if she felt uncomfortable with my communication then to let me know and I would desist. She chose to contact Hampshire Constabulary.
There is absolutely no way that my ‘contact’ with Sally Mungall could reasonably be construed as ‘harassment’. Indeed, Police Staff Amy Lowe 17010 replied to one of my enquiries dated 12th October, 2022 stating that PC Newstead’s visit to my home on the 25th September, 2022 ‘was not a harassment warning’ and yet ‘occurrences’ were entered onto the Hampshire Constabulary database under a heading of ‘stalking/harassment’.
I categorically deny ‘stalking’ or ‘harassing’ Sally Mungall.
My communication with her by way of the copy of complaints and the following letter were both polite and reasonable.
Unless, of course, Hampshire Constabulary has evidence to validate their refusal to remove this information. Does Hampshire Constabulary have evidence?
Wanda Reynolds, along with Information Governance at the Sussex Partnership, made every effort to withhold important information or delay my access to important information. On the 5th October, 2022 I was informed in writing by Katie Rees at Information Governance at the Sussex Partnership that the decision to deny me further information had been made by clinicians and leadership involved in my case. The actual individuals that I was trying to hold to account were denying me access to information that would likely have damaged their professional reputations. I consider this to be tantamount to actual corruption. Information that did eventually find its way to me, inadvertently or otherwise, proves that Sally Mungall made contact with Hampshire Constabulary earlier around February 2022 because of me. Why was there a need for Sally Mungall to contact Hampshire Constabulary at this time? What was said and in what way did this inform decisions that led to Hampshire Constabulary visiting me at my home during September 2022 and recording and retaining false, defamatory and psychologically damaging information on their database?
I know also know that Sally Mungall was pathologically predisposed to abusing me during the time that I was under her mental healthcare. Disclosed records confirm that she was compromised by her own very strong counter-transference during our first meeting, before psychotherapy with her actually started. I believe Sally Mungall’s strong feeling of ‘being violated by the presence in the room’, her own counter-transference, informed by her own life experiences motivated her to abuse me during psychotherapy.
I likely experienced idealised transference or maternal transference during therapy with Sally Mungall. Transference is the expected, absolute necessary component of psychotherapy. Without transference there can be no effective therapy.
It is the sole responsibility of the THERAPIST to manage transference in the patient.
It is the sole responsibility of the THERAPIST to manage their own counter-transference.
It is the sole responsibility of the THERAPIST to manage boundaries in the therapeutic relationship.
MY transference was used against me. I was turned into a monster because of my own transference. Sally Mungall, aided and abetted by her clinical cohorts including Wanda Reynolds, sought to prioritise their own personal interests above my own wellbeing, in a deliberate plan to manage professional reputations and the reputation of the Trust.
Evidence in my possession proves that Sally Mungall misled and misrepresented me, lied to my face and to other clinicians and leadership in order to frame a narrative that blamed me and absolved her.
There needs to be a full investigation into this matter. Unfortunately, those charged with the responsibilities to investigate have failed or are failing.
IF HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY HAVE ACTED ON ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED EVIDENCE THEN THEY SHOULD PRESENT IT TO ME SO THAT I MIGHT CHALLENGE THE VERACITY OF THAT EVIDENCE
IT IS MY CONTENTION that Hampshire Constabulary should have made a more robust enquiry of Sally Mungall before visiting me at my home on the 25th September, 2022. Police officers should have read my letter and determined that I was not ‘harassing’ Sally Mungall. The reasonable advice should have been offered to Sally Mungall that she inform me directly or by proxy that my ‘contact’ with her was unwanted. I had no reasonable expectation to believe my contact was unwanted.
In my opinion, Sally Mungall used the state power of the police to deflect my reasonable request her help in understanding a) what had gone wrong during ‘Parent Work’ and b) why I had been so grossly misrepresented by her and her clinical cohorts and leadership within CAMHS.
I WAS PROVABLY PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGED BY SALLY MUNGALL DURING MY TIME SPENT UNDER HER THERAPEUTIC CARE.
I WAS PROVABLY PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGED BY THE COVERT MANAGEMENT OF ME BY SALLY MUNGALL’S CLINICAL COHORTS AND LEADERSHIP WITHIN CAMHS AND THE SUBSEQUENT LIES AND DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF ME EVIDENCED IN MY MEDICAL RECORDS.
TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY, BY VIRTUE OF RETAINING FALSE, DISCRIMINATORY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT ME ON THEIR DATABASE, HAVE BLAMED ME, THE VICTIM OF CLINICAL ABUSE AND NEGLECT.
I am to be forever accused of making ‘unwanted contact’, for ‘stalking and harassing’, for ‘violent and or sexual offences’ and being a permanent ‘risk’ to the public!! And for what? For sending a document and letter, both of which were reasonable things to have done.
This is an abomination!
I NEVER WAS, NOR HAVE EVER BEEN A RISK TO ANYONE OTHER THAN MYSELF.
I have NEVER hurt anyone.
I have NEVER threatened anyone.
I have NEVER intimidated or coerced anyone.
I have NEVER insinuated harm or threat of harm nor made any veiled threat of harm.
I would expect the various psychotherapists, psychiatrists, care coordinators and nurses that have treated me at CMHT The Bridge Centre to all vouch for my good character. I have met the former associate director and Head of Nursing of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust and met the Head of Nursing at CMHT The Bridge Centre under Southern Health multiple times. I am also very well acquainted with the former Head of Nursing for Mid & North Hants, Southern Health who is still personally involved with my mental health as well as my daughter’s. I would expect everyone who has met me to vouch for me and confirm that I have never been a ‘risk’ to anyone but myself.
Indeed, the following email corroborates everything that I have just written
‘Originator: Farayi Nyakubaya [MH&LD - Clinical] Date: 07 Feb 2023 16:45
Head of Clinical Services (Notes written retrospectively on 9th February 2023, 12:10am for events of 7th February 2023 at about 16:45hrs)
UPDATE ON MARK'S RISK TO OTHERS
Mark, having seen his medical records has disputed some historical entries from various SHFT staff suggesting that he poses a risk to others, specifically Sally Mungall - a CAMHS therapist. My review of the records and dialogue with SHFT staff indicated that this risk to others was only to the CAMHS therapist and appear to be based on the information that SHFT colleagues received from communication with CAMHS colleagues. Mark has had numerous interactions with various SHFT and none felt physically threatened even when Mark was very angry about things that had happened. The clinical justification for suggesting that he poses a risk to others appeared to be towards Sally Mungall exclusively. So I had a conversation with Dr Olofinlade to agree how how to appraise Mark's risk to others. Dr Olofinlade asked that I approach CAMHS colleagues and directly ask if Sally ever felt physically threatened by Mark and if she did, to get details about that which we can use to appropriately appraise the risk to her. Mark is clear that he has never done anything that physically threatened Sally. Dr Olofinlade thought a forensic psychiatrist may be required depending on what is disclosed by Sally.
I subsequently called Wanda Reynolds, CAMHS General Manager asking her to either speak to Sally or for permission for me to speak to Sally directly about Mark's risk to her. Wanda decided that she would speak to Sally. She subsequently emailed me the following (email extract) on 3rd February 2023:
· Sally consistently said that she was not worried about risk to herself but was worried about his risk to himself.
· 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 from him.
· I shared the email with Dr Olofinlade today and subsequently had a teams meeting with him with Karen Cleaver, Interim Associate Director of Mental Health present in the room with me. Dr Olofinlade and I agreed that based on the above response and my assessment of Mark based on my interactions with him as well as review of records, that to continue stating that he poses a risk to others more than any other person does is not justifiable. I agreed to put an alert on RiO that the historical entries should not be used as evidence that Mark poses an increased risk to others as it is evident that those entries were not based on robust risk assessments. Dr Olofinlade agreed to bring this in the MDT meeting on Thursday 9th February 2023 so colleagues are aware of this change in Mark's appraisal of risk to others.’
NOTE Wanda Reynolds dishonestly suggests that I sent emails and letters to Sally Mungall’s home. I actually sent a document and an email/letter using contact details obtained from Sally Mungall’s professional website and sent all correspondence to the ‘Art Room’, her designated business address. ALSO, I dispute Wanda Reynolds assertion that I was somehow ‘obsessed’. I was not obsessed. I was TENACIOUS, robustly determined to make sense of the psychologically damaging behaviour of clinicians and leadership at CAMHS, the ghosting and gaslighting, the misrepresentation and lies. I was tenacious in my attempts to uncover the TRUTH. I advised Wanda Reynolds NOT to use the word ‘obsessed’ but she continued to do so. I was NOT ‘obsessed. I WAS DAMAGED, damaged by Sally Mungall, damaged by CAMHS and damaged by the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.
I have since been DAMAGED by Hampshire Constabulary.
The records currently being retained by Hampshire Constabulary have significant adverse and negative consequences for me. I could explain those consequences in fine detail but, for the sake of brevity I will outline the following
1) I am now unable to safely form new relationships, especially with women lest another spurious claim is made against me and Hampshire Constabulary determine a pattern of behaviour and prosecute me. Any potential future relational grievance can now be weaponsied against me. Better to continue socially isolating myself.
2) I had previously enjoyed a very successful career that included teaching and lecturing. Some positions of employment that I have previously held required an enhanced DBS check. I am now and forever denied many future employment opportunities because I will likely fail future DBS checks. I have written to the government department that handles DBS checks and they have confirmed the strong possibility that I will fail such checks.
3) I am now traumatised by the involvement of Hampshire Constabulary. I find the bearing of these odious accusations completely unsustainable. I have been the beneficiary of four different psychotherapists working with me to try and mend the psychological damage done by Sally Mungall and her clinical and leadership cohorts and also the trauma inflicted by Hampshire Constabulary. The labelling of me as a violent, sexual offender accused of stalking and harassing are intolerable. I am almost certain never to fully recover from this ordeal.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT I AM CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN A PROTEST AGAINST HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY’S DECISION TO RETAIN FALSE, DISCRIMINATORY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGING INFORMATION UNDER MY NAME ON THEIR DATABASE.
I am committed to my second hunger strike, which recommences today at 1pm 5th March, 2025, until ALL false, defamatory and psychologically damaging information held on their database under my name is entirely removed. I will take this protest to its ultimate and irreversible conclusion. I am currently confined to a virtual prison and been rendered a social pariah. I am denied freedom. I am denied a normal life.
My hunger strike will eventually endanger the tiny allowance of life allowed me and I will likely be detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act. If I am detained then I will comply until I am released, after which I will begin another hunger strike. I plan to extend my protest by staging theatrical stunts centred around strategic and sensitive public locations in London and this will increase the likelihood of an overreaction by the police. It may be that I become the victim of a police fatal shooting. Otherwise I will, at some point, abscond and die in the countryside.
I am currently journalling my story on social media. You are invited to read my blog at
www.fourandtwentydeadcrows.com
One of the motivations for sharing my story on social media was to ensure that I had the widest available audience watching me when I started my hunger strike. There was absolutely NO movement by Hampshire Constabulary following my previous hunger strike which lasted almost nine weeks. It will be interesting to see the reaction when my story is laid bare under public scrutiny and judged in the court of public opinion.
HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY HAVE HANDCUFFED ME AND PURPOSELY LOST THE KEY. HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY ALLEDGE THAT I CAN ONLY BE RELEASED FOLLOWING A SUCCESSFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE LEGAL EQUIVILENT OF A CALL OUT CHARGE FOR A LOCKSMITH COSTS SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDER OF £30,000. I CANNOT CURRENTLY AFFORD JUSTICE.
And, finally,
Bridge Centre CMHT - Meadows Team Assistant Psychologist Duty. Message received from reception regarding Mark from Dr Mahwash Gaba and Sargant Jim Charlton (***********).
· T/C to Mahwash who detailed her concerns. Email received in duty inbox as requested, · From: Mark Stock <********************> Sent: 04 July 2023 16:29
‘T/c to Sargant Jim Charlton, who clarified that this email is in response to an outcome of Mark's request to delete his record in relation to the outcome of harassing/stalking a mental health professional. Jim advised that Mark does not have a criminal record, it is a police record that is held internally and not on the national criminal databased. Jim advised that he has requested his colleagues explain this to Mark.’
IT IS DISINGENOUS FOR SERGEANT JIM CHARLTON, OR ANY OTHER REPRESENTATIVE OF HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY TO SUGGEST THAT I DO NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD. The false, discriminatory and psychologically damaging information currently held internally IS a defacto criminal record and CAN be used against me at any time in the future. ‘No Further Action’ was taken against me but NFA is NOT an exoneration. I did NOT harass or stalk a mental health professional!!!
This entire debacle ENDS soon. A suicide inquest will ultimately hold Sally Mungall, her clinical and leadership cohorts within CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke, the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Hampshire Constabulary to account.
MARK STOCK
5th March, 2025
