Some updates
THE NEW CAMPAIGN
I am a little behind on the work for my ‘new campaign’.
I am refining the initiative designed to bring a substantially increased readership to my blog here at www.fourandtwentydeadcrows.com
The initial concept has evolved into something truly epic, packaging words and art in a way that properly conveys my experiences with mental health services in Basingstoke while advocating on behalf of my daughter. This new campaign is designed to be highly entertaining, drawing upon magical realism, magic realism, or marvellous realism, the style or genre of fiction and art that presents a realistic view of the world while incorporating magical elements, often blurring the lines between speculation and reality. It will be a work that blends fantastic imagery and characters while being firmly anchored to real people and real events. I have planned to tell this story over the course of ten years, mirroring the time that Hampshire Constabulary intend to keep false, discriminatory and psychologically damaging information about me on their database.
This new campaign will be delivered through the following social media platforms
Tumblr
X
Deviant Art
Comic Fury
Later this month I will be sending links to a select audience of current friends with invitations to special previews.
And then, in December, I will roll out the new campaign to this blog, to the national press and to UK publishers.
The new campaign has the working title ‘A-Muse’.
Other updates
The reason for the minor delays to my new campaign is because my attention has been diverted by issues related to the Health and Care Professions Council and to the referral of me to Prevent, the governments counter-terrorism initiative.
I have been taking time to collate information in response to the following email received from Dovlet Seyidov on Fri 31st October
‘Dear Mr Stock,
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding your questions about case *********
I appreciate the opportunity to address your questions and have taken the time to review the relevant information to provide you with a response.
Please find below our responses to the queries you raised:
How can I be assured that the Senior Decision Maker at the HCPC has reviewed all the evidence I submitted? The Senior Decision Maker reviews all materials stored within our case management system. Any documentation you have submitted have been uploaded and made available for their consideration.
What about the evidence that was withheld from me by the Trust’s Information Governance team—for example, Sally Mungall’s supervision records? Decisions regarding the release of such information fall under the remit of the Trust’s Information Governance policies. As such, we are unable to confirm what, if any, information may have been withheld.
I have email records of all documents sent to the HCPC over the past year. Is there a way to cross-reference these with HCPC’s records to ensure all evidence has been considered? If you are able to provide a list of the documents along with the dates they were sent, we may be able to verify receipt. Please note, however, that this does not guarantee a formal review will be conducted, nor can we confirm any subsequent action.
Is there a formal complaints process I can follow, or have I already exhausted all available avenues within the HCPC? For further guidance on our complaints process, I recommend reviewing the HCPC’s Customer Service Policy, which is available on our website.
Has the HCPC sought third-party consent for the police reports in question? To the best of my knowledge, it is the responsibility of the police to obtain any necessary consent prior to sharing information with the HCPC.
I hope this response addresses your questions.
Kind regards
Dovlet Seyidov
Case Team Manager - Investigations, Fitness to Practise’
I also attended a meeting yesterday with the new Head of Nursing, Professions and Quality, at CMHT Bridge Centre, Joe Jackson, to discuss my complaints about the recent referral of me to Prevent and about serious issues revealed in my recent medical records disclosure. In response to information relayed in that meeting I compiled the following statement
‘5th November, 2025
Dear Joe,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me yesterday.
I have had some time to reflect on our meeting. Indeed, I have been so distressed by what you told me that I have barely slept. I am now painfully tired and feel physically sick.
I have been rendered incredulous of your reporting the Trust’s position in relation to my complaint. You began the meeting with the statement that, paraphrased, it was felt that Gemma’s referral of me to the government’s counter-terrorism unit, Prevent, was reasonable and proportionate and that my complaint was to be closed.
You went further by informing me that I could take my complaint further, reminding me that the complaint process inevitably leads to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman.
And I replied, paraphrased, that the PHSO is where complaints go to die.
You openly smiled at that reply. I am sure you know, as well as I do, that the PHSO is loathe to actually investigate the full scope of any complaints presented to them. Virtually no complaints brought to the PHSO are ever upheld. They are ‘corrupt by design’ and legislative reform of the PHSO has been recognised by PACAC as an absolute priority.
I put it to you, Joe, that you smiled because you already know that a corrupt complaints process is baked into the system.
I have first-hand experience of that same corrupt process. I made a complaint to the PHSO about the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust back in September 2022 and I am still fighting to have them investigate the full scope of my complaint.
Gemma’s referral of me to Prevent was wrong!
The referral was made in response to my expressed intention of peacefully protesting against Hampshire Police outside the Houses of Parliament, Downing Street and other significant locations in Central London.
Protest should NEVER be conflated with terrorism.
The absurdity of the referral to Prevent was recognised, first by the member of counter-terrorism command S015 who engaged me outside the Houses of Parliament and then by PC Dawn Jenks 25487 of Prevent Referrals.
The member of SO15, ‘D’, was completely disarmed by my peaceful, cooperative attitude, remarking that I was obviously not a terrorist threat.
Likewise, I spoke with Dawn Jenks on the telephone on the 12 September and she confirmed that she was the officer designated to assess the referral. She told me that she found it easy to determine that I was not a terrorist threat because there was absolutely no evidence of terrorist intent by me. She closed the case immediately.
So, here are some of the questions that have kept me awake all night
.
ONE. How is it that the Trust still believes that Gemma’s referral of me to Prevent was reasonable and proportionate?
TWO. Why has Gemma still not accounted for the false information she submitted on the Prevent referral forms?
THREE. Where are the records of the communication between Gemma and the Head of Safeguarding, Susan Corley that I requested?
It is now blindingly obvious to me that the Trust and the staff working for the Trust has a poor understanding of Prevent, the criteria for referral and the processes, procedures and rationale in completing referral forms.
In her email to me dated 10th September 2025, Gemma informed me that she was ‘keen to look to help’ and ‘keen to make sure we address your concern’. I have made multiple requests directly to Gemma and through my care coordinator, John Kelly, to account for the false information she submitted on the Prevent referral forms.
A sincere expression of trust, transparency and accountability would have prompted release of ALL records to me, including the rationale behind Susan Corley’s advice to involve Hampshire Police.
Gemma first informed me that you had replaced her as Head of Nursing, Professions and Quality on the 10th September, 2025. It has taken you almost two months to investigate my complaint before even introducing yourself to me. I now understand why it took you so long to approach me.
You, Gemma and the wider Trust have obviously been circling the wagons, so to speak, devising a response that washes your hands of all accountability. Yesterday you told me that the Trust intended to close the complaint but you have failed to explain Gemma’s referral and the processes, procedures and rationale behind the referral and the Trust’s backing of Gemma’s referral.
I believe this investigation to be deeply flawed and unprofessional. I believe the Trust’s position on this matter speaks to wider concerns about issues that have profound implications on future referrals with other vulnerable mental health patients. I believe that other mental health patients are currently at risk from staff who have been poorly trained in managing Prevent referrals.
I raised all of the above issues with you yesterday and you seemed to reflect positively on my concerns. We agreed that you would contact me again in two week and I hope that you will be able to persuade Gemma and Susan to meet with you and I at a later date. I want to take Gemma at her word that she will use this complaint as an opportunity for learning. I also want Susan to listen to concerns and consider a revaluation of the Trust’s formal policies around future Prevent referrals.
In the meantime I will be seeking advice from the advocacy group PreventWatch and making preparations to take this complaint to the Board of Directors, the national press, Luke Murphy MP, the PHSO and other government and regulatory bodies.
Please would you forward details of Gemma’s regulatory body?
Please also be aware that I have asked for records from the Joint Information Management Unit of the police but been denied. I have a complaint pending with the Information Commissioners Office asking for that denial of access to be revoked but been informed that the ICO are currently operating behind a waiting list of 29 weeks for caseworkers. It is almost certain that future requests by me to have these Prevent referral records removed from Hampshire Police databases will also be denied. I now have TWO sets of highly contentious and inflammatory records under my name being held on police databases. My protest outside the Houses of Parliament was against Hampshire Police and their stubborn refusal to remove the FIRST set of false, discriminatory and psychologically damaging records under my name on their database.
Yours sincerely,
Mark’
