THE PREVENT FILES # 4
‘Unaccountability’ is the quality or state of being unaccountable, meaning not responsible or answerable for one's actions.
Sadie Bell’s email that arrived through my inbox on Friday, February 6, 2026 and published in Latest Issues 7th February, 2026 is, unequivocally, a collection of statements defending the ‘Unaccountability’ of Gemma Stubbington, Susan Corley, the Safeguarding Board and, by association, the entirety of the Hampshire and IOW Healthcare Trust. Only a fool would take Sadie Bell’s written words on their face value. The use of ‘exemptions’ under Data Protection Law are now obviously being wielded by Sadie Bell with interchangeable convenience so as to deny me access to records. She is, in effect, telling me that I am too stupid to notice her legal sleight of hand, believing me ignorant of Data Protection Law or too lazy to care.
I firmly believe that Sadie Bell is using and or is being instructed to use ‘lawfare’ to deny me my personal data.
I also firmly believe that my personal data is being withheld because it can be used by me to hold Gemma Stubbington, Susan Corley, the Safeguarding Board and, by association, the entirety of the Hampshire and IOW Healthcare Trust to ‘account’.
This is neither ‘law nor fair’.
The exploitation of entrusted authority through the manipulative interpretation of legal provisions for personal benefit is otherwise known as ‘corruption’.
I responded to Sadie Bell’s email sent to me on Friday, February 6, 2026 at 9:11 AM with several of my own. Here are some extracts,
From: Mark Stock ******************************Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 1:18 AM To: BELL, Sadie (HAMPSHIRE AND ISLE OF WIGHT HEALTHCARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST) ******************Subject: Fw: ICO Case reference: IC-***********
Cc to 4 others
Dear Sadie,
…With reference to your email received by me on Friday 6th Feb
You state that 'We are withdrawing the Section 45(4)(b) exemption'
You then state that 'We are instead applying the following exemptions: Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 2(1)(a)–(c) DPA 2018 (Crime and taxation: general): '
BOTH EXEMPTIONS ARE SUBSTANTIVELY THE SAME. YOU STILL NEED TO ABIDE BY PAULA FLANAGAN'S INSTRUCTIONS OUTLINED IN HER LETTER TO YOU DATED 16TH FEBRUARY 2026 ie
'...As you are aware, the Trust must be able to justify: 1. Why it considers Mr Stock ’s data is connected to law enforcement processing. 2. How providing the withheld information to Mr Stock would be likely to prejudice those crime-related purposes. 3. Whether the restriction is necessary and proportionate — a key principle referenced in ICO exemption guidance.'
Sadie, please justify points 1 to 3 above to Paula and to me.
You go on to apply a completely new exemption Schedule 2, Part 3, Paragraph 18 DPA 2018 (Health, education and social work data):
This completely new exemption 'permits restriction where disclosure would be likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of any individual.'
Sadie, please answer the following questions
What is your justification for applying this completely new exemption?
Who are the individuals likely to be caused physical or mental health harm by the disclosure?
I am seeking access to ALL records and communication between Gemma Stubbington and the Safeguarding Board relevant to the referral of me to PREVENT. Gemma Stubbington and Susan Corley of the Safeguarding Board are the only two individuals who would be identified in the disclosure. Are you seriously suggesting that Gemma Stubbington and or Susan Corley would likely to be caused physical or mental health harm by the disclosure?
I am seeking access to ALL records and communication between the Police and Gemma Stubbington and or Susan Corley and YOU. You have previously written to me insisting that the Police have instructed you to withhold ALL PREVENT DOCUMENTS. Are you seriously suggesting that the Police would likely to be caused physical or mental health harm by the disclosure?
I am of the understanding that the completely new exemption that you are attempting to apply needs to meet the 'SERIOUS HARM TEST.
Data Protection Act 2018, PART 2 states
(1)
'In this Part of this Schedule—
“the appropriate health professional”, in relation to a question as to whether the serious harm test is met with respect to data concerning health, means—
(a)
the health professional who is currently or was most recently responsible for the diagnosis, care or treatment of the data subject in connection with the matters to which the data relates,
(b)
where there is more than one such health professional, the health professional who is the most suitable to provide an opinion on the question, or
(c)
a health professional who has the necessary experience and qualifications to provide an opinion on the question, '
5) Who was or who were the appropriate health professionals making clinical assessments of the 'SERIOUS HARM TEST'?
6) Do you agree that Gemma Stubbington would be disqualified as an appropriate health professional due to a conflict of interest? I am making these SARs to gather evidence of Gemma Stubbington's malpractice. Do you agree that using Gemma Stubbington as a health professional to assess a SERIOUS HARM TEST under these circumstances opens the assessment to unreasonable risk of CORRUPTION?
7) Which health professional within or associated with CMHT The Bridge Centre do you think is qualified to provide an unbiased SERIOUS HARMS TEST assessment of me?
I CAN CATAGORICALLY ASSURE YOU THAT I HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY HARMED BY GEMMA STUBBINGTON'S REFERRAL OF ME TO PREVENT.
I CAN CATAGORICALLY ASSURE YOU THAT I HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY HARMED BY THE OBSTRUCTION, OBFUSCATION AND INTERFERENCE OF MY RIGHT TO HOLD GEMMA STUBBINGTON AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE TRUST AND INDIVIDUALS IN HAMPSHIRE POLICE TO ACCOUNT.
I CAN CATAGORICALLY ASSURE YOU THAT I CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CAUSED PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH HARM BY THE DISCLOSURE.
The Prevent referral went ahead despite my protests. The referral was disproportionate, psychologically damaging, and unjust.
The Prevent referral was actioned, assessed, and closed almost immediately. I had absolutely NO say in the matter. This was DONE TO ME. Gemma Stubbington turned the referral around within FIVE DAYS
Now it is my turn. I demand that people are held to account. You have been obstructing my rightful access to my personal data for FIVE MONTHS!!!
YOUR OBSTRUCTION IS MAKING ME ILL!!!!!!¬!¬¬!!!!!!!!!!!!
I DEMAND YOU DISCLOSE ALL THE RECORDS THAT I HAVE REQUESTED NOW!!
Absolutely, sincerely,
MARK
From: Mark Stock ******************************Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 11:17 AM To: BELL, Sadie (HAMPSHIRE AND ISLE OF WIGHT HEALTHCARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST) ******************Subject: Fw: ICO Case reference: IC-***********
For the attention of Paula Flanagan at the Information Commissioners Office
‘…Well, Sadie,
With reference to your 'revised' declared exception status relating to
' Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 2(1)(a)–(c) DPA 2018 (Crime and taxation: general): This permits us to restrict data subject rights where disclosure would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment of risk; ...'
Please identify the 'crime' and or the 'offenders' and or the 'assessment' YOU believe likely at risk of prejudice' following disclosure of ALL the remaining records that I have requested. Implies
Your use of Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 2(1)(a)–(c) DPA 2018 (Crime and taxation: general) implies that I am a criminal and or an offender.
Let me remind you AGAIN. Gemma Stubbington's contentious referral of me to Prevent was actioned and closed by Dawn Jenks of Prevent Referral…
Date of referral – 18/06/25
Date of assessment completed – 04/07/25
Date Supervisor agreed closure – 07/07/25…
…There is NO crime and there was NO offence.
With reference to your 'revised' declared exception status relating to
'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.'
The only individuals associated with my Subject Access Request are Gemma Stubbington, Susan Corley, police officers assigned to Hampshire Constabulary and ME.
Are you seriously insinuating that Gemma Stubbington and or Susan Corley and or police officers assigned to Hampshire Constabulary would likely be caused physical or mental harm following disclosure?
My Subject Access Requests are necessary to hold people to account for their actions!
You should not be using 'Schedule 2, Part 3, Paragraph 18 DPA 2018 (Health, education and social work data) to shield Gemma Stubbington and or Susan Corley from accountability.
The only individual being caused harm is ME. Your persistent refusal to disclose MY personal data, over many months, is causing ME persistent, pervasive and escalating mental harm.
Regards,
Mark
From: Mark Stock *******************************Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 9:38 AM To: BELL, Sadie (HAMPSHIRE AND ISLE OF WIGHT HEALTHCARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST) ******************Cc: icocasework **********************Subject: Re: ICO Case reference: IC-***********
For the attention of Paula Flanagan at the ICO.
Dear Paula,
Please. I want to challenge Sadie Bell's latest decision…
Dear Sadie Bell
Your inconsistency in applying relevant legislation is evidence in of itself that you are looking or being instructed to look for any excuse to deny me lawful access to my personal data.
This amounts to lawfare.
The Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 2(1)(a)–(c) DPA 2018 (Crime and taxation: general): is INAPPROPRIATE as there is NO CRIME, NO APPREHENSION OR PROSECUTION OF OFFENDERS AND NO RISK.
Schedule 2, Part 3, Paragraph 18 DPA 2018 (Health, education and social work data): is likewise INAPPROPRIATE as there are NO individuals at risk of serious harm either physical or mental health from disclosure.
I AM THE ACTUAL PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CAUSED MENTAL HARM AND WHO CONTINUES TO BE CAUSED MENTAL HARM BY YOU , DENYING ME ACCESS TO MY PERSONAL DATA WHILE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE TRUST…
