The following is the remaining breakdown of my medical records partially disclosed by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust on the 15th June, 2022.
This part covers pages 9 to 21out of 32 'Progress Notes' and focuses on the MISREPRESENTATION of me and the FALSE ACCUSATIONS and LIES levelled at me, primarily by CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall and accepted, without question, by clinicians at CMHT the Bridge Centre and CRHTT Basingstoke.
The first entries posted here are actually copied and pasted from 'MY COMPLAINT REVISED 30TH JULY 2022' under a section titled 'Rebuttals' and shortly after first reading my medical records.
'JANUARY 31ST Telephone conversation between Sally Mungall and Ian Whaites. SM says ‘yes it is possible any RISKS to myself might increase on receipt of the letter’. She goes on to suggest ‘Marks feelings towards me after reading the letter could be part of the more full assessment when he is supported to receive the letter by the crisis team ( I never received a letter. Instead, the cowardly tactic employed by Camhs staff was to phone me the day before I was to have an appointment with Sally to pick up artwork and lie to me telling me that ‘Sally could not attend to any of her appointments for that week due to ‘unforseen circumstances’.’ No letter was sent to me at that stage and no need for crisis team. Instead, Kirsty Henry was obviously instructed to dig at me to assess my RISK to Sally. Ian Whaites goes further and suggests ‘they ( Weston ) need to speak to you ( SM ) about RISK to yourself as I could sense the urgency in your voice.’ THIS IS CLEARLY IAN WHAITES DELIBERATELY MISLEADING SALLY. The urgency in Sallys voice is down to her concern for me as the telephone conversation goes on to say ‘Sally believes that Mark is a high risk to himself’. Ian Whaites even acknowledges that ‘SALLY DOESNT FEEL AT RISK FROM HIM. It seems obvious to me that IAN WHAITES is ATTEMPTING TO CRAFT A NARRATIVE framing me as a RISK and escalating the perception of me as a RISK to Sally.
JANUARY 31ST Telephone call received from WESTON HENRY by IAN WHAITES. THIS IS THE FIRST OCCOURANCE OF ALLUSION TO ‘STALKING’. It comes from Ian Whaites and is unfounded. There is no evidence of me ‘stalking’ Sally. ‘ tc received from Ian Whaites re Mr Stock . Ian reports he has had a discussion with the referrer (SM) and sheers some of the concerns raised. Ian feels based on his discussion with Sally Mr Stock requires a more urgent approach. We had a discussion around what appears to be stalking behaviour which should be reported to the police . However according to ian , Sally DOES NOT FEEL AT RISK to this gentleman. We discussed that she could potentially be at risk a sat the point he receives this letter and hence the police needs to be informed. Ian suggest CRHTT have a discussion with Sally to appreciate the gravity of concerns. We left it that I will have a discussion with Carole B and potentially have an MDT . Also CRHTT will have a discussion with Sally.’ I regard this as CLEAR PROVOCATION BY IAN WHITES. INFLAMMATORY REHTORIC DESIGNED TO MISREPRESENT ME AND CRIMINALISE ME. ALSO DESIGNED TO UNDULY ALARM SALLY MUNGALL. There has been absolutely no evidence to suggest that I have been ‘stalking’ Sally and there has NEVER been any evidence to suggest that I could or would EVER be a RISK to Sally.
IAN WHAITES accusation is unfounded. If there was any substance to IAN WHAITES accusation then I would expect him to have been alerted to the possibility that I might be suffering from a mental health disorder. I have since learned that two types of the four categories of ‘stalkers‘ are usually diagnosed as being mentally ill. IAN WHAITES wasn’t interested in logical clinical thinking.
The previous telephone conversation between Weston Henry and Ian Whaites leads to MDT meeting following day where ‘Risk to self’ is considered LOW ( despite the referrer, Sally’s, concern that my ‘Risk is to self’ is High ) but more incredibly, my ‘Risk to others’ is deemed MODERATE ( Obsessional behaviour’! ) I am left incredulous as to the use of the words ‘obsessional behaviour’. My behaviour is categorically NOT ‘obsessional’. The nature of my feelings towards Sally are described in other parts of this full document as ‘innocently romantic’ and informed by intense and harrowing therapy leading to probable maternal transference with Sally during ‘parent work’ back between September and December 2021, information that Ian Whaites remained wilfully ignorant of.
CLINICAL UPDATE Again states the ‘Sally ( therapist ) has expressed NO concerns for her own safety’ but this is dismissed and overruled with ‘Any concerns for stalking or threat to Sally ( therapist ) should be reported to the police’.
JANUARY 31ST Telephone call SM AND Fiona Croombs SM says ‘If we were concerned for my safety then to call the police’
FEBRUARY 1ST Email by Sally Mungall ‘ Because of the perceived risk to Art therapist ( herself ) we ( CAMHS ) have cancelled his appt 3rd Feb. Admin let him know HE SEEMED CALM ON HEARING THE CANCELLATION. Only concerned for the art therapist. Communication from Dad ( me ) to be MONITORED.’ Who exactly at Camhs put forward the idea to Sally that she was at perceived RISK from me?
FEBRUARY 8TH Kirsty Henry’s mental health assessment of me states my ‘Risk to self HIGH My Risk to others LOW. I addressed the circumstances surrounding my mental health assessment with Kirsty in a letter to Wanda Reynolds of Camhs very recently. The following is an extract from that email,
‘ as if I weren’t suffering enough staff were deliberately provoking me so as to gauge my state of mind over Sally. For example I can see in the medical records that Kirsty Henry was deliberately poking me during my mental health assessment of 8th February to get a reaction regarding Sally. The medical records show that Sally spoke to Ian Whaites of the Bridge Centre prior to my assessment with Kirsty on the 8th February, Sally specifically suggests ‘IDEALLY MARKS FEELINGS TOWARDS ME AFTER READING THE LETTER ( letter to be sent to be cancelling appointment of the 3rd Feb-no letter even sent, cowardly deceitful phone call received by me from Camhs rec instead. ) COULD BE PART OF THE MORE FULL ASSESSMENT ( with Kirsty ) I made mention of that assessment with Kirsty Henry in other emails I suspected even at the time of the assessment that Kirsty knew more than she was letting on. I found her line of questioning very suspicious as I DID NOT WANT TO UNDULY UPSET MYSELF IN FRONT OF KIRSTY. I had a deep conviction at the time that I wanted my feelings towards Sally kept more or less private but Kirsty BADGERED ME ON THE ISSUE, USING DELIBERATE TACTICS TO GET ME TO OPEN UP. When she suggested that I was ‘HEARTBROKEN’ I BROKE DOWN IN TEARS. This was DESPICABLE MANIPULATION OF ME. I was disgusted to learn this of this yesterday but it proves that my instincts were spot on. I was being monitored during that assessment. It makes me physically sick.... I should say that I don’t blame Kirsty Henry. I established a good rapport with her during my assessment with her on the 8th Feb and believe she was being asked to do something she wasn’t necessarily comfortable with. She engaged in conversational tactics designed to elicit an emotional response from me and, she def did get it. I was visibly upset, in tears at her suggestion that I was ‘heartbroken’ being separated from Sally. Kirsty showed me a lot of sympathy and I appreciated her sincere warmth. She told me that she didn’t think the way I was being handled was right ( incidentally, every professional that I have met over the last six months in relation to my mental health has conveyed genuine incredulity at the way that I have been treated by both Camhs and the Bridge Centre ). Her opinion was that I deserved more and that I should have been given the opportunity to meet with Sally so that I could find some closure. I remember Kirsty being very kind to me.’
The remaining entries posted here were collated over the last week.
'Originator: Kirsty Henry senior nurse practitioner date 8th Feb 2022 22.30
A written report by Kirsty Henry of her mental health assessment of me earlier on the 8th Feb 2022.
Kirsty Henry’s mental health assessment of me was detailed and accurate.
The most important detail to raise here is Kirsty’s ‘risk assessment’ Kirsty writes
‘Risk to self ; HIGH
Risk to others; LOW; There was no evidence from assessment today and his history that he is at risk to others.’
THIS RISK ASSESSMENT WAS THE ONLY VALID CLINICAL ASSESSMENT. This risk assessment was ignored and or regraded by other clinicians that had no face to face experience of me. Instead, those clinicians chose to regrade my risk assessment based entirely upon the hearsay of clinicians and leadership at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive. Kirsty Henry’s risk assessment of me should never have been regraded unless superseded by another formal mental health assessment carried out by a suitably qualified clinician.
Originator: Kendall Howard CMHT date 11th Feb 2022 09.13
Basingstoke CMHT Outcoming discussion.
Present; Ian Whaites, Kendall Howard, Dr Gurung
‘Discussion; ‘Urgent…Possible risk to Sally who Mark is currently having counselling with. Reports of fascinations with Sally.’
FACTUALLY INCORRECT. I was not ‘currently having counselling’ with Sally Mungall. I had been given inappropriate and unsanctioned psychotherapy by Sally Mungall and sessions had finished on the 16th December, 2021. I was actually awaiting a scheduled meeting to review the art therapy drawings made during sessions with Sally Mungall. I TAKE OFFENCE at the term ‘fascinations’. What I actually experienced during sessions with Sally Mungall was ‘transference’, likely ‘idealised’, ‘positive’ or ‘maternal’ ‘transference’. I can only speculate that Ian Whaites was the person who used the word ‘fascinations’. Ian Whaites had never even met me and was likely misled by Sally Mungall herself.
Originator: Kirsty Henry senior nurse practitioner date 18th Feb 2022 14.00
‘Discussion with Sally; ‘…He had printed pictures of Sally and had them around his house, he would often talk to them and make reference to Sally as been part of his family and adopting his daughter.’
ALL CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. (See my earlier rebuttal)
Almost five lines of copy are completely redacted at this point.
WHAT WAS REDACTED?
‘I have asked that Mark be updated about the professionals meeting.’
I WAS NOT UPDATED BY SALLY ABOUT THE PROFESSIONALS. In fact I only discovered the appalling details of the ‘professionals meeting’ after I made an ‘access to records’ request and a partial disclosure was made by Jan Knapp at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. I am certain that Sally Mungall and her clinical cohorts and leadership at CAMHS would have NEVER voluntarily updated me about the ‘professionals meeting’ because the minutes taken revealed evidence of MISREPRESENTATION of me and LIES to me and about me.
PLAN; Sally would discuss the above with her team with the hope to formulate a plan and then for someone to feedback to Mark’.
NOBODY REACHED OUT TO ME WITH ‘FEEDBACK’.
Originator: Nicola Hoyle North & Mid CRHT- Team lead date 21 Feb 2022 10.54
Professionals meeting - Wednesday 9th February 2022 3pm Re; Mark & Megan Stock
Attendees;
Sally Mungall (SM) – SPFT Basingstoke CAMHS Art Therapist. Julie Yalden (YT) – SPFT Safeguarding Lead for Hampshire CAMHS. Mark Birbeck (MB) – SPFT Basingstoke CAMHS Child Psychotherapist. Nicola Hoyle (NH) – Team lead for Crisis resolution home treatment team. Dr Kashif Minhas – GP Bramblys Grange Medical Practice.
‘By Kirsty, detailed assessment.…Is able to rationalise thoughts. Not risk to others.’
‘NOT RISK TO OTHERS’ IS AN ACCURATE READING FROM KIRSTY HENRY’S DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ME. This risk assessment is about to be ignored by all those present at this ‘professionals meeting’. (
‘JY to NH – in terms of assessment, assuming we are not looking at the risk of dad harming meg in process of ending his own life. NH – no, reads that he is looking for further provision of care for meg.’
THESE STATEMENTS COUNTER SALLY MUNGALL’S AND MARK BIRBECK’S PREVIOUS UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS THAT I WAS A RISK TO MY OWN DAUGHTER.
‘SM – Been told not in best interest to handover art work to dad, senior leadership agreed this would not be appropriate. Appt cancelled by admin. Dad unaware that this isn’t planned to carry on.’
CONFIRMATION OF DECEIT BY SALLY MUNGALL AND HER CLINICAL AND LEADERSHIP COHORTS. At the end of the final ‘review’ meeting at CAMHS attended by my daughter, Mark Birbeck, Sally Mungall and myself, I turned to Sally Mungall and said ‘I’ll see you on the 3rd of February, then?’ Sally Mungall hesitated, clearly alarmed, caught between an obligation and a deception. We had mutually arranged a meeting on the 3rd of February, 2022 so that we might review my art therapy drawings. CAMHS admin telephoned me the day before, 2nd Feb, to inform me that ‘due to unforeseen circumstances, Sally would not be able to attend any of her meetings during that week. I asked if I should call back the following week to reschedule but was informed, rudely, by CAMHS admin, that someone would call me instead. Nobody called me and I waited patiently and politely for SIX WEEKS until I wrote to Sally Mungall, via CAMHS admin on the 14th March and then again on the 21st March. Evidence, including the above statement, prove that decisions had already been made to PERMANENTLY cancel the appointment. Sally Mungall lied to me when she replied ‘Yes!’ to my question ‘I’ll see you on the 3rd of February, then?’ CAMHS admin then perpetuated the falsehood on the 2nd February.
‘rationale behind not having this meeting?
‘SM SM agreed to meet with dad to hand over work, since then Mark handed over 12 page letter of love. Should be just handing over the art work but cannot be that as Mark will be wanting to discuss love for SM.’
CLEAR DECEPTION BY SALLY MUNGALL. Sally Mungall and I had mutually agreed to meet on the 3rd of February, 2022 in order that we jointly ‘review’ the artwork that I had completed during therapy sessions with her.
THE FACTS ARE that I asked Sally Mungall, during therapy sessions with her, ‘When should I make the appointment with you to review my artwork?’ Sally Mungall had said that I should call into CAMHS reception to make the appointment when I felt ready and able. I was worried that Sally might leave CAMHS, Bramblys Drive permanently before I called into CAMHS reception. Sally assured me that she wasn’t going to be leaving CAMHS any time soon. I noted the sadness that accompanied her words and imagined that she wasn’t happy at CAMHS. I then asked her ‘How much time will we have together during the review of my drawings and she replied ‘As much time as you need.’ I told her many times that I intended to ask to see her socially at the end of the artwork ‘review and she agreed to this arrangement. SALLY MUNGALL WAS FULLY AWARE OF MY FEELINGS TOWARDS HER AND OF MY INTENTIONS TO ASK HER TO SEE HER SOCIALLY AFTERWARDS, LONG BEFORE I HANDED HER MY 12 PAGE ‘LETTER OF LOVE’.
NH ‘…this will support showing Mark that boundaries has been crossed so access has now gone to SM’
I STRONGLY DISPUTE NICOLA HOYLE’S ACCUSATION. It is the responsibility of the therapist to maintain boundaries in the therapeutic relationship and NOT the responsibility of the patient.
MB ‘strong angry feelings toward MB from Mark as he sees MB as a block to SM’
CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. I was NEVER angry at Mark Birbeck. I found him to be quietly spoken and thoroughly amenable and never needed to be angry with him. I WAS frustrated with his attitude towards the therapy he was delivering to my daughter and frustrated by his continual dismissal of my opinions as a father and carer but I was CATAGORICALLY NEVER angry at him. He was never perceived by me as a ‘block’ to Sally Mungall as I had access to her through weekly scheduled therapy sessions.
SM; ‘when MB and myself were alone with him, Social services had offered him a property at ‘the Hollys’, this is SMs home address, Mark S has googled SM. Police not notified.’
THIS STATEMENT INVOLVES LYING BY OMMISSION, IS GROSSLY DISINGENUOUS AND IS HIGHLY MISLEADING.
THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. I HAD Googled Sally Mungall from the outset of ‘parent work’ starting on the 2nd September, 2021. It is usual practice for me to make thorough checks on the experience and qualifications of any healthcare professional newly appointed to either my daughter or myself. We had both experienced and continue to experience poor to incompetent healthcare provision delivered by individuals and institutions and it usually serves me well to thoroughly assess those newly charged with our care. I made Sally Mungall aware of this by the end of our second session together on the 16th September, 2021. SALLY MUNGALL WAS COMPLETELY AWARE THAT I HAD INITIALLY GOOGLED HER FOR THIS PURPOSE. SHE HAS DELIBERATELY LIED, BY OMMISSION. I suspect she did this purposely so as to deflect culpability and to elevate the concerns of others attending this ‘professionals meeting’ so as to imply and or insinuate that I was a risk.
ADDITIONALLY, Sally Mungall elected to wear a face mask because of the fallout from the Covid-19 epidemic. I had asked to see her face during at the beginning of our second session on the 16th September, 2021. She complied and briefly revealed her face. Part of the reason for sourcing two photos of her found on social media posts and her own private therapy practice website was so that I could maintain a much needed human connection during intense and invasive psychotherapy.
ADDITIONALLY, it was TRUE that I was close to the top of the local councils’ HOMEBID waiting list for social housing. It was entirely coincidental that I property that I had bid on and was close to having accepted was a property in a block of flats on the Old Basing/Mapledurwell borders. The property would have been ideally, especially for my daughter as it was within walking distance of the family home in Old Basing. That block of flats was called ‘The Hollies’. While it does lie close to the A3O London Road it is entirely separate to Sally Mungall’s home which stands several miles away in Hook. I had been fully aware of Sally Mungall’s private therapy practice which is advertised widely on her designated website available to the general public on the internet. Her private therapy practice website did, and indeed, still does, include a map and postcode address along with an actual photo of the row of terraced houses where she lives. That row of houses is called ‘The Hollies’ though it isn’t exactly clear which actual property Sally Mungall lives in. I assumed, at the time, that Sally Mungall lived next door to one of the terraced called ‘The Hollies’. When I was in contention for the property on the Old Basing/Mapledurwell border I was overcome with a naively romantic notion that the stars were aligning, that this was a sign, some romantic ‘kismet’ , that there was some inevitable destiny in store for Sally and me. I was excited and wanted to share it with Sally. I had already suggested to her that I was going to invite her to dinner and wanted her to know that I was going to be moving and where I was moving to. SURELY NOBODY ATTENDING THIS ‘PROFESSIONALS MEETING’ SERIOUSLY ENTERTAINED THE NOTION THAT I WAS SOMEHOW CONTRIVING TO BE LIVING AT SALLY’S HOME? ABSURD!!
NH ‘SM to log it with police, if logged police would act promptly if it was recorded.’
JY ; to think about safety of staff – to discuss with Wanda and Sarie what is best for your safety (SM) This sounds impactful.’
THIS IS A COMPLETELY HYSTERICAL OVERREACTION. Indeed, Sally Mungall had made repeated statements that she felt she was ( correctly ) not at risk from me. It maybe that Sally Mungall’s disingenuous statement regarding an offer to provide social housing to my daughter and me at a property called ‘the Hollies’ MISLED Julie Yalden.
JY ‘…if we decide we need to hand over art work, needs to be independent of the case, maybe a more senior level, carefully risk assessed. Monitoring his reaction to that. Consider safety – Mark hanging around afterwards for example.’
AGAIN, HYSTERICAL OVERREACTION. I actually collected my artwork at the end of March. It was handed over in an envelope by a complete stranger and I received it calmly and politely and left CAMHS immediately. I don’t recall even looking back, let alone ‘hanging around afterwards.’
JY ‘…Maybe we hand over on a Monday- ensuring the referral can be completed if needed on a Monday that way, we need a really considered plan of handing this art work over. We monitor phones, his reaction.’
CATAGORICAL EVIDENCE OF CAMHS COVERT OPERATIONS INCLUDING MONITORING PHONES AND REACTIONS. DISGUSTING.
NH ‘…Mark doesn’t want to lose support rather than the obsession with SM
I THOROUGHLY OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE WORD ‘OBSESSION’. I was NOT ‘obsessed’. I was DAMAGED by inappropriate and unsanctioned intense and invasive psychotherapy. I WAS likely suffering from the effects of psychological transference, possibly ‘idealised’ transference or ‘maternal’ transference.
SM ‘to discuss with senior management re; police involvement. Flagging concerns just in case future call needs to be made to police. Factual evidence we have of concern being shared with police,’
THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE. There was NEVER any good clinical reason to involve Hampshire Constabulary. And just WHAT was the ‘factual evidence’ being shared?!
NH thinks ‘it would be good for there to be a face to face appt with myself and SM ( Sally ) ‘to see MARK’S REACTION’ SM goes on to ask if ‘ending letter from CAMHS’ to me could be handed over CMHT? Attendee Julie Yalden says if we need to hand over artwork needs to be ... carefully risk assessed. MONITOR HIS REACTION, CONSIDER SAFETY, Mark hanging around afterwards for example... we need a really considered plan for handing this artwork over WE MONITOR PHONES, HIS REACTION NH says ‘once notes have been validated the assessment will be shared with SM by KH – A reference to the previously described mental health assessment with Kirsty Henry on Feb 8th
Sally Mungall says ‘SM to discuss with senior management re police involvement Flagging concerns just in case future call needs to be made to police. Factual evidence we have of concern being shraed with police’ !!! DOES THIS ACTUALLY MEAN THE POLICE WERE CONTACTED?? This has escalated beyond reason and the police have almost certainly been contacted. This is truly appalling
Mark ( Birbeck?) says ‘doesnt want to lose support rather than the OBSESSION with SM. AGAIN this inflammatory use of the word ‘obsession’
FEBRUARY 11TH Safeguarding Professionals Meeting Clinical notes ‘Some potential concerns about personal safety for Sally discussed Nic from Crisis team recommended making police aware this was supported by all’.
FEBRUARY 18TH Kirsty Henry telephone discussion with SM. ‘Sally says never felt threatened by Mark.’ Kirsty (correctly ) tells SM that Mark had come to terms with the ( therapeutic ) relationship coming to an end.
APRIL 29th BASINGSTOKE CMHT Outcoming discussion
Present; Vicky Long, Dr Augusta, Sean Dale Molloy, Laura Jones and Kendall Howard Outcome ...Vicky Long would like Laura to reach out to CAMHS to let them know that Mark is still FIXATED on Sally. ( I have since learned that the word ‘fixated’ along with the word ‘obsessed’ are terms in judicial policy used by police forces through the country to determine cases of ‘stalking’ ).
This concludes the breakdowns of my medical records partially disclosed by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust on the 15th June, 2022.
I will continue to address further disclosures of medical records in later posts. In the meantime I will write about my dealings with CAMHS General Manager, Wanda Reynolds up until the 25th September, 2022.
I vividly remember the morning of the 15th June, 2022 and my incredulous reaction to my disclosed medical records. I was so distressed that I couldn't even explain things to Meg. She had been aware that my medical records were to be disclosed that morning and shared in my eager anticipation but I couldn't do any more than shake my head. 'It's bad! It's really bad!' is pretty much all I could tell her. I needed to speak to a professional but didn't know who to turn to. I considered waiting until 6pm and turning up at the Safe Haven, the service in Basingstoke that provides emotional and practicle help to individuals experiencing mental health crises but I was crashing fast and couldn't wait. I decided to send an SOS to Wanda Reynolds instead. I sent the following email at 10.54
'Dear Wanda,
I have just received ALL of my health records.
I would like to speak to you asap.
Regards,
Mark
I believed, at the time, that Wanda Reynolds was somebody who I could trust.
I was wrong!
That trust would wither under forensic scrutiny and the fierce sun of the rapidly unfolding summer.