"We shall march prospering, -not thro' his presence;
Songs may inspirit us, -not from his lyre;
Deeds will be done, -while he boasts his quiescence,
Still bidding crouch whom the rest bade aspire:
Blot out his name, then, record one lost soul more,
One task more declined, one more footpath untrod,
One more devils' triumph and sorrow for angels,
One wrong more to man, one more insult to God!"
- Robert Browning: The Lost Leader.

The Assistance Offered by my Local MP

The ticker at the bottom of the page shows some (by no means all) of the organisations and individuals I have had cause to contact. The page regarding prevention of misinformation explains why I contacted these people. Sometime were required to carry out certain services, due to commercial relationships I had with them (e.g.: Dell Computers). I was surprised at their response. Of course, it is relevant to the matters in issue: I should not mention it otherwise. Some were approached because it was their métier (think tanks, human rights organisations, etc., etc.). In each case, inexplicably, they did not act as the situation demanded: they erected a wall of silence and indifference, they offered responses that were not cogent or their response was otherwise bewildering.

This page describes the actions my MP has taken, regarding the matters treated on this website. In short: Citizens Advice inexplicably provided her with an implausible pretext not to act. Other MPs, including Shadow Secretaries of State and leaders of the Opposition, then claimed a rule of Parliament forbade them from acting on my case. I have shown that is not true.

This website is a preview and announcement of the website proper, which will be more detailed. It allows people and organisations the opportunity to offer a response, to refute statements that I make and or to offer explanations, where they think there has been a misunderstanding. This should help prevent misinformation and is the main reason I have created this introductory site.

1. Since I started petitioning MPs, nearly ten years ago, they have consistently refused to act, on the grounds that a rule of the House of Commons prevents MPs from acting on matters raised by the constituents of others.

2. In early 2021, I had a Care Plan Approach (CPA) meeting. Its purpose is to discuss and plan a person's progress. I wrote to my MP. I explained, in detail, the facts set out on this website and I invited her to attend my CPA. I explained she could do so remotely (by MS Teams) and that this would allow her to:
(i) See me and how I presented my case,
(ii) See how the experts who would be attending (psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, a commissioner from NHS England and others) responded to my questions and my assertion that they have not been able to show that the conclusions at which I have arrived are unreasonable, let alone wrong, or to provide plausible alternative interpretations for the facts that led me to those conclusions and,
(iii) if she wished, put any questions she might have to the experts.

3. I told her I had requested that the Meeting be recorded: I would be provided with a copy of the recording.

4. I told the MP that, if the date of the CPA were not convenient for her, I could have it scheduled for a more convenient day. I thought it important that, from the outset, she speak directly to people on the other side of the question and hear, first-hand, their views.

5. After a few weeks and further emails to my MP, I received a response: she wanted to know what outcomes I sought. I set out some desired outcomes (see section, below, entitled: "Outcomes Sought from local MP".)
(i) In response, my MP told me she would not act on my reports. She said she could not determine whether the diagnoses were sound: that was a job for experts.
(ii) She advised me to visit Citizens Advice. She said, if they thought she could be of assistance on the issues I reported to her, she would take them up.

6. I approached Citizens Advice. I described the problems I faced and explained my MP had said she would take up my case, if one of they said that she (my MP) could offer meaningful assistance in such matters. Citizens Advice refused to say whether she could. It said to do so was not their function: itt would be offering advice, it is not allowed to do so.
(i) I explained it would not be offering advice, simply providing information and answering a direct question. It refused to do so.
(ii) I wrote to the Chief Executive: Mr Alistair Cromwell and to the Chairman: Mr Warren Buckley. I told them Citizens Advice was refusing to answer that question, thereby denying me the representation of my MP, who had set, as a precondition for her assistance, a statement from it that she could be of assistance. They refused to act.
(a) And so, Citizens Advice, its Chairman and its Chief Executive refused to do their job and deliberately obstructed my attempts to involve Parliament (through my MP) in those matters .
(iv) In November, 2022, when Dame Moriarty was Chief Executive of Citizens Advice, I returned the matter to her attention. Citizens Advice confirmed my MP could be of assistance in the matters in question and could not explain why it had refused vto answer the question in 2021.
(v) I asked Citizens Advice for a letter to my MP, explaining she could assist in such matters. It refused to provide such a letter.
(vi) I informed my MP that the condition she had set for taking up my case had been met: Citizens Advice had said she could be of assistance in such a case. She refused to take up my case.

7. I told my MP she could not ignore such serious matters. She said MPs decide what to act on and they do so "out of goodwill". In short: the MP may be considered a feudal lady who occasionally bestows acts of grace on the local peasantry. The precise words were:
"The work most MP’s [sic] undertake to help their constituents is done out of goodwill. There are no rules around this work nor obligation to do it."

8. I realised I could not look to her to bring these matters to the attention of Parliament and the public. I asked her for a letter stating she would not assert the Parliamentary Convention discouraging MPs from acting on cases reported by the constituents of others.
(i) She refused to do so. The words from her Office were that she:
"There are however a set of customary practices which MP’s adhere to. Of these is the custom not to intervene with another MP’s constituency work and it is very rigidly followed. I can give you my absolute assurance that no other MP will pick up your case. Also [she] does not have the power to override this custom. If she were to write a letter granting permission it would be ignored."
(a) That is not true. MPs can grant other MPs permission to act on cases involving their constituent.
(b) My MP seems to know a lot of things most people wouldn't know: she appeared to know Citizens Advice would refuse to carry out its core function and state simply that she could be of assistance in my case. She also knew that MPs would ignore such serious matters and cite the Parliamentary Custom as their excuse, even if they were told she had waived it.
(ii) When I continued asked her to agree to waive that convention, in my case, she ignored me.
(iii) When Sir Keir Starmer was Leader of the Opposition, I informed him of my MP's refusal to act on those matters. I asked him to confirm that he and the Labour Party would not assert the Convention, in these cases. He ignored those requests. If Sir Keir, as leader of the Labour Party, does not have the right to tell an MP what case(s) to take up:
(a) he has the right to remove the whip from an MP who does not live up to the standards of his party and (b) he may state that, in this particular case, the Party would not defend that Custom.

9. And so:
(i) my MP curiously made Citizens Advice her vetting office: she said she would take up my case if Citizens Advice did what it was certain to do (state that an MP can be of assistance in such matters).
(ii) Citizens Advice inexplicably refused to do its job and state whether these were matters in which an MP might be of assistance. Even its Chief Executive and Chairman refused to have it do its job.
(a) This gave the MP an excuse not to act. It was a shabby excuse but this is not unheard of: once, in an emergency and at their wits' end, a man and woman wore fig leaves to cover their nakedness.
(iii) My MP tried to discourage me from approaching politicians, she claimed they would only think I was mentally disordered (I believe it is called 'gaslighting', unless she can defend that view, which I invite her to do here). The quotation is lengthy, to lengthen it would remove important context which may or may not be unfair to her. I cannot excise part of it:

"Neither I nor anyone else in [the MP]’s office is an expert in mental health matters. However we are experts in politics and the support available through MP’s and Ministers and other public figures. I can tell you with utmost certainty that your attempt to get support from any MP will end in failure. Your contacting the Archbishop of Canterbury will achieve nothing, in fact it is likely to strengthen people’s opinion that your diagnosis is correct.
If you are a victim of a catastrophic misdiagnosis then your best chance of getting it corrected is through expert help not through the intervention of Politicians or Archbishops.
Is there a reason that you are reluctant to get the help of an advocate?
When you have a mental health advocate I will be very happy to set up a meeting with you and your advocate and [the MP] if your advocate thinks that there is practical support we can give."

(iv) The advocate referred to was the Citizens Advice:
(a) I immediately considered the idea of first having Citizens Advice confirm what was obvious (that my MP could be of assistance) to be unnecessary and silly. Here, they were forcing me either to approach Citizens Advice and get its opinion or to stop seeking her (my MP's) assistance.
(b) I have explained, above, what happened when I did approach Citizens Advice.
I have also explained how, eventually, when Citizens advice did state she could be of assistance, she refused to honour her word that she would take up my case, if Citizens Advice thought she could be of use in such matters.
(v) Other MPs, including leaders of the opposition, shadow secretaries of state and members of parliamentary committees, now refused to act. Their excuse was the non-binding Parliamentary Custom.
(a) That custom was not relevant for MPs I approached before the General Election of 2024 was announced: they were shadow secretaries of state, leaders of the opposition and other people who Parliament cannot expect to be bound by such rules (they would not be able to carry out their function). Those are the people referred to in House of Commons Briefing Paper No02028 as MPs "engaged in a campaign on an issue of general importance" (see bottom paragraph, on page 6 of the Briefing Paper)
(b) After the General Election of 2024 was announced and before the dissolution of Parliament, I was so alarmed at the implications of the conduct of those MPs for democracy. I informed each MP in that Parliament of my case and warned them, if they did not inform the public of those matters, the Elections might not be democratic. For there is more to democracy is more than people voting freely on certain days and those votes accurately being reckoned. Democracy requires that people have the facts to make informed decisions. But, for years, politicians had been concealing from the public this information, which would probably have affected people's decisions, if and when they voted.
(vi) My MPs refusal to state that she would not assert that Parliamentary Custom, provided other MPs flimsy excuses not to act on those matters.
(a) If you like, it is a daisy-chain of people in fig leaves, providing each other implausible excuses not to do what, plainly, each has a duty to do.
(vii) This is how, for nearly a decade, the House of Commons has turned its back on the rule of law, fundamental rights, including freedom of thought, on basic decency, values and principles and how it has and does continue to look away while vital structures (the judiciary, law enforcement, the NHS, etc.), without which a dignified and civilised existence is impossible, suffer sustained and dangerous attacks.

11. My MP's claim that she is not qualified to determine whether my diagnosis is valid is not plausible. I explained to her that:
(i) I challenged the diagnoses on the grounds that the medical definition, which the practitioners do not reject, requires that I first be shown clearly that the conclusions I reached are wrong. This has not been done, therefore, the diagnoses cannot be valid. (ii) All she had to do was:
(a) to read the diagnoses and reports and see if such reasons were given.
(b) If such reasons were not given, she had to ask those who made the diagnoses and others who say I am delusional to show that the conclusions I reached are wrong.
(c) It does not take an expert to determine whether reasons given are sensible. The Definition would not make sense, were she correct. Because, if only an expert can tell whether something is sensible then only experts and people who are willing to change their views on the basis of evidence incomprehensible to them could fail to be diagnosed as delusional: everyone else would not be able to understand the "clear evidence" demanded by the definition and would reject it.
(d) If my MP cannot understand clear evidence, which is the implication of her assertion that she cannot evaluate the diagnoses, can she carry out her duties as an MP?
(iii) Some of the evidence I gave my MP was correspondence between me and psychiatrists who have diagnosed me, in which I asked them to show that the conclusions I reached were wrong or to offer plausible alternative interpretations of the facts that led me to the conclusions I reached. Those documents clearly show that the psychiatrists who have diagnosed me are unable to show that the conclusions I reached are unreasonable, let alone wrong. And they cannot offer plausible alternative interpretations of the facts that led me to the conclusions I have reached.

12. My MP sits on parliamentary committees which oversee the conduct of the Government. If her aptitude for reading and comprehension does not permit her to determine the contents of a document (whether it contains clear proof that the conclusions I have reached are wrong), she cannot perform her duties as a member of those committees.
(i) I wrote to the Chair of one of the Committees on which my MP sits. I explained my MP had claimed not to be able to read a document and to determine whether reasons to support a certain view are contained in that document or to determine what is rational and what is not.
(a) I asked the Chair if this was consistent with her observations of my MP, when they work together. I asked whether, if indeed she lacked the aptitude to carry out such tasks, she should be on the Committee and why no one had noticed or done anything about it: the Committee's responsibilities are not inconsequential.
(ii) The response of either the Committee or the MP was to report me to the Fixated Threats Assessment Centre (FTAC).
(iii) I wrote to the Committee and to the MP, asking if they had filed a report against me with FTAC and, if so, why. I warned them that they had probably filed a false or unreasonable report with the authorities. They did not respond.

13. My MP is a member of the Labour Party. When I reported these matters to her, her Party was in opposition. She not only refused to oppose the Government and to hold it to account, she:
(i) tried to discourage me from taking the matter to other MPs,
(ii) shielded MPs (provided them with a shabby excuse not to act) by refusing to waive the parliamentary convention which other MPs claimed prevented them from acting.
(iii) filed, with the authorities, false or unreasonable reports against a person she knew or ought to have known was being subjected grave injustices.

14. It is important to understand exactly what my MP refused to do. Some of the matters I reported to her, and the assistance I told her I sought from her are set out in the section, below, entitled: "Outcomes Sought from local MP"

Outcomes Sought from local MP

Below, are some of the outcomes I sought from my local MP. I have slightly paraphrased them, since this is a report of what I communicated to her. What you see, below, is precisely what I asked her to help me achieve. On considering the outcomes I sought and the conduct of my MP (at that time an opposition MP), it is immediately apparent that:
(i) I did not ask her to do anything unreasonable.
(ii) Had I not suggested it, she ought to have wanted to do what I asked her to help me do.
(iii) She refused to oppose; she refused to hold the Government to account.

Ministry of Justice and NHS

1. It should be shown, as demanded by the definition of a delusion, that I am delusional. If not, it should be accepted that I am not and never have been mentally disordered.

2. It should be explained why my Model for risk assessment is wrong or does not show that I am not and never have been dangerous. If this is not done, it should be admitted that I never was dangerous.
(i) No reasonable model for assessing the risk I pose having been produced, despite my requests to Hospitals and the Secretary of State for Justice, I produced my own model. It is based on sound principles of probability and statistics and considers a person's antecedents and current conduct.
(ii) I have asked courts, Secretaries and shadow Secretaries of State for Justice, Health, and everyone else to whom I have reported these matters to show why that Model is not reliable. No has done so.

3. The model that has been used to determine that I am dangerous must be described fully.

4. Of the Cases in which unlawful Decisions were made, where those cases have run their course, the Judges in question must, using the Constitution Reform Act 2005, be brought to account: they must explain those Decisions.

5. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Must explain why it prosecuted me in 2017/18.
(i) The CPS brought that prosecution despite it clearly not being in the public interest for it to do so.
(ii)The Code for Crown Prosecutors forbids this (that is a mandatory, not discretionary rule). The Director for Public Prosecutors knew the CPS was prosecuting such a case (I wrote to her informing her of the fact). She should have had the prosecution withdrawn. Inexplicably, she refused to do so.

6. Sir Robert Buckland was the Secretary of State for Justice, at that time. He was directly responsible for my detention and could have ended it at any moment. The Secretary of State for Justice can, at any time, instruct that I be freed and it would be done immediately. I said Sir Robert must explain why he did not show, according to the definition of the disorder, that I am delusional, when I asked him to do so:
(i) He must show that I am delusional, as required by the definition.
(ii) He must produce the proof, in reports he saw, which showed that I had been correctly diagnosed, according to the definition of the disorder. In other words: that I had been presented with clear and incontrovertible proof that I was wrong, and I had rejected that proof on grounds that are not valid.
(iii) I said he may produce that proof from the Documents I exchanged with practitioners and which I sent him (Sir Robert).
(iv) Sir Robert must explain why he ignored reports that a certain psychiatrist had perjured himself at the Crown Court, in order to have section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 imposed.
(v) Sir Robert must explain why he thinks my model for determining risk is wrong or why he thinks it does not show that I do not pose a risk to the public.
(vi) Sir Robert must produce the Model used to determine that I am dangerous and explain why it is preferable to mine
(vii) Sir Robert must explain why he refused to produce that Model, when I asked him to do so. In other words: why he refused to explain how it had been decided that I am too dangerous to be in the community.
(viii) Sir Robert must explain why he did not provide an answer, when I asked him if algorithms or an algorithm had been used to make any material decision(s) regarding me and, if so, that he produce a detailed description of such algorithms.
(ix) Sir Robert must explain why he refused to act on my reports of misconduct by the judiciary.
(x) Sir Robert must explain why he has not used the mechanisms placed at his disposal by the Constitutional Reform Act 2010, to which I directed him, in the Document: "Can the Judiciary be Kept Honest (and by Whom)"
(xi) Sir Robert must explain why he acted in the Worboys Parole Board decision case but not in mine, especially given that:
(a) transparency of decisions by the judiciary was cited as a motive in the Warboys intervention and,
(b) in the Worboys case, no law or rule had been breached by the Board and, in my Cases, the judiciary set a stark pattern of not observing the law.
(c) The Warboys Case was even discussed in the House of Commons. My reasoning was: if politicians can intervene when it is decided wrongly or unreasonably to release a person who is detained, they must do the same when a person is unjustly or unreasonably detained.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

1. The ECHR must explain why it has made decisions that plainly are irrational and unlawful.

Various Government Departments

1. Cabinet Ministers and Government Departments must explain why they have lied, claiming that they could not act in the matters I reported to them.

2. Ms Patel, the Home Secretary at the time, must explain why she did not ask the Chief Constable of a police force I reported to her to explain his refusal to act in such cases as I reported.
(i) She should explain why she said there was no action she could take, when, plainly, there was.

Department of Health

1. Mr Hancock (then Secretary of State for Health) must explain why he told me that he could not act in such cases as I reported to him. And yet he had a statutory duty to act. In another case, he ordered an inquiry.
(i) Mr Hancock must say whether he did not believe that the offences I reported to him as being committed within the NHS had and were indeed being committed.
(ii) Mr Hancock must explain why he did not hold the Care Quality Commission to account for refusing properly to investigate complaints I filed with it: the CQC and its Chief Executive at that time carried out an implausible investigation that found in favour of the NHS Trust against which I complained.

2. Mr Hancock must explain why he told me that he could not act in such cases as I reported to him. And yet he had a statutory duty to act.
(i) He did act in the case of Bethany Hughes: he ordered an inquiry.

3. Mr Hancock must say whether he thought it was likely I had been misdiagnosed. If he says he thought it was not, he must produce the proof he saw, which met the requirements of the definition of a delusion, and he must explain why my rejection of such proof was not reasonable.
(i) If he cannot do so, he must explain:
(a) on what he based his belief and why he chose to base his belief on that, rather than the facts and evidence with which I presented him: what was lacking in the evidence with which I provided him and why did he not point that out and request better evidence?
(b) What evidence would have satisfied him that I had been misdiagnosed?
(ii) If he could not find evidence that I had been diagnosed properly, why did he think that the onus was on me to produce such evidence and not the NHS or other parties who claimed I was disordered?

4. Mr Hancock must say whether he thought it was likely that I had been declared to be dangerous when, in fact, I was not.
(i) If he says that he did not, he must explain why.
(ii) If he thinks it was not likely, he must either show that my Model for risk assessment is wrong or that it does not show that I am dangerous, or he must describe the Model that was used to determine that I would, if allowed to return to the community, pose a danger.
(a) And he must explain why that Model is preferable to my Model.

The Police

1. The police must explain why it has refused to investigate or even record offences I have reported to it, even when there was clear evidence (e.g.: CCTV footage and computer logs) supporting such reports.

2. Relevant Chief Constables must say whether they think the offences I informed them their police forces were ignoring had occurred. If they think they did not, they must say why.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

1. The Parliamentary Commissioner refused to consider my complaints that MPs had breached Article 5 of the House of Commons Code of Conduct ("Duties of Members"), which states: "Members have a duty to uphold the law...". She said she could not enforce that section of the Code.
(i) When I asked the Commissioner who was responsible for its enforcement, I was told MPs are accountable only to the electorate and, then, only through the ballot.
(a) The implication was that MPs can only be made to uphold the law by constituents and the constituents can only do so when they vote.
(b) If this is true, it was all the more important for MPs to inform the public of the matters I reported to them, especially shortly before the elections. Not to do so must have damaged democracy by concealing from voters facts that were pertinent to the decisions they were going to make when they voted.

2. It must be understood that upholding the law means ensuring the law is observed. A person can fail to uphold the law without breaking it.
(i)An important function of Parliament is to make laws. It must not look the other way when those laws are not respected.

3. The Commissioner must explain why, if, as she told me, is not responsible for enforcement of Article 5 of The House of Commons’ Code of Conduct, Ms Thornberry was investigated by the Commissioner for a breach of Article 5.

4. The Commissioner, if she is not responsible for enforcing Article 5, must explain who is.
(i) She must say why did she not direct me to the person with the responsibility of enforcing Article 5.
(ii) If she does not know who enforces that part of The Code, she must say why she does not know: Did She attempt to find out? If not, why not?
(iii) If she found that no one has that responsibility, why did she not inform Parliament of that fact?
(iv) If she did inform Parliament, who did she inform and when?

5. The Commissioner must explain why she did not investigate the Complaints I filed with her, regarding breaches of Article 17 of The Code and breaches of Principles set out in The Code. Article 17 states: "Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally."

6. The Commissioner said MPs should not act when the judiciary engages in misconduct. She said to do so would be to interfere with the judiciary. When I tried to get her to explain her reasoning, she would not do so.The Commissioner must explain why she thinks that MPs should not uphold the law, when it is breached by the judiciary
(i) She must explain why she considers upholding the law and defending the constitution to be tantamount to interfering in judicial Decisions.
(ii) She must say whether she agrees that what I described as the misconduct by the judiciary is in fact misconduct. If she says it is not, she must explain why.
(iii) The Commissioner should say whether she thinks it is possible for the judiciary to engage in misconduct.
(a) If not, why not?
(b) If the judiciary engages in misconduct, does she think that the mechanisms provided in the Constitution Reform Act should be used, as they were intended? If not, why not?

The General Medical Council (GMC)

1. The GMC must explain why it considers that the matters I reported were not sufficiently important to merit action.

2. The GMC must explain why it considers it owes no individual any duty in law (that is the case it argued in court).

3. The GMC must say whether it thought it was likely I had been misdiagnosed.
(i) If it says it thought it was not likely, it must produce the proof it saw, which met the requirements of the definition of a delusion, and it must explain why my rejection of such proof was not reasonable.
(ii) If it cannot do so, it must explain:
(a) on what it based its belief and why it chose to base its belief on that, rather than the facts and evidence with which I presented it: what was lacking in the evidence with which I provided it and why did it not point that out and request better evidence?
(b) What evidence would have satisfied it that I had been misdiagnosed?
(ii) If it could not find evidence that I had been diagnosed properly, why did it think that the onus was on me to produce such evidence and not on the NHS or other parties who claimed I was mentally disordered?

4. The GMC must say whether it thought it was likely that I had been declared to be dangerous, when in fact I was not.
(i) If it says that it did not, it must explain why.
(ii) If it thinks it was not likely, it must either show that my Model for risk assessment is deficient or that it does not show that I am dangerous,
(a) or it must describe the Model that was used to determine that I would, if allowed to return to the community, pose a danger.
(b) And it must explain why that Model is preferable to my Model.

5. The GMC must say whether it thinks none of the reports I made to it was valid. If so, why not.
(i) If it thinks only some of them were not valid, may it state which it thinks were not and why it thinks so.

The Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)

1. The PHSO's response to complaints I filed with him were perfectly Kafkaesque: refused to investigate reports I made to him. He said asked me what outcomes I expected and then said he would not investigate my complaints because he could not provide those outcomes.
(i) I asked him what outcomes he could provide. He refused to say.
(ii) I asked him to investigate my Complaints and to take whatever action he could and saw fit.
(iii) He went round in circles, returning to insisting he would not investigate the matters until I told him what outcomes I expected.

2. The PHSO must explain why he refused to investigate the matters I reported to him.

3. The PHSO must say whether he thought it was likely I had been misdiagnosed. If he says he thought it was not, he must produce the proof he saw, which met the requirements of the definition of a delusion, and he must explain why my rejection of such proof was not reasonable.
(i) If he cannot do so, he must explain:
(a) on what he based his belief and why he chose to base his belief on that, rather than on the facts and evidence with which I presented him: what was lacking in the evidence I provided him and why did he not point it out and request better evidence?
(b) What evidence would have satisfied him that I had been misdiagnosed?
(ii) If he could not find evidence that I had been diagnosed properly, why did he think that the onus was on me to produce such evidence and not the NHS or other parties who claimed I was mentally disordered?

4. The PHSO must say whether he thought it was likely I had been declared to be dangerous, when in fact I was not. If He says that he did not, he must explain why.
(i) If he thinks it was not likely, he must either show that my Model for risk assessment is deficient or that it does not show I am dangerous, or he must describe the Model that was used to determine that I would, if allowed to return to the community, pose a danger to others.
(a) And he must explain why that Model is preferable to my Model.

5. The PHSO must explain why he considered it acceptable for his Office to refuse to investigate my Complaints, on the grounds that it could not provide the outcomes I requested, and then, when I asked him to take whatever action he could, to reject the Complaints, on the grounds that the outcomes sought were not sufficiently specific.

6. The PHSO must explain why he thinks it is acceptable to allow such conduct by practitioners and the NHS to go unchallenged, because the person who reported was not specific enough about what he wanted to be done about it.

7. The PHSO must explain why he does not consider that such misconduct as I reported to him, if ignored, is a menace to patients

The Care Quality Commission (CQC)

1. The CQC must explain why it refused to investigate the misconduct, offences and breaches of Human Rights I reported to it.

2. The CQC must explain why it did not mention, in its Report, the matters I reported to its Inspector. It mentioned only positive reports.

3. The CQC must say whether it thought it was likely I had been misdiagnosed. If it says it thought it was not likely, it must produce the proof it saw, which met the requirements of the definition of a delusion and it must explain why my rejection of such proof was not reasonable.
(i) If it cannot do so, it must explain:
(a) on what it based its belief and why it chose to base its belief on that, rather than the facts and evidence with which I presented it: what was lacking in the evidence with which I provided it and why did it not point that out and request better evidence?
(b) What evidence would have satisfied it that I had been misdiagnosed?
(ii) If it could not find evidence that I had been diagnosed properly, why did it think the onus was on me to produce such evidence and not the NHS or other parties who claimed I was disordered?

4. The CQC must say whether it thought it was likely that I had been declared to be dangerous when, in fact, I was not. If it says that it did not consider it likely, it must explain why.
(i) If it thinks it was not likely, it must either show that my Model for risk assessment is wrong or that it does not show that I am dangerous, or it must describe the Model that was used to determine that I would, if allowed to return to the community, pose a danger.
(a) And it must explain why that Model is preferable to my Model.

5. The CQC must say whether it thinks none of the reports I made to it was valid. If so, why not.

6. The CQC must say whether it thinks some of the offences and misconduct I reported to the parties against which I filed Complaints did occur. If it thinks some of them may have occurred, may it say which?
(i) May it say why it thought they might have occurred.

The Church Of England and Archbishop of Canterbury

1. I reported these matters to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He responded by reporting me to the authorities (the Fixated Threats Assessment Centre). He has refused to answer questions regarding why he did not think the matters I reported to him are not true.
(i) It is not possible reasonably to arrive at any other conclusion that he filed a false or unreasonable report with the authorities against a person he knew or ought to have known was not dangerous and was, in fact, being subjected to grave injustices.

2. The Church should explain why it has ignored my Complaints.

3. The Archbishop of Canterbury should explain whether and why he filed a Notice or Report against me.

4. The Archbishop of Canterbury must explain why he ignored my requests for an explanation as to what action(s) he had taken.

5. The Archbishop must say whether he thought it was likely I had been misdiagnosed. If he says he thought it was not, he must produce the proof he saw, which met the requirements of the definition of a delusion, and he must explain why my rejection of such proof was not reasonable.
(i) If he cannot do so, he must explain:
(a) on what he based his belief and why he chose to base his belief on that, rather than the facts and evidence with which I presented him: what was lacking in the evidence with which I provided him, and why he did not mention it and request better evidence?
(b) What evidence would have satisfied him that I had been misdiagnosed?
(ii) If he could not find evidence that I had been diagnosed properly, why he thought the onus was on me to produce such evidence and not the NHS or other parties who claimed I was disordered?

6. The Archbishop of Canterbury must say whether he thought it was likely that I had been declared to be dangerous when, in fact, I was not. If he says that he did not, he must explain why.
(i) If he thinks it was not likely, he must either show that my Model for risk assessment is wrong or that it does not show that I am not dangerous, or he must describe the Model that was used to determine that I would, if allowed to return to the community, pose a danger.
(a) And he must explain why that Model is preferable to my Model.

7. The Archbishop must say whether he thinks none of the reports I made to him was valid. If so, why not.
(i) If he thinks only some of them did not occur, may he state which he thinks did not occur and why he thinks so.

8. The Archbishop must say whether he thinks some of the offences and misconduct I reported to him occurred. If he thinks some of them may have occurred, may he say which?
(i) May he say why he thought they might have occurred.