1. In January, 2021, I was transferred to a different hospital. I wrote to Ms Olivia Blake, MP for that constituency, introducing myself and my case. I provided her with evidence supporting such statements as I made.
(i). I had a Care Programme Approach (CPA) meeting to assess, plan, coordinate, and review my case. I invited Ms Blake to attend the CPA, which she could do by Microsoft Teams.
(a). She would have the opportunity to listen to the psychiatrists and other experts, see how they responded to my questions and put, to them and to me, questions of her own. I did not want her to have only my account of events.
2. Ms Blake said she would only consider my case if Citizens Advice said she could be of assistance. I thought it strange:
(i). she should use Citizens Advice as a vetting service and
(ii). unquestionably, these are matters for an MP.
3. Citizens Advice refused to say whether the MP could help in such matters: it said to do so would be to instruct me on what to do, which it is forbidden.
(i). I explained:
(a). I was asking only whether my MP could be of assistance, not whether I should approach her,
(b). the gravity of the issues and
(c). that she would act only if Citizens Advice said she could be of use.
(ii). Still, Citizens Advice insisted it could not answer that question: it maintained that would be to instruct me. Given the facts, Citizens Advice essentially denied me the representation of my MP.
4. I wrote to Mr Alistair Cromwell, Chief Executive of Citizens Advice. I explained the Organisation unreasonably was refusing to perform its main function and, consequently, my MP would not assist me. He ignored my reports.
(i). I wrote to the Chairman: Mr Warren Buckley. I explained Citizens Advice was availing itself of an implausible pretext to refuse to carry out its essential function; my unjustified detention and other serious matters would not receive the attention of my MP. I informed him Mr Cromwell had refused to address the matter. He ignored that report.
5. Towards the end of 2022, I wrote to Dame Moriarty: she had replaced Mr Cromwell as Chief Executive of Citizens Advice. Citizens Advice finally admitted my MP could be useful in such matters.
6. I informed Ms Blake that Citizens Advice had said she could be of assistance. She refused to act, on the grounds she is not a medical expert.
(i). I explained: the question is whether I received an adequate explanation, as demanded by the definition of a delusion, why the conclusions I reached are wrong. It is a logical rather than medical question; any reasonable person is qualified to form an opinion.
(a). My case was especially simple: only two reasons had been offered, both by the same psychiatrist. They were both unreasonable.
(ii). Ms Blake said she was under no obligation to act on the matters I reported to her she stated:
"The work most MP's undertake to help their constituents is done out of goodwill. There are no rules around this work nor obligation to do it."
and:
"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."
(iii). I wrote to the House of Commons' Public Accounts Committee, on which Ms Blake sat. I described the circumstances and asked if it had observed in her a deficiency in basic reading and comprehension skills - she appeared to have pleaded illiteracy: inability to read documents and to understand the information therein - or if she had lied to me.
(iv). The response was to file a false report against me with the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre.
7. Plainly, Ms Blake never intended to act on my reports to her:
(i). She made her involvement in my case conditional on me putting a pointless question to Citizens Advice and to Citizens Advice and returning the only reasonable response to that question - the only reasonable expectation must have been of a response in the affirmative.
(ii). Citizens Advice defied logic, propriety and its duties by refusing to answer that question. Its Chief Executive and its Chairman countenanced such iniquitous conduct.
8. If Ms Blake and Citizens Advice were not in league to supply her with a pretext not to act, their strange decisions had precisely the effect they would, had they done so.
(i). Excepting lunacy or idiocy at Citizens Advice and on her part - which we deem unlikely, the implication must be:
(a). she knew she ought to act,
(b). she lacked an acceptable reason not to act but, for some reason, she would not act.
(c). She and Citizens Advice acted in concert to manufacture a pretext.
9. In 2024, Ms Blake deprived me of parliamentary representation by:
(i). having South Yorkshire Police forbid me from contacting her - I did nothing to justify such an action - and
(ii). refused my request that she provide me with a note permitting other MPs from acting on my case - they claimed a parliamentary convention prevented them from assisting the constituent of another MP.