1. Between 2015 and January, 2021, I was detained in a medium-secure hospital. I wrote to the Mr John Healey, the MP for that constituency. He represented the Labour Party, which was then in opposition.
2. I informed him I was detained unlawfully and I furnished him clear proof in the form of communications exchanged with psychiatrists, in which they were unable to defend the diagnosis of a delusional disorder and the opinion that I would pose a danger to the public, if discharged.
(i). He replied that, not being medically qualified, he could neither develop a view on the matter nor assist.
(a). I explained: the diagnoses are deficient because the definition of a delusion requires a person first be shown, clearly and obviously, why he is wrong. That has not happened in my case.
(b). No medical qualification is required to make that determination: merely literacy - to read reports - and a reasonable mind. He returned no response to that observation.
3. I explained to him that Shadow Secretaries of State were refusing to challenge the Secretaries of State they shadowed and to hold organisations in their brief, as shadow secretaries, to account, on the grounds they could not act on matters reported by someone who was not their constituent. I asked if that was true. He did not respond.
(i). Being the local MP, he could have invited those Shadow Secretaries of State to act on those matters.
4. I reported to him the conduct of South Yorkshire Police. He defended it, stating it probably refused to investigate my reports because it was satisfied with the strength of the medical opinion. The matters I reported to the police, and its response thereto, show this was not a reasonable view.
5. I reported to him misconduct by the judiciary, of which decisions by the Mental Health Review Tribunal formed only one part - other courts made many unlawful decisions.
(i). His response was the Tribunal probably came to its judgments by placing its confidence in the judgment of the experts. But that would mean it favoured poor evidence from the detaining authorities, ignored strong evidence from the applicant and, in any case, made decisions that patently were unlawful.
(a). The frequency and nature of the unlawful decisions suggest misconduct.
6. I reported to him the refusal by the GMC to sanction practitioners who perjured themselves and made false diagnoses, on the grounds it (the GMC) said it did not consider such matters to be sufficiently serious. I also reported to him the refusal of the CQC to address grave infractions by NHS hospitals. He ignored these reports.
7. I reported to him the refusal by the Crown Court to produce transcripts of my trial, on the unreasonable grounds they would be too expensive to produce - I had agreed to bear the cost of transcription. That was the only matter he took up:
(i). He wrote to the Court; I heard nothing from him for several weeks. I wrote to him enquiring as to the progress he had made. He replied the Court had informed him it would not produce the transcript: it would be too expensive. He accepted that response and would let the matter rest.
(ii). I observed my complaint had been precisely that answer was unacceptable. He must have taken up the matter because he agreed. Why did he now accept that same response, unquestioningly? He did not answer that question and would take the matter no further.
8. Mr Healey was completely unhelpful: he appeared more interested in covering up for and supporting the Government in its delinquency than in responsibly opposing and holding it to account. He refused to hold organisations necessary for the safety of the public to account: he was careless of the safety of us all. He is now Chancellor of the Exchequer.