Mr Matthew Hancock

1. When Mr Hancock was Secretary of State for Health, I reported to him, and provided clear proof I was detained unlawfully under section in an NHS hospital - the diagnoses underpinning my section are false, and the views I am dangerous are unreasonable.
2. The response was that the Department is not permitted to interfere in individual cases. I directed Mr Hancock to sections 1 to 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006. Below, I quote only Section 1:
"(1)The Secretary of State must exercise the functions of the Secretary of State in relation to the health service with a view to securing continuous improvement in the quality of services provided to individuals for or in connection with —
(a)the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness, or
(b)the protection or improvement of public health."
I asked him to cite the rules prohibiting him from acting in such circumstances. He returned no response.
3. I asked Mr Hancock why, given he said he could not act in individual cases, he had intervened in the case of the child, Bethany - he was right to do so and he ought to have done the same in my case. He did not respond.
4. I reported, to Mr Hancock, the obstructive attitude of the Ombudsman and his irrational Refusal to investigate complaints I filed with him. He offered no response.
5. I reported, to Mr Hancock, the CQC's refusal to investigate reports I filed with it. He returned no response.
6. I reported, to Mr Hancock, the GMC's refusal to sanction practitioners who made false diagnoses and perjured themselves, on the implausible grounds such breaches were not serious. He did not respond.
7. The High Court struck out a case I filed against the GMC, on the grounds the GMC owes no duties to the public. This is an unreasonable view the courts have established, over time. They have no right to hold such a view. I informed Mr Hancock of the Decision and invited the Department to join my appeal. He returned no response.
8. The FTAC consists of a unit of the Metropolitan Police Service and NHS members of staff. I reported its conduct to Mr Hancock: it ignored evidence I was detained unlawfully, filed false reports against me, refused auditably to discuss the matter and, finally, invoked a rule that applied only because I was detained unlawfully, to have me forbidden from contacting it. Mr Hancock ignored that report.