[Libre-soc-dev] Subject Access Request Disclosure 5965

[lkcl]

On Thursday, May 29, 2025, Adult Services SAR Shared Mailbox <
adult.services.sar at hants.gov.uk> wrote:

> Dear Luke,
>
>
>
> With regards to your queries regarding your subject access request which
> was completed and sent to you on 19 December 2024:
>
>
>
> The Subject Access Request Team have asked Akin whether any additional
> hand written notes are held. Akin confirmed that there are no hand written
> notes held,
>
>
he just lied to you. I watched him write in a notebook, as did the other
attendee of the meeting (3 days before being tortured).

the possibility exists that he destroyed the notes.

however this would indicate a level of incompetence and unfitness to
perform his duties, as well as constitute wilful destruction of evidence:
Obstruction of Justice.

please go back to this incompetent individual and clarify with him that we
are NOT talking about the meeting of the 31st (day 1 of being tortured)

we are talking about the PRIOR meeting at which he acted with deception and
gave me false reassurance that I would be gaining the benefit of speaking
to two psychiatrists (I recorded a video just at the reception door after
the meeting, where I can be heard to be looking forward to talking things
through with two qualified psychiatrists)

it is also the meeting at which he failed completely to mention explicitly
what the "assessment" would entail.

retrospectively we now know, from the catastrophic and criminal Chinese
Whispers, that the deception by all parties was INTENTIONAL.

btw just so you are aware: AKIM's written recollections of events at the
Day 1 Torture meeting are directly at odds with the audio recording.

your employee is not only incompetent, he is dangerous.


and that the record of events are detailed within the reports and
> assessments that were disclosed to you in your subject access request.
>
>
>
... no, they haven't been.

check again, and if he still says "no" please immediately suspend him,
seize the contents of his office, and find that notebook.

remember: this is EVIDENCE of criminal conduct where I have AND CONTINUE to
be TORTURED.

you have a legal ABSOLUTE PRIORITY AND ACTIVE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to stop
that torture from continuing.

this is not a joke.

every single INDIVIDUAL that can be demonstrated not to have taken action
to end my ongoing torture will end up being prosecuted.

With regards to third party information: Under Schedule 2 to the Data
> Protection Act 2018 (DPA), where the information on these records relates
> to a third party, the information has been disclosed if the third party has
> consented or it is reasonable to supply it without their consent. Where
> consent has not been given and it is not reasonable to supply it without
> their consent, the third party information has been redacted (blanked out)
> from the records.
>
>
 all of this you really should have explained and talked to me about
*before* fulfilling the SAR, so as to reassure me and not cause distress.

> Please note that where the County Council does not consider details from
> the text to be personal data, that information may also have been redacted
> from the text. Names of non-qualified social care staff, such as
> administrators, have been redacted.
>
>
admin staff I can understand.

>  Details of external organisations have been retained within the
> disclosure so that you can see which organisations Adults’ Health & Care
> were communicating with.
>
>
appreciated.

remember: lying here when we are talking EVIDENCE of criminal conduct is
called "Obstruction of Justice" and "Perverting the Course of Justice".
both offenses have unlimited penalties.



>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Subject Access Request Team
>
> Adults’ Health & Care, Hampshire County Council
>
>
>
> *From:* lkcl <luke.leighton at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 26 May 2025 21:36
> *To:* Adult Services SAR Shared Mailbox <adult.services.sar at hants.gov.uk>
> *Cc:* Libre-Soc General Development <libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org>;
> Gerry Ewan <gerryewan at gmail.com>; paul ewan <paul.ewan at gmail.com>; MHA
> Complaints <mhacomplaints at cqc.org.uk>
> *Subject:* Re: Subject Access Request Disclosure 5965
>
>
>
> *Caution:* This is an external email and could contain malicious content.
> Do not open any links or attachments if you were not expecting them. If the
> e-mail looks suspicious, please report via the 'Report Phishing' Button
> found on your toolbar.
>
>
>
> without prejudice and reminding you of your obligation under the autism
> act I am reminding you, Hampshire county council, that the SAR is
> incomplete.
>
>
>
> firstly, AKIM's handwritten notes are missing: the meeting appx 2 days
> prior to being violently assaulted at the premises where I was tortured
> almost to death.
>
>
>
> secondly, you have redacted people who have been provided my information:
> the request was for ALL information and that includes the full names and
> contact details of people with whom you have discussed me. not, "those
> people within the county" - ALL people.
>
>
>
>
>
> thirdly I remind you that as I have been tortured, and have been abused to
> such a violent extent that it caused significant brain damage, combined
> with autism you absolutely cannot place me at risk by failing to
> communicate with me in an "unsafe" fashion.
>
>
>
> "unsafe" means "further torture by failing to actively listen", as well as
> making catastrophic mistaken assumptions in any kind of communication.
>
>
>
> please indicate in writing explicitly and in simple language that you
> understand what torture is, and that you have communications protocols in
> place that you *WILL* follow, for dealing with autistic individuals *and*
> interacting with people who have been tortured.
>
>
>
> the protocols should summarize as:
>
> 1. ASK SIMPLE DIRECT QUESTIONS
>
> 2. under NO CIRCUMSTANCES make assumptive-close statements.
>
>
>
> an incredibly simple way to do that is to say "I believe X to be the case:
> IS THIS CORRECT?"
>
>
>
> if you write simply "I believe X to be the case" and it is a false
> statement you risk putting me into deep shock (a criminal offense),
> continuing the torture (which is a criminal offense) and placing me at risk
> of death through anaphylaxis caused by the shock (also a criminal offense).
>
>
>
> I *cannot risk* reading your last response as I have no idea if you have
> followed Autism / Torture communications protocol.
>
>
>
> so let me offer you the (one) opportunity to retract your response and to
> indicate to me that you intend to ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS instead. your
> covering letter by email with your response I REQUIRE it to indicate a
> summary that you have followed the above two steps.
>
>
>
> in essence the level of criminality within your organisation is
> inexcusable: several members of your staff *are* going to be prosecuted,
> and you *are* going to help prosecute those people whom you have evidence
> of their criminal activity. if you DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY then I REQUIRE
> that you ASK QUESTIONS until you do understand why.
>
>
>
> and you will do so in a way that does not result in criminal assault or
> further criminal torture.
>
>
>
> l.
>
>
>