[Libre-soc-dev] Care Quality Commission MHA-03402-V5V8D1 CRM:003564288228 (Case Ref: PH17316)

[lkcl]

understood Paul greatly appreciated you taking the time to explain it
clearly to me. really mean that.

l.


On Wednesday, July 16, 2025, Paul Holmes MP <paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk>
wrote:

> Dear Luke
>
> Thank you for getting back to me.  I understand that this is causing you
> considerable distress, however, I can only pass on the rules/law that the
> Information Commissioners Office (ICO) lay down.  As mentioned previously,
> you can raise a complaint with the ICO and more information on how to do
> this can be found at the following link. https://ico.org.uk/make-
> a-complaint/data-protection-complaints/
>
> They will find for one of two outcomes, either they will ask the
> organisation to do more to resolve your complaint, or they will advise they
> are not taking any action, as it might be that the organisation have
> followed the law.
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul Holmes MP
> Member of Parliament for Hamble Valley
> House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
> Tel: 020 7219 5484 or 02382 542 205
> Email: paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk
> Website: www.paulholmesmp.co.uk
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: lkcl
> Sent: 16 July 2025 16:01
> To: HOLMES, Paul
> Cc: Libre-Soc General Development
> Subject: Re: Care Quality Commission MHA-03402-V5V8D1 CRM:003564288228
> (Case Ref: PH17316)
>
>
> given that third parties have been passed my information and given the
> criminal nature of the incarceration torture abuse and assault I disagree
> that they have a right to withold to whom my information has been passed.
>
> additionally one of the names is NOT a third party they are a FIRST party
> present at a meeting held by the criminal named AKIM who works for
> Hampshire violent assault services.
>
> Legally under the Autism Act 2009 they are not permitted to cause me
> distress.
>
> note that there are no questions, only statements.
>
> this is causing me distress.
>
> and risks death by Anaphylactic shock.
>
> either way it is assault.
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 16, 2025, Paul Holmes MP <paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Luke
>
> In relation to a SAR, a third party is considered any person or entity
> other than the data subject or the controller who is a recipient or
> processor of personal data, such as a service provider or contractor. So
> effectively anyone other than you, as the data subject, or the controller
> who would usually work for the organisation.
>
> Unfortunately they are allowed to redact these names.  You would now need
> to raise this with the Information Commissioners Office as a complaint,
> they will then be able to respond, but I am doubtful if the outcome will be
> the one you are hoping for, where they will instruct the organisation to
> release the names. In most cases, unless the third party has given consent
> for their name to be released, it will be redacted.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul Holmes MP
> Member of Parliament for Hamble Valley
> House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
> Tel: 020 7219 5484 or 02382 542 205
> Email: paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk
> Website: www.paulholmesmp.co.uk
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: lkcl <luke.leighton at gmail.com>
> Sent: 16 July 2025 13:15
> To: HOLMES, Paul <paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk>
> Cc: Libre-Soc General Development <libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org>
> Subject: Re: Care Quality Commission MHA-03402-V5V8D1 CRM:003564288228
> (Case Ref: PH17316)
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 16, 2025, Paul Holmes MP <paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Luke
>
> What is being redacted? Is it the names of third parties?
>
>
> no.
>
> a *known* name of an attendee of the meeting arranged by the criminal
> AKIM, who conspired based on criminally and fraudulently false information
> to have me violently smashed to the floor by 10 people.
>
> the *known* name of my mentally-ill ex-partner (who conspired with the
> same criminal source of fraudulent and malicious information, and who lied
> under police caution about a violent assault).
>
> with both names KNOWN, and not 3rd parties at all, their judgement is
> proven suspect and I require full unredacted access.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  If yes, then this adheres to the ICO regulations, and you would need to
> make a complaint direct to them, but to confirm, names of a third party can
> be redacted from a SAR request.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Holmes MP
> Member of Parliament for Hamble Valley
> House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
> Tel: 020 7219 5484 or 02382 542 205
> Email: paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk
> Website: www.paulholmesmp.co.uk
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: lkcl
> Sent: 16 July 2025 12:05
> To: Adult Services SAR Shared Mailbox , HOLMES, Paul
> Cc: Libre-Soc General Development
> Subject: Re: Care Quality Commission MHA-03402-V5V8D1 CRM:003564288228
> (Case Ref: PH17316)
>
>
>
>
> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>
>
>
> for the fourth time. which is itself Unlawful and a blatant Autism Act
> 2009 Violation.
>
>
>
> you cannot be trusted as I know whom the names were that the criminal AKIM
> wrote down.
>
>
>
> please stop lying you are placing yourselves at risk of criminal
> prosecution.
>
>
>
> get me the unredacted notes.
>
>
>
> this is not a request it is a demand.
>
>
>
> Paul: please do get through the thick heads of these people the distress
> they are causing and the medical danger their intransigence represents.
>
>
>
> l.
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 16, 2025, Adult Services SAR Shared Mailbox <
> adult.services.sar at hants.gov.uk> wrote:
>
> Dear Luke,
>
> We note from the e-mail below that you are expecting an "...unredacted
> version of the nov24 SAR...".  This subject access request was sent to you
> on 19 December 2024. You requested these records again on 16 May 2025 and
> they were resent to you on the same day. On 26 May 2025 you asked the
> Subject Access Request Team to locate handwritten notes which were then
> sent to you on 02 June 2025.  We e-mailed you on 29 May 2025 to explain the
> redaction of third party information from the records, for ease of
> reference this has been copied below...
>
> "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. 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. Details of external
> organisations have been retained within the disclosure so that you can see
> which organisations Adults’ Health & Care were communicating with."
>
> We can confirm that "internal administrative discussion" has not been
> redacted from the records.  Adult's Health & Care consider the subject
> access request you submitted during November 2024 to be complete.
>
> If you remain dissatisfied and believe that your data has been processed
> in a way that does not comply with the UK GDPR you have the right to
> complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) or to seek a
> judicial remedy. The Information Commissioner may be contacted at
> Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
> Cheshire SK9 5AF. https://ico.org.uk/. You can find more details on how
> to complain to the ICO on their website at: https://ico.org.uk/concerns/.
>
> Regards,
>
> Subject Access Request Team
> Adults' Health & Care, Hampshire County Council
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lkcl <luke.leighton at gmail.com>
> Sent: 15 July 2025 12:23
> To: zz_paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk <paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk>; Adult
> Services Complaints <adultservices.complaints at hants.gov.uk>; 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>
> Subject: Re: Care Quality Commission MHA-03402-V5V8D1 CRM:003564288228
> (Case Ref: PH17316)
>
> 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.
>
>
> paul thak you for helping. i got the second SAR today (yet to analyse it -
> i expect them to make the exact same
> mistakes)
>
> i have yet to receive the unredacted version of the nov24 SAR after
> discovering their criminal Obstruction of Justice by redacting a member of
> the violent assault team that is part of the 1861 Offenses Against the
> Person Section 18 Malicious GBH, as well as redacting names *known not to
> be Administrative Assistants*.
>
> if they don't wish to go to jail for extremely serious crimes, they'll get
> their stupid act together.
>
> but - as with all of these idiots, they are incapable of listening without
> placing me at serious risk.
>
> your help appreciated in getting through to them on my behalf as to the
> gravity of their Unlawful (and criminal) behaviour.
>
> l.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 12:13 PM lkcl <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > thanks paul.
> >
> > it is... not just ridiculous that they refuse to act (i have analysed
> > a 20-hour video EEG taken last week that happened to have been
> > recorded during a heavy storm, and found a remarkable similarity to
> > post-cardiac arrest EEGs) it is Unlawful. blatant systematic violation
> > of the Autism Act 2009. shocking someone with autism *and strokes* on
> > a routine systematic basis is... breathtaking, and when it is
> > *Lawfully required* to follow strict protocols and procedures - these
> > people need to be prosecuted, paul.
> >
> > l.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 10:37 AM Paul Holmes MP
> > <paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Luke
> > >
> > > Thank you for this e mail.  If you are not happy with the response
> > > you are receiving from the CQC, and they are refusing to engage
> > > further, your only option at this point would be to take your
> > > complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
> > > Further information on how to do that can be found at the following
> > > link https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-complaint
> > >
> > > Once you have completed and signed your complaint you will need to
> forward it to me electronically,  so that I can sign it also.  I will then
> return it to you so that you can forward to the PHSO with all your
> supporting documentation.
> > >
> > > I have made contact with Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust,
> Southern health and also Hampshire County Council regarding the SAR
> requests you have made to them, as soon as I receive responses I will
> provide these to you.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Holmes MP
> > > Member of Parliament for Hamble Valley House of Commons, London,
> > > SW1A 0AA
> > > Tel: 020 7219 5484 or 02382 542 205
> > > Email: paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk
> > > Website: www.paulholmesmp.co.uk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: lkcl <luke.leighton at gmail.com>
> > > Sent: 14 July 2025 21:36
> > > To: MHA Enquiries <MHAEnquiries at cqc.org.uk>, MHA Complaints
> > > <mhacomplaints at cqc.org.uk>, HOLMES, Paul
> > > <paul.holmes.mp at parliament.uk>
> > > Cc: info at The Advocacy People <info at theadvocacypeople.org.uk>,
> > > Nichola Ryder <nichola.ryder at theadvocacypeople.org.uk>,
> > > iwan.blann at hampshire.pnn.police.uk
> > > Subject: Re: Care Quality Commission MHA-03402-V5V8D1
> > > CRM:003564288228
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WITHOUT PREJUDICE
> > >
> > > to the CQC:
> > >
> > > 1. see below: your assertion that there is "nothing you do"
> > >   is false.
> > >
> > > 2. there exist outstanding complaints against your staff
> > >   that you failed to acknowledge let alone consider.
> > >
> > > 3. your failures of duty care and responsibility themselves
> > >   begin to border on criminality and torture.
> > >
> > > 4. your failures allow SH to get away with what almost amounted
> > >   to murder.
> > >
> > > 5. you terminated your investigation unilaterally even before
> > >   full information on the breathtakingly negligent and
> > >   criminal behaviour of 16 doctors had been provided.
> > >
> > >   are you legally permitted under your Charter to take
> > >   such irresponsible action?
> > >
> > > get your act together.
> > >
> > >
> > > Failing to provide safe care and treatment In April 2021, East Kent
> > > Hospitals NHS Trust pleaded guilty to a criminal charge brought by the
> Care Quality Commission (the CQC) over failings that led to the death of
> Harry Richford, at 7 days of age.  Harry was delivered by emergency
> caesarean section performed too late by a locum,  a second doctor delayed
> resuscitating Harry and he died from irreversible brain damage.
> > >
> > > The CQC charged the Trust with breach of regulation 12 of the Health
> and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, which
> obliges trusts to provide safe care and treatment.
> > >
> > > Again in July 2021, The Independent reported that the CQC is
> considering a criminal prosecution against Nottingham University Hospitals
> Trust, following the death of baby Wynter Andrews in September 2019.
> > >
> > > On Thursday, July 3, 2025, lkcl <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > that's not just "a bit of distress" you stupid idiots: it's abject
> terror causing massive blood pressure spikes that then BURSTS MAJOR
> CEREBRAL ARTERIES WITH CLEAR ATHERSCLEROSIS DAMAGE.
> > > > I nearly died multiple times and have been severely maimed.
> > > > that's RADICALLY different from "uh bi' 'o' disturesss"
> > > >
> > >
> > > UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended
> recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and
> delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is
> not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability
> is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
> This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used
> for sensitive data.
>
> UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended
> recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and
> delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is
> not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability
> is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
> This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used
> for sensitive data.
>
> UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended
> recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and
> delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is
> not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability
> is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
> This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used
> for sensitive data.
>
> UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended
> recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and
> delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is
> not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability
> is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
> This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used
> for sensitive data.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.libre-soc.org/pipermail/libre-soc-dev/attachments/20250716/b6a096ff/attachment-0001.html>