Disclaimer: The post titled “On State Surveillance” does not intend to attack government bodies. This post is based on lived experience, and it raises serious concerns in the public interest about human rights violations. This post is part of a civic testimony documenting concerns over surveillance and institutional suppression. It constitutes protected speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and relevant international law. This content does not promote hatred, violence, or discrimination. Any interpretation to the contrary is a misrepresentation of its intent and content. It forms part of a documented record of lived experience and systemic obstruction.

---

Summary

My previous post documented my concerns regarding the digital suppression and censorship of my campaign content by, I believe the UK Home Office. This post discusses the possible state surveillance that I think I am under by either the police or the Home Office.  Since my campaign ended on October 31st due to what I believe was digital suppression and censorship, I have become deeply concerned that my phone may be subject to unauthorised tracking or “pinging.” This post also explains that for reasons of personal safety, I am drawing this blog to a close for now, until this censorship and state surveillance that I suspect is happening has subsided. I don’t feel safe continuing to publish online content under these conditions.

Containment

I have been spending most of my time up in Northumberland. I love it up there and I feel safer there. Being in Northumberland provides me with physical distance from North Yorkshire, the location where I have experienced harm and abuse related to Ampleforth Surgery, North Yorkshire County Council, Tees, Esk and Wear Valley Trust (TEWV,) and potentially North Yorkshire police, (as I think the local police may be involved in the digital suppression of my campaign.) When I am away from North Yorkshire, I am better able to keep myself safe. I filmed all of my campaign videos from locations in Northumberland. Occasionally I choose other locations to go to, and I have made it public that I spend a lot of time away. I travel lawfully and peacefully on trains or coaches to these places, and I conduct myself lawfully and peacefully when staying in Airbnbs. No homeowners or agencies have complained to me about misbehaviour. I am a peaceful citizen.

Obstruction of Movement

I made plans to travel for a week to Pembroke, South Wales, after my campaign ended on October 31st, 2025. I had booked a coach to leave Leeds at 9.00am on Sunday, 2nd November. On the Saturday 1st November, I called a local taxi firm in Malton, who I have been using for years and who have never denied me a fare before. I asked them if they could collect me at 7.00am to take me to Malton bus station so I could board a bus to Leeds. The firm told me that they had ‘no availability’ to take me to Leeds ‘and could not take me.’ I found it strange that they were fully booked at 7.00am on a Sunday. 7.00am on Sunday is not a busy time of the week. I found a taxi company in Leeds, whom I booked a fare with. It was scheduled for them to collect me at 7.45am on Sunday. However, on Saturday morning, they phoned me to say they ‘could not take me.’ I don’t know for sure, but I think it is possible that these two denied fares were due to either the police or state agents calling them to tell them not to take me anywhere. It just seemed too random for two firms to deny me fares at that time of day. No authority currently has any safeguarding orders over me. I am free to travel where I wish. If anyone did tell these taxi firms not to take me to Leeds, then it would constitute possible safeguarding abuse. It also constitutes containment and obstruction. As a result of these denied taxi fares, I had to rebook a train ticket, which was expensive and took me an extra twelve hours of travel.

Human Rights Act –

Article 5: Right to Liberty

If an authority instructed these taxi firms to refuse service to me for travel to Leeds, it could potentially contravene Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees the Right to Liberty and Security. This article protects individuals from arbitrary detention or restrictions in movement. It guarantees that no one can prevent an individual from moving freely without lawful justification. Any restrictions imposed must be proportionate, lawful, and necessary, such as those enacted for public safety or legal proceedings. Restrictions like travel bans, surveillance-based limitations, or coercive monitoring could potentially breach Article 5 if they are not legally justified.

Surveillance – ‘Ping’.

I’m not 100% sure, but I believe it’s possible that the Home Office or the police are using “Ping” to monitor my whereabouts. A ping is a digital signal your phone sends out to connect with nearby cell towers. This signal happens automatically. Every time your phone pings a tower, it leaves a traceable record of your location. These pings allow mobile networks to monitor your movements across various locations. Law enforcement and surveillance systems utilise this data to observe individuals. They typically access phone location data through formal legal requests to network providers. Agencies require warrants or court orders under laws like the Investigatory Powers Act. When a person poses an immediate threat, there are emergency exceptions that allow authorities to access data without prior authorisation. However, unapproved or unofficial access, particularly without a warrant, may be illegal and constitute a serious invasion of privacy. Police requests for this access to data must be logged and auditable, identify the person and device, and provide justification (such as a legitimate criminal investigation or national security). Under UK law, lawful interception is permitted only with proper legal authority or with oversight from regulatory bodies.

The Human Rights Act, Article 8:

The Right to Private Life

Article 8: Human Rights Act – Right to Privacy.

If the police or state authorities have no warrant or legal basis for accessing this data, tracking my movements and my phone violates Article 8 of the Human Rights Act: The Right to a Private Life. Article 8 states that: ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime’[i] The right to a private life incorporates the privacy of one’s identity, psychological integrity and one’s communications. This incorporates data and digital presence. If a provider shared data without logging the request or outside legal channels, it may constitute unlawful surveillance. In summary, unauthorised surveillance, metadata tracking, or suppression of digital testimony – especially if it targets protected speech – may constitute a breach of Article 8. I am not posing a threat to national security or public safety. Nor am I causing disorder or crime. Therefore, if this surveillance is taking place, it may constitute unlawful surveillance. It is definitley a violation of my human right to privacy.

Reflection

I cannot know for sure if these allegations of state surveillance are true, but I think they are. I also think that authorities are possibly monitoring me via CCTV and facial recognition when I travel through hubs like Leeds, York and Newcastle. The reason that I think they are doing this, is not for concern for my safety, but to contain and watch me due to the controversy of my campaign. This is not an accusation. However, after my recent trip to Wales, I have reason to believe it could be happening. If it is happening, it would represent a serious violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act—the right to privacy, liberty and freedom of movement. This action follows my recent concerns about the digital suppression of my campaign content, a potential violation of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression). While I have little control over the algorithmic suppression of my campaign content, I do have some control over who can monitor my phone. For that reason, I will now be leaving my mobile phone at home to prevent any possible tracking and surveillance of my movements.

An Act of Protection

I do not intend to cause distress or alarm by leaving my phone at home. It is simply a measure to protect my fundamental right to privacy. I am moving about lawfully and peacefully, and there is no warrant or safeguarding order over me that could necessitate a reason to track my movements. I also shared this intention publicly on social media: on X, TikTok and You Tube on 10th November, 2025 so that, if my phone stops pinging at cell towers, this is the documented reason. Coupled with the violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, the right to freedom of expression (which has happened with the digital suppression of my testimony), this potential unlawful state surveillance is a serious impingement of my human rights. I am therefore calling on the UN special rapporteur on Human Rights to review these patterns.

Final Blog Post

I am terrified by this possible state surveillance. I am frightened for my life and for my safety. My system has gone into a state of ‘freeze’. I have decided to therefore draw this blog to a close for now. I plan to turn my attention to memoir and novel writing: more private creative pursuits, which do not expose me to attack or surveillance by the state. My Facial Pain will remain live indefinitely. I hope that this website will continue to be a source of information and a resource for readers. I would like to thank all of the readers who have visited My Facial Pain. Whilst it has not found the reach I had hoped for, for a site that is so detailed, I have been delighted with the steady flow of visitors, so thank you for visiting. This blog has been a labour of love. It is a body of work that I am deeply proud of. The posts cover such a wide range of topics. I have poured hours of thought and work into creating them. I therefore hope that they will continue to reach as many readers as possible! It’s a sad note to end on – Silenced by the state and punished for speaking out. This is the reality of the world we live in. Systems do what they have to do to protect their reputations. Even at the expense of a genuine patient in urgent need of help. It’s tragic, but I trust that you understand why I am having to pull back. It’s for my safety. Thank you for your support. Love Felicia X

Footnotes

[i] Human Rights Act, 1998, Article 8, Schedule 1, part 1, www.legislation.gov.uk Photo Credits: Mike Van Schoonderwart, Marcelo Chagas, Stefan Coders, Imjimmyqian, WdToro, KindelMedia, Pixabay, Brett Sayles and Mart Production on Pexels.

Disclaimer: State-Mandated censorship is not an attack on individuals or government bodies. This post is part of a civic testimony documenting concerns over censorship, institutional suppression and human rights violations. It constitutes protected speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and relevant international law.

This content does not contain misinformation. Nor does it promote hatred, violence, or discrimination. Any interpretation to the contrary is a misrepresentation of its intent and content. It forms part of a documented record of lived experience and systemic obstruction.

Trigger Alert: This post heavily discusses institutional harm and state-level censorship that some readers may find distressing. If you are affected by these issues and need support, please call NHS 111 (option 2) or the Samaritans freephone on 116 123.

---

Summary

This blog post and campaign video document my deepest heartbreak and shock at what appears to be state-mandated censorship and suppression of my online campaign content. It documents the systemic visibility suppression and metadata blackout of my campaign content following high platform engagement. This post marks the eclipsing of reach and notification silence across digital systems.

This post documents the events that have unfolded since my last post regarding the first stage of the digital suppression of my campaign—a directive that I believe is coming from the central government.

What’s Been Happening?

My previous post outlined my observations regarding the disappearance of numerous links to my campaign posts on X from Google search results. I raised the concern that NHS trusts may be submitting ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ (RTBF) requests to ask that Google remove these links from search engine results. This is what has happened since that discovery.

I believe I have been the victim of state mandated censorship. I believe this suppression originated from the Home Office or Central Government. However, I believe that North Yorkshire Police possibly triggered this suppression. It is my belief that in the final weeks of October, 2025, a government body issued a directive to all social media platforms and search engines to suppress the visibility of my campaign content. The intent appears to have been to sanitise the public record and to shield evidence of institutional failures.

The state mandated directive has resulted in the systematic deindexing, shadow banning, and algorithmic throttling of my testimony across multiple platforms. It has obstructed my ability to seek help, share evidence, and engage with public interest communities. I believe this constitutes a misuse of state power and a violation of my human rights, particularly my right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Here is what has happened:

Bing and Yahoo.

The first thing that I discovered regarding this state mandated censorship of my campaign content is that there is a sign under my X profile on Bing and Yahoo which says they are not allowed to crawl my X page.

Until the end of October, 2025, Bing and Yahoo had fully indexed all of my campaign videos from both TikTok and YouTube. However, in the later part of October, they were all removed. There were none of my campaign videos or any of my silent diaries visible on Bing or Yahoo. A central body has clearly forbidden competing search engines from indexing my campaign content.

After I published this video on TikTok and X, Bing and Yahoo reindexed my YouTube videos. However, they have still not reindexed any of my TikTok campaign videos or silent diaries, which have had high engagement.

My vidoes on TikTok have had thousands of views which is why I assume that central governement have disallowed competing search engines from indexing these ones. There is still a sign under my X page saying that Bing are disallowed from crawling it. This indicates that a central government body is still disallowing competing search engines from indexing from my campaign content.

Google De-indexing

I explained in my previous post that in mid October, links to my X campaign posts were disappearring from Google. I thought that NHS trusts had maybe submitted ‘Right to Be Forgotten Requests’ (RTBF) to Google and I thought that this is what was causing the links to my X posts to be de indexed.

Howevere, later developments caused me to think that this was tied to a much larger censorship directive. Until October 20th, 2025, my X profile and latest posts on X have always been highly visible on Google. My X profile and ‘latest posts’ from my X feed have consistently appeared in search results on Google. However, at the same time that Bing and Yahoo had de indexed my campaign videos, Google removed my latest posts from my X on Google search results. They were no longer indexed on Google.

Additionally, Google’s desktop version deindexed my X profile. My X Profile disappeared. Additionally, Google had not indexed my YouTube channel with all my campaign videos, even though I had 1.7k subscribers. My video campaign’s visibility on Google significantly changed as a result of these four incidents.

Algorithmic Throttling

The worst part of this state mandated censorship has been the algorithmic suppression and throttling of my campaign content on YouTube, X and TikTok. It has been heartbreaking.

TikTok

My TikTok account has been a thriving hub during my campaign. My videos have had thousands of views. TikTok has been continually circulating my videos. Every day, the view count increases on my videos. TikTok has been a wonderful experience of solidarity and support.

The support from people has been incredible. I received at least thirty notifications every morning when I woke up, including likes, comments, and reposts of my videos. After enduring this injustice on my own for twelve years, I have experienced a genuine sense of solidarity from those who have expressed true empathy for my plight. It has made me feel less isolated.

However, on the evening of 26th October, my TikTok archive went eerily quiet. This support abruptly stopped. TikTok ceased circulating my videos at the frequencing that they were doing, notifications significantly diminished, and I was digitally cut off from vital support. The view counts on most of my videos froze.

Since October 26th, the view counts on my videos have stayed the same. Now I get one or two notifications every day from select close followers. This indicates that a central body has possibly told TikTok to only show my videos on very few ‘For You’ feeds. These notifications from supporters have stopped because TikTok does not appear to be sharing my videos as they did.

It is so difficult to lose this connection to viewers. I feel bereft of the support and the dynamic impact my content was making. I feel increasingly more alone by the day. What is so heartbreaking about this silencing is that the lack of response from the DHSC to my pleas for help is hard enough. To be then cut off from supporters feels like persecution.

X, formerly Twitter.

The same pattern occurred on X. My reach was throttled, with views dropping to as low as 60 per post. Only a small cluster of loyal followers continued to see my content. Whilst my posts were still on my feed, very few people were seeing them and they were not indexed. This signficantly eclipsed their visibility.

I do not believe that this sudden decline in views and decrease in notifications on platforms is an algorithmic shift. I think that a government body has possibly told X and TikTok to stop showing my posts on people’s ‘For You’ feeds. This is not organic decline—it is aggressive algorithmic suppression.

This is not just a matter of platform policy. It is a matter of state accountability. If a central body issued this directive to conceal evidence of harm and silence a public interest advocate, it may constitute an illegal act and a breach of democratic protections.

This mass deindexing and algorithmic suppression has concealed my calls for help, suppressed evidence of systemic harm and obstructed public access to testimony that is ethically and legally significant. If this was a coordinated act of censorship, it may constitute a violation of my human rights and a criminal misuse of power by the state.

YouTube Suppression

The situation on YouTube mirrored what I experienced elsewhere, but with the added impact that I paid for promotion.

When I began uploading videos in early October, I received notifications about watch time and reach. I was getting notifications of new subscribers and comments from people prior to the issuance of this shadow ban order.

But since October 26th, I haven’t received any notifications. It seems like YouTube may have muted them. My recent videos have also had very low views even though I have 1.74k subscribers. This suggests YouTube was maybe not showing my videos to my subscribers. This algorithmic throttling is creepy because I could see my subscriber count going up daily, but I had no connection to them because of what seems to be an aggressive shadow ban.

After I published this video on You Tube, my subscription count froze. It had been rising daily. I am wondering if the subscribers are therefore curated as a way to simulate engagement when the Home Office has told them to suppress the reach of my videos. I don’t know as I am in the dark. However, something isnt adding up about this.

Paid Promotion?

YouTube also offered me paid promotion. I accepted promo for five videos around 10th October at £150 each. Google Ads confirmed these promotions. After 26th October, my notifications stopped. A notification subsequently appeared on my account indicating that the promotion had been either paused or halted.

On 17 November, Google Ads sent me an email stating that the promotion from 27th October had been retrospectively disapproved on the grounds of “clickbait” and “sensationalist text”. They did not say this to me at the time that they approved the promotion.

Despite this, Google Ads charged me a further £389 after 27th October, even though they had stopped the promotion.

In total, I paid £579 for promotion that did not deliver reach, leaving me with the sense that the funds went toward suppression rather than expansion. I believe this was not the result of a sudden algorithmic shift or a discretionary change of heart within Google Ads, but rather the implementation of a wider state directive to suppress my reach.

The effect of these actions has left me feeling both isolated and deliberately targeted. What began as an attempt to expand my reach through legitimate promotion ended in silence, with subscribers unable to see my work and funds taken for campaigns that were retrospectively disapproved. The outcome was containment, not expansion, and the isolation it produced is itself evidence of censorship.

What Happened?

This was not coincidental. It signifies, more than likley, that an order from the directive has told a human operator to apply a manual suppresison flag to these videos to protect the bodies involved.

I think that a government body ordered You Tube to stop the promotion. There is no way this sudden change after You Tube had agreed this promotion was user error, or content moderation. This targeted nature of this suppression suggests that this was about political containment.

I am most saddened about YouTube because of the promotion I paid for. Having my reach to subscribers and notifications muted after I have paid £579.00 implies possible monetisation of containment.

Although I am aware that these platforms are following directives from central government, this algorithmic compliance is disastrous. It suggests that social media platforms are now complicit in suppressing a public interest testimony and silencing the voice of a patient desperately seeking help. It is also a violation of my democratic right to speak.

The UK Home Office

A directive of this magnitude, affecting both search engine de-indexing of my content and algorithmic suppression on platforms, can only come from a central body. I am certain that this directive is coming from the UK Home Office.

I think that North Yorkshire police initially triggered the alert to the Home Office. In the month of August 2025, I tagged them in one of my X posts about North Yorkshire County council, (NYCC) not actioning the Public Protection Notice (PPN) that they served on NYCC in April 2025.

It can only be a government body that issued the order for search engines to de-index content so quickly and for platforms to abruptly limit the reach of my content. Additionally, the sudden suppression on TikTok and YouTube took place on October 26 at 8:00 p.m. This is not something a 9–5 office worker could have accomplished. I believe that it was a 24/7 crisis unit that issued this directive.

If I am correct that this state mandated directive is coming from a 24/7 crisis unit, then it is an obscene misuse of power. Crisis units are for monitoring and controlling national security threats, not to silence an advocate seeking help and promoting reform.

On 27th October, I posted on X about this digital siege I was under. I tagged Kier Starmer, asking him to help me. The censorship continued. I had no reply from anyone. This demonstrates that the central government is both aware of and encouraging this censorship. If I am right, then this does constitute state-mandated censorship.

Human Rights Violation

This state mandated censorship is suppressing evidence of documented harm. It is overshadowing my calls for reform, which are in the public interest, and silencing my cries for assistance. I believe that this censorship may constitute the crime of the obstruction of justice and a misuse of state power.

The eclipse of my testimony is also a violation of my human rights. All of my videos and posts safely fall within the remit of protected speech. They do not cite hatred or harassment. My campaign footage is neither defamatory nor slanderous. The language that I use is respectful. It doesn’t dehumanise people or organisations.

Given that my content falls within protected speech, this state mandated censorship and suppression of my online testimony may be a violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, 1998, includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive information and ideas without interference from public authority. Suppressing testimony about corporate harm and seeking help is a significant interference with this human right.

This directed suppression of my evidence by the state shows a key defect in a system of working related to freedom of expression and public accountability.

Conclusion

I feel terrified and heartbroken by these events. I am most afraid that the UK government will order a complete closure of my social media accounts. Even though I have issued a statement across all platforms asking them to keep my archive open in the public interest, every time I log in to my accounts, I fear closure.

I am aware that this state mandated censorship is not an attack on me physically but on my online presence, which serves to safeguard the public record. However, I still feel unsafe. I feel the Home Office and the police are watching me. For 30 regulatory bodies to ignore my public pleas for help was torturous enough, but to now silence my voice and cut me off from support is taking it one step too far.

I cannot be sure who is responsible for this suppression of my testimony and for this state-mandated censorship. My belief is that it originates with the Home Office. Whoever is responsible for this, history will hold them accountable. My campaign has been benign. It’s been about calling for help, accountability and  healthcare reform. These missions do not warrant this aggressive level of censorship.

I’ve spoken the truth, and I’ve been punished for it. Silenced. It is deeply unjust.

Video 19: Advocacy Video Campaign

In this video, I had not become aware about the algorithmic suppression on platforms. This video mainly speaks about the de indexing from search engines. My awareness about the algorithmic suppression came days later. Thank you.

Photo Credits: Sora Shimazaki, RDNE, Marco Bianchetti and This is Engineering and Goumbik on Pexels. Gama Films on Unsplash.

Disclaimer: The Digital Suppression of my Campaign is not an attack on individuals or institutions. It is raising awareness about the dangerous reality of data suppression online, digital rights and concealment of  public interest testimony. This post documents my lived experience, which raises serious concerns about transparency and the rights of whistleblowers to speak freely under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

Trigger Warning: This blog post references suicide and mental health neglect that some readers may find distressing. If you are affected by these topics and need support, please call NHS 111 (option 2) or the Samaritans freephone on 116 123.

---

Summary

This blog post and video document the early stages of the digital suppression of my campaign by either the NHS or central government bodies. It discusses the impact this has had on my online visibility, including the suppression of my calls for assistance, the obscuring of a public interest testimony, and the concealment of documented evidence of statewide corporate harm.

This post and the campaign video summarise the purpose of my campaign. It requests that all platforms (X, TikTok, Vimeo, and YouTube) keep my archives and accounts open in the public interest in the event that the UK government requests the closure of my social media accounts.

The Professional Standards Authority

A large part of my campaign has been my silent diaries. After I published my campaign videos across social media platforms, I have been publicly documenting every day of silence from regulators and MPs. This video concludes 44 days of regulatory silence, as my campaign ended on Friday, October 31st, 2025, due to what I believe to be censorship and digital suppression by government bodies.

I have heard from the Professional Standards Authority (PSA). The PSA contacted me on X, (formerly Twitter)  to say that they cannot intervene in personal cases. They said they were “sorry” for my experiences and distress, and they sent me a link to Samaritans to assist with my distress. They explained that they are the regulators of regulatory bodies and encouraged me to provide feedback.

My Reply to the PSA

I thank the PSA for contacting me. I understand it is out of their jurisdiction to help me personally because the PSA’s role is to oversee regulatory bodies, not to assist individuals. However, I found the link to the Samaritans that they sent me insulting, as it communicated an act of deflection on their behalf. Samaritans cannot help with twelve years of statewide institutional harm.

Even though the PSA cannot help me personally, they still have a role to play in the bigger picture of my case. My story is one of statewide systemic neglect. The neglect extends across 19 NHS trusts, two local authorities and a GP practice.  My story points to a systemic flaw or defect in the system’s inability to catch this harm.

The fact that every bit of this harm has gone unregulated indicates a breakdown in the functioning of our system’s defences: a cog that is not working correctly.

A Call For Review

I urge the PSA to use cases like mine for parliamentary review and scrutiny so that this harm does not occur to other patients. In order to avoid harming other patients in the same way, we must have a non-aggressive and non-blaming discussion about widespread neglect and what we can do to stop it in the future. We need a paradigm shift and an end to the “lessons have been learnt” culture. It’s time we stop accepting these platitutudes. It’s time that patients get real redress and accountability when things go wrong in healthcare.

Additionally, as the overseers of regulatory bodies, it is their business to address these 44 days of silence from regulators. The lack of response from regulatory bodies shows that they have turned a blind eye to a suicidal patient calling for help. It also shows that they have ignored serious patient safety concerns that I have raised. By ignoring my concerns, they are not protecting the public, which is what their role is. It is thus the PSA’s responsibility to address the silence of the bodies it regulates if regulation is truly about protecting the public.

Digital Suppression of My Campaign

My awareness about the digital suppression of my campaign has come in stages. This video documents my first stage of awareness. I became aware in mid October, 2025 that numerous links to my X posts had disappeared from Google. There were very few if any links to my X posts under my name that included my name and NHS trusts. The only links are to generic posts from many years ago.

I became aware that NHS trusts or a central body were likely submitting ‘Right to Be Forgotten Requests’ (RTBF) to Google to remove links from my X posts on Google. NHS trusts most likely submitted these requests to Google based on false allegations of harassment, defamation, or data breaches. If they are doing this, these grounds don’t qualify. All of my social media posts and vidoes fall within protected speech of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, (Freedom of Expression.) They do not contain misinformation. Nor do they promote hatred or discrimination and they contain no defamatory or slanderous content.

As part of this first stage of this digital suppression of my content, I’ve also observed a sign under my X profile on Bing and Yahoo saying that they are disallowed from crawling my site. This is a high-level block that only a governing central body could have potantially made.

Impact on Me

Whatever grounds the NHS trusts have for making these RTBF requests to Google, the removal of these links has significantly decreased the visibility of my campaign content.

This action means that my urgent calls for help are now less visible in the public domain. My public interest-driven demands for NHS reform and transparency are muted, and my documented evidence of corporate harm has been suppressed.

If NHS trusts or central bodies are submitting RTBF Requests to Google, they are doing this to protect their reputation and to keep this story out of the public record. However, they are suppressing the voice of a vulnerable patient who is desperately seeking help. This digital suppression is also reducing the visibility of a public interest disclosure. These actions could constitute the obstructing the course of justice.

My Campaign Mission

In light of this digital suppression of my campaign, I am naturally concerned that the NHS or regulators will request the closure of all of my social media accounts. I fear they will do this to conceal my documented evidence of harm throughout the NHS. As a result, I am summarising my campaign as part of my request to all platforms to keep my archive and accounts open in the public interest.

Felicias Campaign has been about obtaining an urgent independent review of my medical condition and implementing immediate mental health support to assist me while I am in crisis. This has not been successful. Despite making four public pleas for help to Penny Dash, the DHSC, 30 regulatory bodies or 40 MP’s, I have received no response.

I have also been campaigning for an end to systemic neglect so that no one endures what I have suffered. I have been campaigning for greater accountability and transparency within the NHS so that patients get real redress for their grievances. Lastly, my campaign has been about calling for urgent patient safety reform and improved crisis care across the NHS network.

All of these missions are in the public interest. They are to promote a more transparent healthcare system that protects patients. Patient safety and institutional harm are everybody’s business. I am therefore asking all platforms to keep my archive open in the public interest. This will enable reformers to find my work now and in the future.

No Defamation or Slander

All of my campaign videos and posts were carefully and responsibly created. The mental health videos and silent diaries include integrated trigger warnings. The trigger warnings that I include ensure safe viewing, and the footage is intended to end mental health neglect, not to promote self-harm.

My footage’s tone is neither defamatory nor slanderous. I have not named any clinicians or spoken negatively about any clinicians or institutions. I have redacted all clinician names from the medical documents that I have uploaded. There are no physical descriptions that could be used to identify anyone.

My campaign has been factual and evidence-based. All of the medical documents that I have uploaded are mine. They are from my medical records and they pertain to me and my medical history. As a result, I have not violated any data protection laws by using them. They have been used to seek assistance, particularly with regard to my scans, and to flag serious patient safety incidents.

My tone has been respectful throughout. My intention has not been to bring disrepute to the NHS. It has been about seeking help and accountability for what has happened to me. These are very different intentions.

Closing Comment

I will be documenting the far more aggressive digital  suppression of my campaign that happened towards the end of October, in my next post. This involves major algorithmic suppression and throttling across social media platforms and further de inexing of my campaign content online.

I feel threatened and targeted by this digital suppression. I have told the truth in a responsible manner, and government bodies are now punishing me for it Because all of my requests for help have gone unanswered, I also feel powerless in this circumstance.

Due to this digital suppression, I ended my advocacy campaign on Friday, October 31, 2025.

Setting The Record Straight

As a closing comment to this post, I would like to say this. I will do everything in my power to save my life. I wholeheartedly believe in the preservation of life, and I deserve to live in spite of this corrupt oppression. Truly, I will do my best. However, if I am unable to hold on, I would like to make it clear:

If I don’t make it, it’s not mental illness. I do not have a mental illness. I am in a life-threatening crisis because of physical pain and institutional harm. There’s a difference. It will not be because of weakness or cowardice. I am not weak. Nor will it be an act of defiance.

It will be the culmination of twelve years of institutional harm, complicity, regulatory silence, and institutional censorship and silencing.

It is critical that people understand this. If I am unable to survive, I don’t want their corruption and complicity to be diagnosed as my instability. That would cost me my integrity, and I don’t want that.

The weight of this oppression is too heavy. Nobody can be expected to carry this. No one. I’m not superhuman.

I ask that this be heard and understood with the reverence and respect it merits.

Thank you so much.

Video 18: Advocacy Video Campaign

 

Photo Credits: Pavel Danilyuk, Brett Sayles, Tdcat, Markus Spiske, Muffin and Lara Jameson on Pexels. Alora Griffiths on Unsplash.