ALEC Samuels (Letters, July 5) accuses me of mounting a personal vendetta against him, which it isn’t –- just the normal cut and thrust of correspondence in the media.

He also states that my “facts” are mere quotes from the media, which certainly, in regard toof my last letter, is nearly 100 per cent untrue.

I quoted a number of examples that have adversely affected me in my many medical problems from withdrawal of services.

I also quoted the appalling lack of care by the mental health services in this area that led directly to the suicide of my youngest daughter last September.

I quoted dates regarding her death, the inquest that was critical of the lack of care, the publication in the Ppress and the date it was brought before Parliament and appeared in Hansard.

The case is still in the public domain and a final report is still pending.

How many more “facts” do you need Mr Samuels?

Would you care for a copy of the coroner’s report or perhaps a copy of her death certificate?

One “fact” that does stand out in Mr Samuels’ letter is in his previous correspondence he states there is no evidence of privatising the NHS yet this letter admits that it is being done in the interest of economy and efficiency. Though that is a matter of opinion, which from personal experience, I could challenge.

He then goes on to quote “facts” (from the media I expect) of the sums of extra money being allocated by the government to improve the NHS.

Which obviously begs the question –- if that is so, how do you account for the closure of a mental health ward in Canberra House, surgeries complaining of insufficient doctors and nurses, one of the largest practices in Bitterne probably closing?

Nationwide, lack of care facilities for the elderly, leading to thousands of cases of bed blocking?

All of these problems appear daily almost in every section of the media.

Many reports state in some areas the situation is dire.

If all of this is true, it suggests that the administration of the extra monies Mr Samuels quotes indicates gross mismanagement while cutting services.

Mr Samuels’ continual whinge that my letters are a vendetta could lead me to think that he is running a vendetta against me.

But I wouldn’t go down that track, it might become an obsession.

I prefer to consider it freedom of expression.

D R Smith Bitterne, Southampton