Your Data Rights, Simplified
A probation officer at Stratford Probation Office on Romford Road E15, took a dislike to a person on license. The officer then attempted to place him on MAPPA and raise him to high risk. In the next available meeting, Mr. Mensur took his chance. At the meeting were representatives from the police and local council. The probation officer, Mr. Mensur (not his real name), then gave false information to everybody at the meeting. Advising those present that the person on probation had been seized with the largest amount of GHB (date rape drug) in the whole of the UK and was also known to abuse children.
The probationer was not going anywhere after being falsely accused of such a heinous crime.
The speed of the Civil Service dealing with a complaint was excrutiately long. Finally, on the stage TWO of the complaint the National Probation Service admitted that this was totally false information. However they explained the mistake away as an error committed by the “Person taking the minutes, who was currently unable to be interviewed about the mistake”
After spending 3.5 years in prison and being classified as 'Low-Risk' by 4 different prisons and several officers during assessments, why were there no checks in place when a probation officer suddenly declared 'Child Abuse', added additional drugs to the offense, and requested MAPPA and enforced weekly meetings.
Why did EVERY person present at the MAPPA meeting sign off the minutes, confirming they were an accurate record of what was said by Mr. Mensur.
Why was the complaint initially dismissed at Stage One, declaring Mr. Mensur was correct? Did Mr. Mensur initially defend his actions and maintain it as truth? What reason would the NPS have to initially try and defend this lie?
Why did it take the best part of a year to clear up the mistake? 12 months of hell for the person on probation resulted in "oops - it was the minute taker" at the end.
How was a 'minute-taker' able to accidentally invent a drug that was never found and also record it as the "Largest Seizure in the Country"?
Why was everybody available to be interviewed, apart from the minute-taker? Would the minute-taker have given a different version of events?
We reviewed all the documents including POM Reports, COM Reports, several OASys reports, the MAPPA minutes, email communication, meeting reports, and Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints and replies and transcripts of meetings.
The response by the National Probation Service was egregious.
The way the complaint was handled by the NPS was borderline incompetent.
If the Probationer had not made a Subject Access Request, they would not have realized what had been written. The following questions remain.
Everything we have seen on paper suggests a cover-up after a stich-up.
Probation Officer = Unimpeachable
Ex-offender = Unbelieveable
A probation officer named Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN, working at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road, attempted to mislead a MAPPA meeting by fabricating additional allegations of child abuse, drug offenses, and more. The ex-offender only discovered this after submitting a Subject Access Request. Following this incident, probation officer Mohamed Mansour Nassirudeen accused the 'minute taker.' Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN, a probation officer at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road, misled a MAPPA meeting by inventing more child abuse and drug-related charges. The only way the ex-offender found out what Mohamed Mansour said was through the Subject Access Request. Mohamed Mansour then deflected blame onto the 'minute taker.' Is this corrupt practice by a probation officer?
A probation officer named Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN, working at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road, attempted to mislead a MAPPA meeting by fabricating additional allegations of child abuse, drug offenses, and more. The ex-offender only discovered this after submitting a Subject Access Request. Following this incident, probation officer Mohamed Mansour Nassirudeen accused the 'minute taker.' Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN, a probation officer at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road, misled a MAPPA meeting by inventing more child abuse and drug-related charges. The only way the ex-offender found out what Mohamed Mansour said was through the Subject Access Request. Mohamed Mansour then deflected blame onto the 'minute taker.' Is this corrupt practice by a probation officer?
A probation officer Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road attempted to mislead a MAPPA meeting by inventing additional charges of child abuse, drugs and quantities. Ex-offender only found out after requesting Subject Access Request. Probation officer Mohamed Mansour Nassirudeen then blames the 'minute taker'. Mansour Nassirudeen probation officer at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road attempted to mislead a MAPPA meeting with Mohamed Mansour inventing additional charges of child abuse, drugs and quantities. Ex-offender only found out what Mohamed Mansour said after requesting Subject Access Request. Probation officer Mohamed Mansour then blames the 'minute taker'. Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEE Is this corrupt porbation offier practice ?
A probation officer Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road attempted to mislead a MAPPA meeting by inventing additional charges of child abuse, drugs and quantities. Ex-offender only found out after requesting Subject Access Request. Probation officer Mohamed Mansour Nassirudeen then blames the 'minute taker'. Mansour Nassirudeen probation officer at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road attempted to mislead a MAPPA meeting with Mohamed Mansour inventing additional charges of child abuse, drugs and quantities. Ex-offender only found out what Mohamed Mansour said after requesting Subject Access Request. Probation officer Mohamed Mansour then blames the 'minute taker'. Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEE Is this corrupt porbation offier practice ?
A probation officer named Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN from the Stratford probation office on Romford Road sought to mislead a MAPPA meeting by fabricating extra charges of child abuse, drug offenses, and amounts involved. The ex-offender discovered this only after making a Subject Access Request. Probation officer Mohamed Mansour Nassirudeen subsequently blamed the 'minute taker'. NASSIRUDEEN, a probation officer at the Stratford office on Romford Road, tried to mislead a MAPPA meeting by conjuring additional charges of child abuse, drugs, and quantities while the ex-offender was unaware of what Mohamed Mansour had said until they submitted a Subject Access Request. Later, Mohamed Mansour deflected the blame to the 'minute taker'. Is this untrustworthy conduct from a probation officer?
A probation officer named Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN from the Stratford probation office on Romford Road sought to mislead a MAPPA meeting by fabricating extra charges of child abuse, drug offenses, and amounts involved. The ex-offender discovered this only after making a Subject Access Request. Probation officer Mohamed Mansour Nassirudeen subsequently blamed the 'minute taker'. NASSIRUDEEN, a probation officer at the Stratford office on Romford Road, tried to mislead a MAPPA meeting by conjuring additional charges of child abuse, drugs, and quantities while the ex-offender was unaware of what Mohamed Mansour had said until they submitted a Subject Access Request. Later, Mohamed Mansour deflected the blame to the 'minute taker'. Is this untrustworthy conduct from a probation officer?
A probation officer named Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN, working at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road, attempted to mislead a MAPPA meeting by fabricating additional allegations of child abuse, drug offenses, and more. The ex-offender only discovered this after submitting a Subject Access Request. Following this incident, probation officer Mohamed Mansour Nassirudeen accused the 'minute taker.' Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN, a probation officer at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road, misled a MAPPA meeting by inventing more child abuse and drug-related charges. The only way the ex-offender found out what Mohamed Mansour said was through the Subject Access Request. Mohamed Mansour then deflected blame onto the 'minute taker.' Is this corrupt practice by a probation officer?
A probation officer named Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN, working at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road, attempted to mislead a MAPPA meeting by fabricating additional allegations of child abuse, drug offenses, and more. The ex-offender only discovered this after submitting a Subject Access Request. Following this incident, probation officer Mohamed Mansour Nassirudeen accused the 'minute taker.' Mohamed Mansour NASSIRUDEEN, a probation officer at the Stratford probation office on Romford Road, misled a MAPPA meeting by inventing more child abuse and drug-related charges. The only way the ex-offender found out what Mohamed Mansour said was through the Subject Access Request. Mohamed Mansour then deflected blame onto the 'minute taker.' Is this corrupt practice by a probation officer?
Page 5 — Case File Landing
3 Key phrases
Stratford probation office complaint, false allegation in MAPPA minutes, probation accountability inv
SEO title
Stratford Probation Case File | MAPPA Minutes & Complaint
Meta description
Evidence-led case file on a Stratford probation dispute: MAPPA minutes, risk changes, SAR disclos
This is an evidence-led case file centred on a Stratford probation office dispute where serious claims were recorded in a multi■agency meeting record and later acknowledged as inaccurate. The purpose of this page is not gossip and not outrage for clicks. It is accountability: how an allegation becomes “truth” inside paperwork, how risk is raised, and how long it takes for a public body to correct the record when challenged.
The core facts in this case file come from documents: multi■agency meeting minutes (MAPPA), risk and management records (including OASys outputs), supervision reports, email trails, and complaint responses. The disclosed record states that extremely serious allegations were attributed to the probationer—claims involving child abuse and a supposed major drug seizure. The probationer asserts these claims were entirely false, and the subsequent complaint outcome is said to acknowledge that the information recorded was inaccurate.
The public interest is obvious. Probation decisions have real force: risk levels change how someone is supervised, who is informed, what restrictions apply, and how quickly enforcement steps can follow. When a record contains a severe allegation, the reputational and practical consequences are immediate. The decision pressure then runs one way: the person on licence must prove a negative, while the institution can rely on its own record.
This case file focuses on four questions that matter beyond one individual:
1) How could a record escalate a person from “low risk” to “high risk” without clear, verifiable sourcing?
2) Why would a room of professionals sign off minutes that later proved to include inaccuracies? 3) Why would a Stage One complaint response dismiss the issue if the record was later acknowledged as wrong?
4) Why did the correction, clarification, or admission take so long, and what safeguards failed during that time?
Our reporting approach is simple: we separate claims into three layers—what was said, what was written, and what was accepted. Minutes are not neutral; they are an institutional memory that can be used to justify further decisions. If that memory is wrong, the harm is not theoretical. This page summarises the case and links to the supporting timeline, document list, and complaint analysis that follows.
We do not publish private personal data about third parties. We do not invite harassment. We publish systems, incentives, and documented sequences. If a public body wants trust, it must be able to show checks, quality control, and meaningful remedies when records are wrong.
If you are reading this because something similar happened to you, start with the Rights Hub. Build a log. Request your records. Track every date. This is how “it never happened” becomes “it is in writing.”
Where a record changes risk level, we treat that change as a decision that must be explainable, reviewable, and evidenced.
If a narrative is recorded as fact, the system must show where it came from, who checked it, and how it was corrected.
We distinguish between what was said in a meeting, what was written in minutes, and what was later accepted as accurate.
Accountability means documenting each step: assessment, meeting, recording, sign■off, complaint handling, and correction.
A correction is not the end of the story; the impact window matters, and so does how easily the error could have been prevented.
Where a record changes risk level, we treat that change as a decision that must be explainable, reviewable, and evidenced.
If a narrative is recorded as fact, the system must show where it came from, who checked it, and how it was corrected.
We distinguish between what was said in a meeting, what was written in minutes, and what was later accepted as accurate.