Community Notifications and Gang Stalking
Targeted Individuals have spent several years trying to understand the mechanisms that would allow the type of targeting that is happening to them to exist. Many have tried to understand how a system could exist that could monitor and track them 24/7. That could follow them from community to community. A structure that could label them, even from country to country.
Most targets see themselves as innocent individuals. People that have done no wrong, yet many started to experience, psychological torture, electronic harassment, and systemic wide targeting almost as if overnight in some cases, and in other cases it slowly built up over years.
Targets looked at structures such as Cointelpro, The Stasi, Stalking Groups, Vigilantes, the types of structures that had occurred in the past that had lead to a similar types of harassment. Many were close and very similar to what targets experienced, in their scope, and potential for systemic life disruptions and destruction, but none were ever quite perfect.
Then last year the case of a woman in England named Jane Clift was brought to light as she made headlines in the U.K., and beyond. Ms. Clift tried to perform what was her citizens duty in reporting a man that had become angry and violent with her. In reporting this man, she herself was embroiled in a verbal altercation with the community worker that she tried to report his anti-social behaviours to. Ms. Clift followed up their heated discussion with a letter, and for this simple act, Ms. Clift was placed on a list with sex perverts, and other criminals. She was placed on what the U.K. calls the violent persons registry. It’s a listing for individuals who have displayed violent or other inappropriate behaviour. Ms. Clift found that being under the spotlight of this flagging system was too much and she was forced to move from the area that she had lived in for over 10 years.
Ms. Clift unlike many targets had been given notification that she was to be placed on such a list. The nature of her perceived offence, and the length of time she would be on such a list. She described her experience, which in some pivotal ways matched some of what Targeted Individuals had mentioned in their harassment.
She sensed that, everywhere she went, there was “whispering, collaboration, people scurrying about”. “Everywhere I went – hospitals, GPs, libraries – anywhere at all, even if I phoned the fire service, as soon as my name went on to that system, it flagged up ‘violent person marker, only to be seen in twos, medium risk’.” 2
Ms Clift’s targeting if not identical was at least fraternal to what targets had described. People collaborating. Whispers, scurrying, life disruption that had caused her to move. In Ms. Clifts case the warning markers, and flags had been sent out to quite a few agencies, and thus everywhere she want this warning marker followed her.
The question then became was such a system, or similar system available in other countries? Which laws were being used and who was responsible for keeping or organizing such information?
Further research showed that under occupations health and safety laws, there was such a structure in place, that would allow an individual to receive a warning marker, or flag on their files for various perceived offences. The structure matched and covered all the various markers that targets had complained about. The structure also allowed for those around the accused to be fully aware of what was ongoing, while it allowed the accused to be unaware, unable to defend themselves. This structure upon further and deeper examination fit extremely well with what was ongoing.
Under the Occupational health and safety, or community health and safety laws, which have been established in many countries, individuals can be flagged and a notification about them can be sent out to the community at large, all without the targets awareness. These laws give workers the right to be made aware if they are about to encounter potentially violent situations or individuals. These laws however do not give the target any foreknowledge of the violence, and harassment they will soon receive from the community, once placed on such a notification system.
Workers have the ’ right to know ‘ all risks and safe work procedures associated with the job. This may involve identifying individuals with a history of unpredictable or violent behaviour.
Training workers to recognize escalating behaviour that has the potential to result in violence is a common way to minimize risk. Five warning signs of escalating behaviour and possible responses are listed in Appendix C.
In the service sector this may require identifying to employees persons who have a history of aggressive or inappropriate behaviour in the store, bar, mall or taxi.
The identity of the person and the nature of the risk must be given to staff likely to come into contact with that person. While workers have the right to know the risks, it is important to remember that this information cannot be indiscriminately distributed. 3
Workers do have a right to know if they are going to encounter violent situations or individuals. On the surface this sounds like a good thing, and if used properly should be a good thing, yet the innocent were and are being targeted by this system. How were innocent individuals, whistle-blowers, and others ending up on such lists without any kind of warning or notification? Even convicted prisoners get warnings if they are going to be placed on a notification system, thus legally it would be presumed that other individuals would have the same rights and protections if there lives were going to be disrupted in a similar manner. This does not seem to be the case.
Under these occupational health and safety laws, incidents must be reported. They can range anywhere from threatening looks, yelling, to actual physical aggression and everything in between. They can also include other inappropriate behaviours. Eg. Acts of sexual aggression, harassment, intimidation, inappropriate lewdness, etc.
Once a worker files a report, if the workplace has an Employee Assistance Program then this matter might be discussed with that department. If the behaviour is deemed to be a real concern, then it might be forwarded to a Threat Assessment Team. This team is where designation, warning markers, and notifications can be determined and applied to an individuals file, depending on the structure of the organization.
Employee Assistance Program and Threat Assessment Team
This is a pre-emptive team with a mission of early identification of intervention. The composition of the TAT shall be the following individuals or their designated representatives: 4
Early interventions can be misconstrued and lead to damaging consequences. There many assumptions that go into pre-crime policing, that can have damaging consequences for the target involved.
Oregon State Police Sgt. Jeff Proulx explained to South Oregon’s Mail Tribune why the operation was such a success: “Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach.”
There’s just one problem: David Pyles hadn’t committed any crime, nor was he suspected of having committed one. The police never obtained a warrant for either search or arrest. They never consulted with a judge or mental health professional before sending out the military-style tactical teams to take Pyle in.
“They woke me up with a phone call at about 5:50 in the morning,” Pyles told me in a phone interview Friday. “I looked out the window and saw the SWAT team pointing their guns at my house. The officer on the phone told me to turn myself in. I told them I would, on three conditions: I would not be handcuffed. I would not be taken off my property. And I would not be forced to get a mental health evaluation. He agreed. The second I stepped outside, they jumped me. Then they handcuffed me, took me off my property, and took me to get a mental health evaluation.” 5
This team consists of members from Human Resources and other organizations. In the case of one Florida University the organization consists of many different individuals from various areas that work together to make the determination of whether they thing an individual could be a cause for violence.
1. Chief, University Police Department 2. Director, EAP 3. Director, Personnel Services 4. General Counsel 5. Appropriate Vice-President 6. Others as needed and deemed appropriate by above representatives E. Workplace Violence Management Team: A Workplace Violence Management Team (WVMT) shall periodically review the workplace violence policy and recommend changes as needed. The WVMT shall consist of the following persons or their designated representative:
1. Chief, University Police Department 2. Director, EAP 3. Director, Personnel Services 4. General Counsel F. Crisis Management Unit – The University maintains a Crisis Management Unit (CMU) through a collaborative effort between the Psychology Department and the Campus Police Department. In the event of a situation which may require immediate police or psychological intervention, the Police department should be notified. The Chief of Police (or designated representative) will determine if the situation requires the attention of the police, the CMU or the TAT. 4
In addition to exhibiting violent or other inappropriate behaviours, there are other factors that could ensure that an individual has a warning marker, or flag placed on their file. Again this will differ with each organization, but the concept is the same. This structure or one similar is used in some cases to determine if individuals will end up on this system wide notification.
V. “Fitness for Duty” Issues
In addition to the definitions of violent, potentially violent, and abusive behaviors as discussed in Section IV, these Guidelines shall also be concerned with behaviors, physical and verbal, that may not appear to be violent, potentially violent, or abusive prima facie. Such behaviors that do not fall within the purview of the definitions in Appendix A, yet may be viewed as precursors to violent behavior and/or have the tendency to interfere with a harmonious work environment or with an individuals work performance, shall be deemed as “fitness for duty” issues. Examples of “fitness for duty” behaviors may include, but are not limited to:
A. Expression of bizarre and inappropriate thoughts. B. Excessive absenteeism without prior approval or rationale. C. Degenerating physical appearance. D. Acts of insubordination. E. Poor work performance. F. Poor workplace relationships with others. G. Indications of alcohol/substance abuse. H. Excessive complaining. 4
The additional criterias that can get a person flagged, are interestingly enough many of the same symptoms that harassment, bullying and mobbing victims targets experience, or have express experiencing at the height of their targeting. Remember that harassment can happen in the workplace, in the community, or on campus. Many victims of sexual harassment have expressed inappropriate thoughts of what they would like to see happen to those harassing them. Many targets of sexual harassment and other harassment’s do not always keep up their physical appearance, while being harassed. They might disobey supervisors if asked to work with their assailant. Targets of mobbing, bullying, and harassment do often start to exhibit poor performance, workplace reviews and assessments. Some do turn to alcohol and substance abuse to deal with the harassment. Almost all targets of these harassment do make complaints to human resources on a regular basis in order to have the harassment stopped. Yet these are coincidentally the criteria listed for determining if someone is fit for duty.
VI. Reporting Procedures
All University employees and registered students, regardless of position, are responsible for the immediate reporting of any acts of violence, potential acts of violence, or threats they have received or witnessed, or have been told that another employee has witnessed or received. Employees and students should also report unusual, harassing, or threatening behaviors, as defined in Appendix A, even though such behaviors may not be in the form of an imminent threat, particularly if these behaviors make one fearful for his or her continued safety. Employees must make such reports regardless of the relationship of the employee to the person who initiated the threat or behavior or committed the act of violence. 4
Today’s workplace does not leave very much room for discretion. It is now routine for individuals to report acts of aggression, or other inappropriate behaviours. These can often have devastating affects on innocent individuals.
A medical technician killed himself after being suspended from work after someone complained that he made a politically-incorrect joke about a black friend.
Roy Amor, 61, who was devastated at the prospect of losing his job making prosthetics, shot himself in the head outside his house.
He was facing a disciplinary investigation after suggesting to the black colleague that he ‘better hide’ when they noticed immigration officers outside their clinic.
It is understood that the man was a close friend of Mr Amor and was not offended. However, it was overheard by someone else who lodged a formal complaint. 6
The above case shows how a seemingly innocent joke between two friends, can be overheard, taken as offensive by a third party, and lead to dire consequences. He made the remark to an individual who was a long term friend, but this remark lead to a disciplinary investigation. An investigation which might even have seen him fired from his job. Unable to face the consequences he committed suicide.
Due to the secrecy used in this program a target of harassment might well display anger, or other legitimate outbursts. Once this happens all the aggressors who are familiar with this system have to do is report the incidents. Explain how the target makes them feel threatened, uncomfortable, or express concerns about workplace violence. When in fact the target is the one being constantly provoked. Get a few friends involved and before you know it, the target is the problem. The target is the person who is aggressive, and the target is the one being disciplined or having a warning marker placed on their file. Targets are often being baited by complete strangers once they find themselves on these notification lists.
In future many more innocent people might just find themselves with such warning markers added to their files, as the DSM make the definition for mental illness that much wider and broader in scope.
Proposed updates to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) are prompting many to question whether or not the psychiatric profession itself has gone crazy. The latest additions to the alleged “mentally ill” could include hoarders, people who get angry every now and again, lazy people, and even those who get outraged over things like sex and violence on television. 7
“For this latest revision they’ve set up a special task force to decide if behaviors like bitterness, extreme shopping or overuse of the internet should be included,” explained Professor Christopher Lane 7
Many Internet users who spend time on games such as World of Warcraft might meet this definition. People who spend too much time on chat forums. Lazy individuals, people who get angry, or who get upset about too much violence on television, people who like to shop too much, or hoard things, might all make the list in future. The criteria for these definitions are not only unscientific, they could easily incorporate most any individual in today’s modern society. If these definitions are successfully updated, there could be many more targets making the list in future.
Once a target is flagged, or a warning marker is placed on their files, depending on what the threat assessment team determines a community notification is sent out to the individuals around the target. Anyone that might come in contact with the target is contacted. Others who are part of these notification programs are also contacted when the target is nearby.
If a target makes a call, or their name is pulled up on a system, the targets warning marker will follow them. The community then naturally goes into hypervigilance mode, and they do anything they can to remove that individual from within the community. Most individuals treat these notifications the same way they would treat notifications about any other threat, be it paedophiles, rapists, the same hysteria is often present.
Some people might argue that they would feel more secure if they were aware of the identities of dangerous offenders in their neighbourhoods, but widespread community notification actually serves to heighten fear of victimization. In a large metropolitan area, hundreds of thousands of people are notified of a dangerous offender’s release, while only hundreds will come into contact with him in the community. This blanket notification propagates the belief that there are more “predators” in the community than ever before, and fearful attitudes among members of the public are reinforced. A vicious cycle results: widespread notification leads to an increase in the community’s fear of crime which, in turn, leads to more calls for notification. We would also argue that the use of inflammatory language such as “predator” by politicians and officials also works to heighten fear and increase calls for more punitive action. 8
Since the innocent target has no idea of what is happening behind their back, this system is being used in inappropriate ways. Based on the research that has been conducted,it seems this notification systems is being used to silence whistle-blowers, women seem to be targeted above average, and minorities. As Jane Clift points out, this system goes beyond race, gender. There are lot’s of men and non minority individuals who have also found themselves targeted by this system. This program is not only systemic, but these notifications are being used indiscriminately, with very little oversight, and they are being used beyond borders.
Since most civil workers are aware of this notification system, it means that targets reporting incidents of being followed around by various strangers should not have been unfamiliar to the police, and other agencies that targets reported their harassment to. In most cities this notification is well known, and used by many workers and employers. Yet Targeted Individuals have had to have mental health evaluations for making complaints about this structure, and the harassment that comes with it.
Not only will this program used the civil servant already mentioned, but it will expand who is used in the program. They will have secret sources of communication available to them. The members of these programs will connect with the fusion centres. None disclosure agreement or a confidential disclosure agreements will be signed by many in these programs to ensure that the information is protected. 9
Once the notification goes out, the target literally feels as if they have become enemy of the state, because the community is getting a notification with information that may or may not be fully accurate. Remember a lot of the reporting that happens, happens by individuals who could have ulterior motives, such as revenge. For someone familiar with this structure, it’s the perfect way to systemically destroy someone’s life and keep them out of the loop for years, if not forever.
The portion of the harassment that targets refer to as Gang Stalking is a deliberate psychological operation that happens within this structure. Involving community harassment, community mobbing, gaslighting, street theatre, electronic harassment and dozens of other techniques that all work together to help systemically destroy the target over time. It also paints those complaining as mentally ill. This structure is capable of destroying the targets reputation, and credibility. As the target seeks to get help for the community harassment that will inevitably occur under such a notification, their cries and pleas for assistance are ignored. Their stories of harassment, stalking, mobbing, electronic harassment, are all conveniently written of as signs of mental illness,while the Targeted Individuals life continues to be systemically interfered with, and continues to fall apart.
Most participants of this notification structure seem to be under some kind of confidentiality or none disclosure agreement. There is also a structure in place that seems capable of punishing anyone who is part of this structure that steps out of line, thus most people do not discuss this program, even as those close to them are being destroyed.
These occupational safety and health laws are in most communities, workplaces, and educational facilities. They are in most democratic countries, such as Canada, U.S., U.K. and the rest of Europe. At this stage many other countries seem to be adapting this structure, and from the feedback targets have provided it seems that this structure is already in most countries.
What this means is that wittingly or unwittingly. There is a systemic, surveillance structure that is fully capable of monitoring and targeting an individual who has been flagged in this manner. This structure is not limited to states, or provinces, and can go beyond borders. The targets information might also be indiscriminately distributed to a wide range of individuals. Individuals that the target might never come in contact with face to face, yet who the target might have an acquaintance, or business relationship with. It’s basically a net that is capable of touching everyone connected to the target, and poisoning them with the information contained in the targets file, wither accurate or not. Because most targets have no idea what is happening, or how such a structure could exist, they are floored as they try consistently to get help within the normal structures, while being written off as having a mental illness.
I believe that this notification system will continue, because it works for many. Many like feeling as if they are part of a secret club. Unless it happens to them, most will never truly understand how devastating such a structure can be to an innocent person. I can only suggest that those with the know how, financial ability, and dedication, work towards implementing laws to get this structure corrected.
This structure should be required to give written notification to targets. If an investigation is ongoing, then the time frame for the investigation should be limited. Targets complain of years, upon years of targeting. If the targets guilt has been established in some capacity, then invite them to a hearing. If not then it should be mandatory to remove these notification after a specific time frame. Most lawyers, mental health workers, police, are all fully in the know about this notification system, thus targets and their complaints of harassment should be taken seriously. Instead this notification system is being used to destroy innocent lives, or harass them for years on end with dire consequences to themselves, and the communities at large.
What many in society still do not understand or realize is that there is a dark side to many of those shootings and violent incidents, there is a dark side that society would rather not have you know about. A dark side that happens masked just below the public’s eye and awareness, but that is often very real and traumatizing for the Targeted Individual. 11
This notification system in scope and breadth is no less damaging then the Stasi’s system of harassment, or the American Cointelpro program. The difference now is that the state has masked these offences under the guise of doing what is right for the community. Leaving innocent targets at the mercy of the mob, and individuals who use this system to openly target, harass, oppress and control those who have been targeted.
Is Lindsay Lohan a Targeted Individual?
The media of late has been doing a stupendous job of pointing out what a train wreck Lindsay Lohan is. Most have started to write her obituary. Others are making it seem as if there is not an immediate intervention, that she will wind up dead. This is the picture that is being painted but is it the truth?
Lindsay Lohan recently went on her twitter account to ask why her friends would set her up to have the paparazzi take pictures of her at her worst moment. She says she trusted these people, and thought they were friends, but they helped to set it up to look like she was partying, and in bad shape yet again.
[quote]“We’ve learned Lindsay was two months behind in rent and her landlord sent her a legal notice to pay or get out. Lindsay just paid her landlord $23,000 to become current,” the site reported this morning.
Adding insult to injury (not this one though) Lindsay took to her Twitter last night because security at a nightclub set it up to look like she was there partying. Which she was not. Swearsies.
“Security @Voyeur nightclub in LA just set me up & paid off paparazzi to not let me in the back door and come to take photos of me in the back ,” she wrote. Another 140 characters was devoted to: “I was just waiting for my friend at the back door…… Worse part is, my friends who run the club were a part of the set-up as well. Why?”
I think that’s the question du jour Lindsay, “Why?” [/quote]
The why might be more straight forward than realised.
About a year ago, Lindsay Lohan broke up with her girlfriend Samantha Ronson. Ronson’s family tried to then find out the procedure to take out a restraining order on Lohan. Lohan claims that she is not dangerous, but the family felt that she was. According to news reports, the family felt she was out of control and wanted protection. This in conjunction to the public fights, and other behaviour could have gotten Lindsay flagged as a dangerous or violent person without her knowing it.
A year later she seems to be short on funds, the police are trying to have her committed using a 5150, the media is doing all it can to portray her as a wreck, out of control, into drugs. She is claiming set up’s. Some sites have even written her obituary.
Recently the media has been trying to portray Lindsay to be a train wreck, drugs seeping from her shoes, unable to pay rent, a partier, who can not take care of herself, and who has no job and no chance of an income, but is any of this really true?
The drugs in the show was just baby powder according to Lohan. She is now up to date on her rent. The bailout might have come from her parents, but she is up to date. According to her movie page, she has one movie that she will be working on soon.
She is also Lindsay Lohan, and she can just like Britney make a comeback. The problem is the media is now doing it’s best to make it seem as if she is unable to look after herself a real wreck.
Some of this has clearly come from Lohan’s image that has been allowed to develop over the last several years, but some is likely to be set up’s as she mentioned above.
It should also be pointed out that the police were activly trying to get a 5150 filed against her. She did not meet the criteria at the time. This is an order that would have her involuntarily committed.
“Section 5150 is a section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code (specifically, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act or “LPS”) which allows a qualified officer or clinician to involuntarily confine a person deemed to have a mental disorder that makes them a danger to him or her self, and/or others and/or gravely disabled. A qualified officer, which includes any California peace officer, as well as any specifically designated county clinician, can request the confinement after signing a written declaration.”[/quote]
Lindsay Lohan does not know it yet, but she might have unwittingly entered the Gang Stalking Zone.
She needs to be sure she does not lash out, watch out for set ups, and get a lawyer. If this is an attempt to Gang Stalk her, set her up for commitment, then she is going to have to fight hard.
Below is an updated list of some of the signals that I have observed the informants using over the years. It’s not a complete list, but it should help get the average person started in snitch speak.
Remember the actual terms might not be exact, but this is a general gist of what they use the signals to convey. These were picked up over the last few years, on the streets. I have spent hours watching, researching.
A lot of this was picked up as I was being tortured in my home. I would go out and watch them, part of the biggest problem in the beginning was figuring out how they were communicating, how the message were being passed, how they were coordinating to harass me.
If you have read the blog, I have discussed, the fact that their is often a conductor who the snitches look to, they are also given instructions. Eg. Circle the target, they always want the target in a square. They always want to be on all four sides to feel like they are guarding the target.
Some are brilliant at passing signals, some are horrible. You learn a lot from the horrible ones. The signals are passed in different ways culturally. I have blogged about this before. When I was just watching them and learning their language it was fascinating to watch as people from this culture passed a signal in this way, vs another that way.
Eg. The squeezing the nose to indicate I understand it passed by some by putting the hand up the nose. Very gross, but very interesting. Culturally just like with any language, or variation of accents, the signals also have their own distinctions. Eg. I first saw someone of Spanish decent explaining that where they were from they used the center of the forehead, not the hand over the eyes.
I was fascinated by the fact that this must have been ongoing for some time, but I never had a clue. I was disgusted and nauseated to discover that on a daily basis most of the people around me, knew this language. It meant they were informants, citizens of the state, and thus not on my side. Still it was interesting to learn.
There is so much more to how they function, but I am disgusted by the stupidity I see. I think to understand them, you had to have some fascination or appreciation of how they functioned, I don’t think I will ever have that again, but maybe someday, someone else will.
1. Open Communication.
#Yawning and placing the hand over the mouth, or taking a drink to open communications
The most common signal that I have observed the informants using is their open communication signal.
This can be done in a variety of ways, but the most common way is to take a sip of water or drink from any container.
The open communication signal can also be conveyed via, pretending to yawn, or by putting the hand over the mouth.
They use this signal to engage other informants in the communication process.
There are other ways to pass this signal but this is the basics for now.
#Car patrols will flash their lights to open communication with foot patrols
When an informant is on foot, the cars will flash lights to open communication. In the Targeted Individual Community it was thought that this was just being used at night to annoy targets, but flashing the lights is used to identify themselves to their foot patrols.
This signal is not only used to harass targets, but it’s also their way of getting the attention of other snitches.
Eg. If an informant is not paying attention and you want to begin the open communication process you can cough, clear the throat. Then you will usually see other communication between the informants.
3. On Watch
# Rubbing or touching the eyes or corners of the eyes or placing on glasses indicating you are on watch.
This is the signal that you will see informants use most often. They will do this in a variety of ways.
The basic way of indicating this is done by placing one hand over the eyes.
You can also just rub one eye or the other.
They will use eye glasses, sun glasses, by placing them on the face it indicates the same thing.
A new way of doing this is by also rubbing the center of the forehead, where your third eye would be if you had one.
#In some cities headphone are also used to indicate that Informants are on patrol
4. I don’t understand
Pulling on the ear. Seems to indicate that the receiver has not understood what the sender has said.
5. I know.
#Briefly tapping or squeezing the nose, indicates that you understand.
You will see this quite often and it’s their way of indicating that they know, or that they understand.
# The double blink to indicate understanding etc.
If their hands are full, or they can not pass a signal any other way, this can also be used to indicate understanding.
6. At Rest
This is done by placing the hand to the side of the head. The thinking mans pose. It seems to indicate that the informants are at rest, no action is happening.
7. Stop Signalling/Communication
This is done by placing the index finger to the lips, and making a semi circle. or clasp motion. They stop communication and go silent when this signal is given.
When out in public, they brush their hair back three times, but this is done at the back of the neck not at the front. It seems to be a greeting to help identify them with each other yet again.
9. What’s happening, What’s going on.
# Brushing back the front hair 3 times
10. Directional signals.
Eg. When out in public they will often tell each other to walk left right, etc, with the nose. Eg. The index finger below the nose to the left would tell the other informant to go left. To the right would tell the other informant to go right.
They might also use these directional signal to indicate the direction of the target that is on watch, but by doing so with the eyes. (This needs confirmation)
There are more, but everytime they have fun with me, I have fun with them, and I didn’t want them to think I was a party pooper, so this way others can have fun too.
I am really happy about this story. I did not know there was a potentially “violent person registry.” I don’t know what the names would be in Canada, U.S. or Europe, but it should not be hard to find out.
Think of this scenario in the workplace, at school, etc. You make a comment, or perform an action that might upset someone with the capacity to get you on such a list, and then an notice is sent out to several dozen places that you are a potentially violent person who should not be alone with others, and then your life changes.
Here is some really neat info from this article.
[quote]Jane Clift saw it as her public duty to report a drunk she saw trampling flowers in a park.
But her efforts led to a surreal nightmare in which she was branded potentially violent and put on a council blacklist with thugs and sex attackers.
Her details were circulated to an extraordinary range of public and private bodies, including doctors, dentists, opticians, libraries, contraceptive clinics, schools and nurseries. Their staff were advised not to see her alone.
The 43-year-old former care worker was forced to withdraw an application to become a foster parent and, eventually, to leave the town where she had lived for ten years.
Now, after a bitter four-year legal battle with Slough Council, the stain on her character has finally been removed.[/quote]
A list that put her up there with sex attackers if you can imagine that.
She was a care worker, and got denied fostering a child because of this.
Woman sues council for libel after being labelled
‘potentially violent’ for complaining about a vandalised flowerbed
[quote]Ms Clift told the court that she had to leave Slough, where she had lived for 10 years, and had initially moved to Southampton.
‘I’d like to move back some time in the near future but without this hanging over my head and my family’s head.
‘I have many connections in Slough, I like Slough, but it was impossible for me to function normally in Slough with this on my head for 18 months, and the stain will always be there.’
She said that after the council acted, she sensed that everywhere she went, there was ‘whispering, collaboration, people scurrying about’.
‘One time I went to the contraceptive clinic and I felt that there were way too many people hovering about for me than should have been there, making me feel very insecure.
‘It did serve as a reminder that everywhere I went – hospitals, GPs, libraries – anywhere at all, even if I phoned the fire service, as soon as my name went on to that system, it flagged up ‘violent person marker, only to be seen in twos, medium risk’.’
‘I’m nothing special, no qualifications, don’t have a fancy job but I don’t go getting into trouble. It cuts across class, race, everything.
‘These people have this ability to do this and they can abuse it.
Not many people know, I didn’t even know, that such a register existed.[/quote]
She sensed that everywhere she went there was a whispering and collaboration campaign, with people scurrying about. She also goes on to say more people were hovering about than should have been there, making her feel insecure. I am sure that I have another word for what they were doing, but to continue.
Woman Placed on Violent persons registry
Woman labelled violent by Slough borough council wins damages
[quote]A woman who was labelled potentially violent by a council has won £12,000 in libel damages.
Jane Clift sued Slough borough council and Patrick Kelleher, its head of public protection, over their reaction to her complaint about a three-year-old boy who vandalised a flower bed in a town park.
The authority argued that a 2005 entry about her in its violent persons register was accurate, and that Clift was obsessed with getting Slough’s antisocial behaviour co-ordinator sacked.
Mr Justice Tugendhat found in favour of Clift at the high court, but rejected her claim that Kelleher had been malicious.[/quote]
She had to move and it took four years to get her name removed from this list.
I was just pointing that out, because I am sure that the policy on these lists is not to give our information to the person being placed on the lists.
Staff Safety (Potentially Violent Persons) Database
employees and others arising from their work activities.
The purpose of this document is to alert Directorates to their statutory duties and of the corporate information system designed to enable managers to identify potential risks to employees from individuals, animals and premises. The purpose of the recording is to seek to avoid further incidents through the controlled sharing of information that will be used to undertake a better-informed risk assessment of proposed visits by employees.
The Staff safety register is a secure electronic based database recording incidents involving an employee of DMBC (or partner agency) that have caused actual or potential harm.
It is Doncaster Council policy to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees and therefore managers must utilise the staff safety database to achieve this objective.
All managers in day-to-day control of people, places etc must ensure that risk assessments are completed and are suitable and sufficient for their purpose. Managers must ensure that the significant findings arising from risk assessments are communicated to employees affected by those work activities. For the purposes of this section the work activity relates to visits by Council employees away from Council premises. See Instruction section for detailed Risk assessment.
Senior managers who, after notification of an incident to one of their employees, believe that person(s) and/ or an address now need to be included onto the staff safety register then they must notify the system manager of that decision at the earliest opportunity.
To comply with Data Protection Act 1988 if the manager decides to include a person onto the register then that person must be informed in writing of the intention to do so, the reason for their inclusion and the arrangements for review and removal. The right of appealing against that decision must also be provided.
Employees who undertake visits to non-Council premises must utilise the Staff safety register to ascertain if the location of the proposed visit is included in the register as a potential to cause harm.
Principal Safety Officer
The Principal Safety Officer as system manager has the ability to create, amend and delete data and to ensure appropriate an advisory/ training service is available to all employees with responsibilities under these instructions. The PSO must ensure that the system is managed and staffed appropriately.
System Access – Three levels of access are available and a clear level of authorisation will control the granting of each. All levels of direct access to data will be password controlled and the staff safety register itself will record details of every access, including the data viewed and the reason for access.
8.1. Level 1 Access- Basic Interrogation
An email (external email facility) based enquiry function, which tests whether a name or address is registered. Appropriate staff will be specifically authorised to use this function.
8.2. Level 2 Access- View Only
The ability to view data on the software system (software installed on individual pc’s). Only a limited number of managers will be given this access. Where a level 1 user identifies a match from the email system a Level 2 user will obtain the relevant information from the software system and carry out a risk assessment for a visit to the premises and advise accordingly.
Interesting, I bet every single little Human Resources officer knows about this list. It goes hand in hand with make a stink go see a shrink policy they have in their handbook.
The next day, the plant director of human resources invoked a Ford program for combating workplace violence to bar Crosty from the factory and ordered him to see a company-paid psychiatrist or lose his job.
A little more than fourteen months later, and 725 miles away, officials at Emory University cited a similar concern about violence to justify using armed guards to escort Dr. James Murtagh off university property when Dr. R. Wayne Alexander, chairman of the department of medicine at Emory, ordered him to see a company-selected psychiatrist or lose his job. Six weeks earlier, Murtagh, a professor of pulmonology at Emory, had filed a false claims suit against the university, alleging that it had misspent millions of dollars in federal grant money. He claimed the university diverted money from research grants in order to pay for salaries and trips for administrators and some staff. The specific allegations were sealed by order of the federal judge.
Crosty and Murtagh don’t know each other. It is unlikely their worlds would ever intersect, but they have at least one thing in common. They both are victims of an increasingly popular employer weapon against whistleblowers: the psychiatric reprisal.
Across the United States, companies have seized upon concerns about workplace violence to quash dissent. Hundreds of large corporations have hired psychiatrists and psychologists as consultants to advise them on how to weed out “threatening” employees. They say they are only responding to a 1970 directive from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration that they maintain a “safe and secure work environment.” But by drawing the definition of “threatening” as broadly as possible, they are giving themselves a new club to bang over the heads of workers.
So in the workplace I am guessing this could be applied for a number of reasons, and then you end up on these little connected lists.
132 – Violent Persons Register
Referring to Minute No. 125 – Violent Persons Register, John Irving from the COPS Team had attended the meeting and gave the following advice:
To hold a register of violent or potentially violent people on computer, the information could be de-personalised by using a classification system i.e.: 1 = Potentially violent, 2 = Threatened people before, 3 = Been violent in the past, 4 = Two-man visit, 5 = Don’t Visit.
132 – Continued…
The Legal Services Administrator would compile a Violent Persons Database, which would be put on the Council’s Intranet system, and would be password protected. John Irving suggested that as a long-term goal, once the database had been established it would be useful to share the information with Liberata, District Nurses etc.
The Legal Services Administrator also needed to write a procedure to ensure that the Council didn’t fall foul of the Data Protection Act. It was agreed that addresses couldn’t be put onto the Violent Persons Register without proper clarification. It was suggested that a sub-group to this Group be set up to endorse these requests.
Minutes of the meeting from a local booby. How to really mess up someones life. I mean how to share information of violent persons.
Well just some fun food for thought. Tell me what you think, leave comments if you feel like it.
- Above top secret
- Abu Ghraib
- Active denial
- Active Denial Weapons
- as the world turns
- Asain Male
- Asian Female
- Astral Plane
- Background records checks
- bad luck
- Black female
- Black Females
- Black Male
- black women
- Brain reading device
- Britney Spears
- brown coats
- Buffy The Vampire Slayer
- changing vibrations
- Citizen Informants
- Civilian Spies
- Community harassment
- community mobbing
- community policing
- concentration camps
- constitutional change
- Controlled society
- Covert investigations
- Cultural diversity and multiculturalism
- david icke
- devinci code
- domestic spying
- East Germany
- electromagnetic frequency
- Electronic harassment
- Emotional Vampires
- False Prophets
- files updated
- Gang Stalking
- government corruption
- GPS tracking
- Guantanamo Bay
- Health and Safety
- Heath Ledger
- High technology
- Honey Trap
- Indigo Ribbon
- Intimate Infiltarations
- Jeremy Blake
- Joan of Ark
- John Lennon
- Kilmeer Gill
- Lord Of The Rings
- Marian Fisher
- Mark M Rich
- Markus Wolf
- Martin Luther King Jr
- Meat production
- mental concentration camps
- metropolitan police
- militarized police force
- Mind Control
- Mind Reading
- Minority women
- Naomi Ebersole
- National Security Letters
- Neurolinguistic programing
- New World Order
- one handed signals
- Online Stalking
- Passive Aggressive Manipulative
- Personal Identifiers
- Police Abuse
- Police Corruption
- Police State
- Production Company
- psychological harassment
- Quantum Physics
- Record keeping
- records updated
- Red Squads
- Robot Sentient Project
- Rosa Parks
- School Shooting
- sexual harassment
- sign language
- Skin Heads
- Social Control
- Spy cameras
- spy satellites
- State target
- Stop snitching
- Targeted Individual
- The Matrix
- Theresa Duncan
- Third wave
- Thought Police
- Threat Assessment Teams
- time travel
- twilight zone
- violent persons registry
- Voice to skull
- walls of jericho
- whistle blower
- white female
- White Male
- workplace mobbing
- Young and the restless
- zero tollerance