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.
I was on my usual weekend hunt for more information about how these situations are being created and I came across something really interesting. The case referenced below is about a police office who blew the whistle, only to have his workplace hire 1 psychologist and a psychiatrist, to basically without speaking to him, fully remotely declare that he was unstable, even suicidal, could be a danger to others. Also they were advised that if they could get him arrested and placed in a psychiatric facility to just do it.
Now can you imagine an assessment like that followed by a little high tech harassment? http://www.Hightechharassment.com
I find the scenario so interesting for so many reasons. The site says that this is the sort of thing that was done in China, Russia to dissidents and those considered to be enemies of the State. Ever notice that more and more research from various sources are starting to link to the fact that we are doing this like communist regimes have in the past? Does this concern anyone?
A Canadian Police Department and the Canadian College of Psychologists
Kenneth Westhues, Professor of Sociology at the University of Waterloo, studied a case of a police officer targeted for elimination after reporting corruption to provincial authorities. The Police Department had enlisted the services of both a psychologist and a psychiatrist in support of its aim to get rid of the whistleblower. The latter, however, withstood the campaign against him and successfully held onto his job. Subsequently, he sought sanctions against the psychologist and the psychiatrist, and asked Westhues to set down in writing his reflections on the actions against him. Here is Westhues’s account, with names and other identifying information removed.
You have asked that I give you my reflections on the actions of the Police Department against you from the mid-1990s until 2000. I write on the basis of the documentation you have provided to me in connection with my research on workplace mobbing, an uncommon but severe organizational pathology that can have unwarranted, devastating effects on the mobbing target’s career and life. I understand that the reason you have requested this letter is so that you might include it with your request to the Ontario Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, that it review the decision of the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the separate decision of the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Psychologists.
In the mid-1990s, you reported in good faith to the appropriate provincial authorities what you saw as corruption in the Police Department. The appropriate body investigated, and found your allegations to have merit. In the wake of this conflict, your Police Department engaged psychologist Dr. X and psychiatrist Dr. Y to give their opinions on your mental health. Without speaking with you, both Dr. X and Dr. Y signed their names to reports that strongly suggested you were mentally ill. Dr. X wrote in December 1998, that your “thinking appears delusional to the extreme,” and he wrote in his own hand, “I essentially agree,” on a police investigator’s memo summarizing his meeting with them. The memo included these assertions:
• The issue is that the man’s thinking is disordered.
• You need to find a way to get him to a psychiatric assessment by compulsion, because he’s probably not going to accept that he has a problem.
• If you have enough information to arrest him and take him to a psychiatric facility – do it.
• It is easier to contain an explosion than an implosion – you shouldn’t blame yourself if he commits suicide.
Dr. Y wrote in January, 1999, that it was “in the realm of possibility” that you had a “Paranoid Personality Disorder,” and that “a psychiatric assessment would be required to rule this out.”
Shortly after Dr. X’s and Dr. Y’s reports, neither of which was provided to you, you were suspended from your position and charged under the Police Services Act. This was in January of 1999. It took almost two years, until November of 2000, for you to clear your name and get free of the stress and stigma of administrative sanction. In the end, you were found guilty of no offense. You have continued as before, to fulfill capably and with honour your responsibilities as a police officer.
In your complaints to their respective colleges, you fault Dr. X and Dr. Y for failing to live up to the ethical codes of their professions. The Complaints Committee of the College of Psychologists dismissed almost all of your complaint; the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons dismissed your complaint entirely.
The decision of the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons contains obviously false statements about the most basic facts of the case:
• The Committee says you were “later dismissed from the police force.” You were not and have never been dismissed. You were and remain an officer with an unblemished record.
• The Committee accepted the word of Dr. Y that your Police Department required you to undergo an assessment by Dr. X, the psychologist. Further, according to the Committee, Dr. Y reported that Dr. X had concluded from his assessment that you posed a possible risk of harm to others, that you are the type of personality that could “go postal,” that your thinking was disordered, that you were at high risk for suicide, and that you should be examined by a psychiatrist.
In fact, your Police Department never required, and you did not at any time undergo, such an assessment. The decision of the Complaints Committee of the College of Psychology admits that Dr. X made his comments about you without having assessed you.
An organization’s employment of mental-health practitioners to stigmatize, discredit, and harm a targeted worker is a common mobbing technique. The harm is exacerbated when the professional bodies to which the worker may appeal, fail to investigate thoroughly and to hold the practitioners responsible for their part in the mobbing process.
I would not presume to say what corrective action the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board should take. Public safety requires, however, that regulatory bodies not be allowed to gloss over any complicity of mental-health professionals in efforts by employers to discredit sane, responsible employees who have blown the whistle on administrative misconduct.
I hope that you and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board may find these reflections on the actions against you helpful toward a fair and truthful resolution of your complaints. Best wishes.
Postscript. The body to which the police officer appealed, and to which he submitted Westhues’s letter, dismissed the appeal. One member of the hearing committee told the police officer at the hearing that when you stick your finger in a hornets’ nest, you can expect to get stung. [/quote]
Can you believe that workplaces are doing this crap?
Think of what this could mean. You make a complaint, the company hires 2 people to evaluate you, they write up an assessment like the one above, you have no idea, then suddenly because you are so unstable and mentally ill and won’t go in for an assessment of your own free will suddenly you have this problem, and for your own good they put you on some watch list.
If you do ever get into this situation and think that going in for an evaluation is a good thing, think again. There was an article or website that tells you the exact methods that will be used to railroad you.
See I know what we are up against is horrific, but if we can find anything in this madness to use, then it’s in our best interest to use it and find out if that is indeed what is happening. I think this is worth further examination.
Could something like the above scenario also happen in communities where they want to get rid of someone. I am sure this could happen to activist, dissidents, anyone who goes up against a school board, etc. How easy is this to be used against someone in the exact method as described above. How would the target even know it? They really would not. How could they find out?
I think this is really exciting to find this information, because it could further explain just how the state is getting some people listed for being mentally ill/unstable remotely. There should be some kind of a paper trail, because someone is pulling the strings.
- 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
- Informant System
- 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
- Spiritual Based Products
- 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