Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

Violent Registry Marker

This is one example of how a list could be make via workplace or Educational Institution.

PART 1 (to be completed by the victim)

Full name_______________________________________________________________

I am an employee/student/other *(please specify________________________________)

For employee only: Job title_________________________________________________

When did the incident occur?


Where did the incident occur? (Draw a sketch and attach it to the report if it helps)



What actually happened leading up to, during and after the incident?

(Attach a separate sheet if necessary)



Details of assailant/aggressor(s)

Name(s) if known__________________________________________________________

Address(es) if known________________________________________________________

Other contact point (e.g. workplace)____________________________________________

Approximate age_____________ Sex: Male/Female*

Appearance at the time of the incident (physical and behavioural, e.g. drunk)____________


Do you have any idea what may have caused the attack/aggressive behaviour?



Please give names and contact details of any witnesses to the incident



Describe how you felt during and after the incident (please attach a separate sheet if there is insufficient room here)________________________________________________


Part 2 (to be completed by the victim’s Supervisor/Line Manager or other appropriate person e.g. Course Tutor, Site Supervisor)

Did the victim receive any physical injury? (please describe briefly)_________________


Did the victim have to take time off from work/study? Yes/No*

If Yes, please state for how long_______________________________________________

Was there any damage to:

Personal property? Yes/No* If Yes, please describe______________________________

University property? Yes/No* If Yes, please describe_____________________________

Police notified ___________________________________________________________

Legal Action to be taken ___________________________________________________

Hospital Treatment? ___________________________________________________

Counselling recommended __________________________________________________

Specialist care ___________________________________________________________

Victim support ___________________________________________________________

Other _________________________________________________________________

Remedial action required/taken_______________________________________________
Name of Supervisor/Line Manager___________________________________

Copy to: Health and Safety Adviser (City/North Campus as appropriate)

Employee Support Unit (City Campus)

Insurance Officer, Finance Department, North Campus

Director/Head of Department responsible for student discipline

This is a copy of the form for the U.K. Here are some guidelines. tion/use_of_violent_warning_markers.pdf.

Data Protection Good Practice Note

The use of violent warning markers

This guidance explains to those working with the public how best to manage the use of violent warning markers.
Employers have a duty of care to their staff to protect them in the workplace.

Violent warning markers are a means of identifying and recording individuals who pose, or could possibly pose, a risk to the members of staff who come into contact with them. We understand that, in practice, a flagged piece of
text is attached to an individual’s file. These markers should be used very carefully and should contain the reasons for identifying individuals as being
potentially violent. They are likely to record information relating to:

• the apparent mental stability of an individual; or
• any threatening actions, incidents or behaviour they have or are alleged to have committed.

This means personal data, and often sensitive personal data, will be included in a violent or potentially violent warning marker and so must comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act).

Compliance with the Act – fairness

The first data protection principle requires that the processing must be fair and lawful. This means that a decision to put a marker on an individual’s file must
be based on a specific incident or expression of clearly identifiable concern by a professional, rather than general opinions about that individual. The individual should pose a genuine risk and the decision should be based on
objective and clearly defined criteria and in line with a clear and established policy and review procedure. The criteria should take into account the need to
accurately record any incident.

For consistency, you should make sure a senior nominated person in the organisation is responsible for making these decisions. Decisions should be reviewed regularly. When making a decision this person should take into

• the nature of the threat;
• the degree of violence used or threatened; and
• whether or not the incident indicates a credible risk of
violence to staff.

For the processing to be fair, you should normally inform individuals who have been identified as being potentially violent soon after you make the decision to add a marker to their record. It should be part of your procedure to write to the individual setting out why their behaviour was unacceptable and how this has led to the marker.


You should tell them:

• the nature of the threat or incident that led to the marker;

• that their records will show the marker;
• who you may pass this information to; and
• when you will remove the marker or review the decision to add the marker.

There may be extreme cases where you believe that informing the individual would in itself create a substantial risk of a violent reaction from them. For example, because of the nature of the incident or the risk to another individual. In these cases it may not be sensible to inform the individual as described earlier.

If this is the case, you must be able to show why you believe that by informing the individual of the marker there would be a substantial risk of further threatening behaviour.

You should make all decisions on a case-by-case basis and keep records.

Compliance with the Act – processing conditions

The Act states that you should not process personal data unless you can meet one of the conditions in schedule 2 of the Act, and for sensitive personal data, one of the conditions in schedule

3.As employers have a duty of care towards their staff, for example, under health and safety legislation, the appropriate schedule 2 condition to allow processing of information in markers is that processing is necessary to comply with any legal obligation imposed on the data controller (which in this case would be the employer). The appropriate schedule 3 condition is that processing is necessary to comply with any legal obligation imposed on the
data controller in connection with employment.

The individual’s rights

The Act gives individuals the right to make a subject access request. In most circumstances, you should reveal the fact that there is a violent warning marker on the individual record. Although, in most cases, you should already have informed the individual. However, you should make this decision on a case-by-case basis and consider any other individuals (third parties) that may be included in the information. For more information about this, please see our
guidance ‘Subject access requests involving other people’s information’.

There may be rare cases where you will need to consider whether:

• revealing the existence of the marker;
• revealing the information in the marker; or
• what the individual may infer from the existence of the marker; may actually cause serious harm to the physical or mental health or condition of that individual. In these cases, you must get specialist advice from health
and data protection professionals. For some of these cases there may be relevant statutory instruments that modify the provisions in the Act that relate to the individual’s rights (see note 1).

Requests from individuals to stop processing their personal information Section 10 of the Act gives individuals the right to require you to stop processing their personal information if this is likely to cause them substantial
and unwarranted damage or distress. If an individual gives you a section 10 notice relating to a violent warning marker then you should be aware that you may ultimately have to justify creating the marker in court.

Passing the information to other organisations
From a legal point of view, the appropriate schedule 3 condition for processing mentioned earlier will not cover disclosing the marker information to other
organisations, as the condition relates to a legal obligation on the employer for their own staff, not other organisations’ staff. However, where there is a good
reason for providing the information to another organisation, for example, to alert them to the potential risk to their staff, this will be justified even though no
Schedule 3 condition obviously applies. In these cases, our focus is on whether the processing is justified and not unfair.

The senior nominated person in the organisation should determine this on a case-by-case basis where there is a credible risk that an unlawful act, such as an assault, will occur. They should only provide the information to an
individual of a similar level in the other organisation.
If you pass the information on to another organisation, you should inform the individual, unless that would be a serious risk to the person or another individual as described earlier. If you review the marker and decide to change
or remove it, you should then inform the other organisations you previously sent the information to.


The fifth data protection principle states that personal information should not be kept longer than necessary. You must make sure violent warning markers are removed when there is no longer a threat. This should be part of the
standard review procedure. The retention period is likely to depend in part on:

• the original level or threat of violence;
• how long ago this was;
• the previous and subsequent behaviour of the individual; and
Note 1
SI 2000 No. 413 ‘The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000’
SI 2005 No.467 ‘The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work)
(Amendment) Order 2005’ r.pdf f%20Potentially%20Dangerous%20Persons%20(PDPs).html

The crazy thing about the targeting that we get are that many of the tactics were used in Cointelpro and by the Stasi. However in retrospect the Stasi used citizen informants in similar ways.

March 4, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Iwatch. Nationwide citizen watch program,2933,561661,00.html

New iWatch Program Urges Citizens to Be ‘Eyes and Ears’ Against Terror Plots, iWatch is a nationwide community watch program

A new program aimed at keeping Americans safe from terror attacks will rely on individual citizens to serve as “the eyes and ears” of their communities.

iWatch is a community watch program endorsed by police chiefs across the U.S. that teaches people how to detect suspicious behavior and report it to police.[/quote]

Other sutable names. Istasi, Istalk, Iharass, Iturninmyneighbour and many more.


L.A. Police Chief William Bratton, who developed the program with Police Commander Joan McNamara, called it the 21st century version of Neighborhood Watch, a program that encourages local residents to stay alert and informed about their neighborhoods.

“A single observation, a single report can lead to actions that can stop a terrorist attack,” warns a Public Safety Announcement video released by the LAPD.[/quote]

A single report can do so much damage, just like in Russia or the Stasi Era.

[quote]When the chiefs of the 63 largest police departments in the U.S. and Canada met to endorse iWatch at a conference last Saturday, they cited the case of Najibullah Zazi — the Denver man suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda who has been accused of plotting to use a weapon of mass destruction within the U.S.[/quote]

Wow Big Brother Canada was also there what a surprise.

Anyways as I have said a billion times these types of programs will come to the public light, this one is a program that is nationwide, and Canada somehow seems to be taking apart. All we need now is one that is planet wide, coming soon to a one world government near you.

These programs will come to light, Gang Stalking will be proven, but will anyone care? See it won’t be proving it, I don’t think that will be the big hurdle, much of that has already been done and overcome. Getting the ameba to show any remorse will be the real challenge and I don’t really know that that will happen.

[quote]iWATCH, iREPORT, i KEEP US SAFE (iWATCH) is a community awareness program created to educate the public about behaviors and activities that may have a connection to terrorism.

This program is a community program to help your neighborhood stay safe from terrorist activities. It is a partnership between your community and the Los Angeles Police Department. We can and must work together to prevent terrorist attacks.

To learn about the iWATCH program and about the behaviors and activities that you should report, view the videos and review the list of examples. You can also read and download a brochure that explains the program.

Remember that the iWATCH program is about behaviors and activities, not individuals. [/quote]

Ipuke, Igag, I am sorry, but this sucks. If they are being so open about it then the snitch force is complete enough for them to be this open and this proud about.

Well I just thought it might be interesting to read.

November 8, 2009 Posted by | Gang Stalking, Snitches, Social Control, society, Spying, Stalking, Stasi, State target | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments