Organized stalking ?

Jane Clift Case



Quote: 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 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.



From:

http://gangstalking.wordpress.com/category/covert-investigations/

Arabic Forum