Legal Stalking

(This is an updated re-post of an article originally posted here in 2016.)

 

The law firm "Public Interest Lawyers" is to close and more than a thousand complaints which it has filed against British soldiers and marines will be reviewed and probably thrown out. See link to Daily Mail article. For more than a decade PIL instigated witch hunts against servicemen (and it was mainly men) on the basis of what are now known to be flimsy or completely bogus cases of human rights violations. Far from PIL being the victim of an establishment plot, the Blair, Brown and Cameron governments were completely happy to hang ordinary soldiers out to dry and they helpfully established two new investigative bodies to process all the complaints which PIL generated. It was only when judges described evidence from some of PIL's Iraqi clients as "lies" (very strong language for judges) -and the Brexit issue coincidentally swept a lot of human dross out of positions of high office in the United Kingdom government, that PIL was finally held to account. 

Whilst the Daily Mail is to be congratulated for having campaigned against the witch hunts, and for years the response of the liberal establishment to the Mail's campaign was to fatuously heap praise and honours (honourary doctorates and "solicitor of the year") on PIL's senior partner, Phil Shiner, the suggestion by some Mail columnists that Mr Shiner now be prosecuted for treason is probably inappropriate. The false cases represent a serious crime, primarily against individual soldiers and marines and the principle of Justice rather than against the State and the most appropriate charge would, therefore, be one of "conduct tending to pervert the course of justice." If Mr Shiner is to face a court himself, then it is only right that he should do so for what he did to individuals with rights of their own. Which was to persecute them using the law as a weapon, often for years, and almost always with the acquiescence of the successive governments that were willing to send those same individuals into harm's way. (Initially they were sent into harm's way with inadequate equipment, too, because the Blair government forbade the army to make detailed preparations for war because Mr Blair didn't want it to look as if war with Iraq was a forgone conclusion.)

A treason charge would only be appropriate if there was evidence that Mr Shiner acted deliberately to harm Britain as a nation by setting the courts against her soldiers, and even then it would probably need to have been on behalf of a foreign power rather than as a sort of personal hobby horse. So far, there is no evidence of this, though investigations into Mr Shiner have only just begun. 

However, it is true that if an officer of the Russian FSB or SVR had concocted a plan that saw more than a thousand criminal cases being sought against frontline British service personnel, making it seem as if the British Army was somewhat worse than the SS -and had that officer managed to get the British taxpayer to completely fund his destablisation campaign, then that hypothetical officer would receive warm praise and prompt promotion.


Update: 5th of October 2016.
The government of Theresa May has indicated that it will close loopholes in the Human Rights Act which have left soldiers open to malicious prosecution on the flimsiest of grounds. Most European countries had implemented the same basic Human Rights Act without exposing their soldiers to malicious legal action, so it has to be concluded that the governments of Antony Charles Lynton Blair and David Cameron intended that British soldiers would be so exposed.

Both Blair and Cameron denuded the British armed forces of vital resources whilst finding a constant stream of controversial and unwinnable wars for them to fight, and the net result was quite debilitating. It is only possible to conclude that a weakening and discrediting of Britain's armed forces was their objective. "Why" is an open question, but it might have something to do with a europhile agenda too radical to be admitted to in public. The early signs are that Mrs May will have no truck with that sort of thing, but it will take a while for the new government to accept that defence has been deliberately underfunded by a significant extent since about 1992. The turnaround has to start somewhere, though, and hopefully this is it.

Update: 3rd of February 2017.
Phil Shiner has been convicted of several professional misconduct charges. There are now calls for him to be prosecuted for breaches of the criminal law that could see him jailed, but this would require a lot more legal work.

 

Update: 2nd of October 2024. 

 Phil Shiner has pleaded guilty to three charges of fraud, in a sum over £3M. So Medawar's previous update, that criminal charges would require a lot more legal work, was something of an understatement. See embedded report from "The Art of Law" below.

Once the criminal proceedings are finally over with the sentencing in December, surviving victims of this man may be able to bring civil claims for defamation, but it is a pity and a glaring omission that no stalking charges have been brought or even, apparently, considered.

 

The Murder of Linda Muegge: Who was "Frank"?

 It is now about seventeen years since Linda Muegge, an animal welfare campaigner who also ran a food kitchen for disadvantaged humans and was otherwise active in her community in a positive way, was stabbed to death in her kitchen, in Fredericksburg, Central Texas, the killer attempting to burn the house down over her head to conceal the evidence. This failed for two reasons: a large amount of non-flammable plaster ceiling material fell on top of the body, preserving evidence of her wounds -and the local fire department were training nearby and were able to attend the scene several minutes earlier than would have normally been the case:

This is a link to a current Fox News article on the case:

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/fredericksburg-woman-linda-muegge-case-missing-in-texas

And this is a link to a blog article (one of several by the same author) posted many years ago by a friend of Medawar, reproducing a lot of articles and local background information not otherwise available online. If you have trouble reading the newspaper cuttings, they are posted as jpegs so you can download them and read them more easily in an image viewer that allows you to zoom in on the text:

https://vocct.blogspot.com/2010/12/muegge-murder.html

Here is the somewhat meagre but still useful article from the Texas Department of Public Safety (who, incidentally, are responsible for licensing private detectives. The State Troopers come under the DPS, too.)

 https://www.dps.texas.gov/apps/coldCase/Home/Details/8

 This murder has occupied the attention of both Medawar and VOCCT for oh so many years, and it is perplexing that the FBI have not yet solved this one because Agents from the San Antonio Field Office have so many friends and supporters in Fredericksburg.

Today, one word in the FBI's updated article on this murder strikes Medawar as a bit of a clue, which those agents really should have been able to follow up on. That word is "Frank" and it is the name used by an individual who Linda complained of, to police, some years before her murder. She did not feel safe with Frank on her land or in her house, and she only knew him because he had been introduced by a mutual friend. See:

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/vicap/homicides-and-sexual-assaults/linda-muegge

The method of approach to the victim is not typical of an ordinary stalker or sex-pest. It is, however, how undercover officers and private detectives tend to do it. SVR and FSB agents also prefer to be introduced to a target rather than to introduce themselves, but the agency involved might be closer to home than that.

It is unlikely that the killer himself was a private detective, because that would be unprofessional as well as illegal and setting a fire to "destroy evidence" is not a favoured technique with professionals because it tends to give investigators an unambiguous timeline which can be more dangerous than just leaving the deceased to their own devices until discovered hours or days later. But since Frank appeared at the beginning of a years-long campaign of harassment, the killer might well have been one of Frank's clients, or an associate thereof. (Well-planned killings tend to have several layers of separation.)

Now, at the time there was a licensed private investigator, based in Fair Oaks (between St Antonio and Fredericksburg) who did quite a lot of work for the great and good of both cities and most of them (and several local FBI agents, police officers and Texas Rangers) knew him as "Frank"  even though that was not the name on his business card. He also claimed to be a former FBI agent and this claim was verified by senior agents in the San Antonio Field Office, although, interestingly, one State Trooper who asked FBI Headquarters to confirm this (in connection with complaints about the private investigator's license) was told, quite clearly and firmly, that the private investigator was NOT a former FBI agent.

It's almost as if the FBI as an institution is currently searching in vain for information already known to many of its former agents!

It could be very embarrassing for the killer, whoever he is, if Medawar had an image of that investigator's business card, would it not?

"Cyber Stalking Leading to Death" will get you life in jail!

 There has been a successful Federal prosecution for this crime, details now released by the FBI. It is worth noting that this was effectively also a gangstalking case insofar as the primary defendant was found to have had help on the night when things progressed to the actual killing and, given the intensity of the stalking (and blackmail attempts) which preceded this, it's quite likely that he would have sought to share the workload before this.

(Note to police, FBI and NCA: if a victim is alleging offences that seem like an impossible amount of work for a single offender, you must give weight to the possibility of conspiracy and/or common purpose as well as that the victim is simply mistaken. The latter course will only reduce your workload and help your career if it is really true: if the victim turns out to be correct you've just blown away your career, reputation and pension. The safest course is to check for this kind of thing, because it's always going to be more common than suggested by official statistics (which are primarily designed to get your political bosses re-elected).

No mention is made of sentences for the two known accomplices, which may indicate either that they still face further local charges in Independence, Missouri, or that they felt the need to cut a deal with the Federal authorities. Had they been proved to have assisted with the cyber-stalking phase of the case, they could easily have faced the same penalty. 

This highlights the enormous risks being run by anyone playing even a minor role in stalking, gangstalking and cyber-stalking offences, because simply by doing what you are told by the sort of person likely to become head of such a gang, you are making yourself legally responsible for the actions of someone not in their right mind!

There's more than one Federal law these days that can be used to prosecute such cases, depending largely on whether or not the abuse of computer technology was involved (bugs, spyware, tracking devices, and tracking apps on the victim's phone all count and not very many stalking gangs fail to use at least one of those!) Even when it's all done by word of mouth, it's still a conspiracy to deny rights and when that results in death (or kidnapping) the penalty can be life imprisonment or death, if the current administration is minded to permit the latter.

In the United Kingdom there is no such thing as a Federal crime; just varying degrees of severity or public interest which might divert a case from Crown or Sheriff's court to the Old Bailey or the Court of Sessions. But there is a an over-arching principle that participants in a conspiracy share responsibility for what the conspiracy does and there is also a law of Common Purpose, which requires even participants in a spontaneous offence to share responsibility for its outcome. Beyond that, a gang member can be and often is, charged with "assisting an offender in..." whatever the crime was. 

The cosy feeling of security in being a gang member or going along with workplace bullying is a legal illusion, because by doing so you make yourself responsible for the final outcome of that activity, however dreadful that might be. And the dreadfulness of the outcome is determined by the most psychopathic or sociopathic personality within the gang, or workplace. Everyone accosted by a bully or participant in a feud of any kind, needs to ask themselves the simple question: "what's the worst thing this person might do?" before doing anything that might help them do it.

There's probably at least a dozen followers in jail for every leader who managed to get himself jailed rather than letting someone else go to jail for him.

Bob Dylan: "don't follow leaders, who rob the parking meters!"

New Year's posts by Victims of Organized Crime in Central Texas

 VOCCT has posted two blog articles for the new year, see:

https://vocct.blogspot.com/2024/

Her remarks about lies are important, because stalkers, organised or otherwise, tend to depend on lies above all other means of manipulation.

Recently in the UK, several police officers (including some of Chief Officer rank) have been exposed as rapists and paedophiles. All of them protected themselves with a web of lies. If you are a policeman and you start tripping over lies told to you by your colleagues, your duty to the public is to find out just what is not only hidden but also enabled by those lies. If the lies you are hearing might seem innocuous and even tolerable, what about the thing that is being enabled by those lies? Might not that thing be something no reasonable person could possibly accept? Perhaps it might be as well to check on that before potentially implicating yourself by turning a blind eye!

There are multiple scandals associated with the pandemic which readers have just survived and so many others didn't, but all of those scandals revolve around individuals for whom lying was, and still is, the first resort.

Multi-generational Stalkers and Baseless Grievances

 All stalking campaigns start with and are sustained by one or more grievances. The Oxford Dictionary (1934 edition in this instance: waste not, want not) defines a grievance as "Real or fancied ground of complaint." The Oxford Academics of the 1930s chose those six words with great precision: a grievance is as likely to be imaginary or falsified as it is to be true. An understanding of this fact might allow a lot of apparently motiveless crimes to be solved: people hate, and harm, other people, not only for things which the other people never did, but for things that never even happened in the first place. And yet, the decisive question which policemen ask stalking victims is almost always "what have you done to make them do this to you?" This question tends to be decisive in getting an investigation dropped or, more usually, not started in the first place.

If a stalking victim admits they do not know of any reason, then the police tend to drop the investigation there and then because it's clear to them that it's not happening. (Unless the victim is female and attractive, in which case they will assume it's sexually-based and it might not be.)

If the victim is inspired to make a guess, then the police might investigate on the basis of that guess until it's proved wrong, from which point on the victim is regarded as a delusional nuisance, never to be listened to again.

With vocational stalkers (and "professional" ones, who do it on behalf of others for money do exist as this is less risky than hiring a killer) the victim will almost certainly have been fed disinformation which inspires them to not only put forward a false reason for the stalking, but also to completely misidentify the stalker(s).

The same applies in murder cases, too: the only difference is that the victim isn't even able to argue with the police when they can't find any motive, or, by getting the motive wrong, identify the wrong suspect. You are never going to uncover a baseless grievance by a close and methodical study of the facts! (For the wrong person to actually get convicted of a murder, the jury only has to buy into the prosecution's concept of either the motive or some other aspect of what took place. Because, although in theory the accused is innocent until proven guilty, the absence of any alternative suspect is often taken as proof of guilt and it really, really should not be.)

But there is a much more fundamental danger with baseless grievances: they do not go away with time. The baseless grievance cannot be settled or resolved: you cannot pay back that which you never stole, you cannot sincerely apologise for an insult or blasphemy which you never uttered. And because no falsely-accused party can "admit the truth" of a baseless grievance, it never gets forgotten either! The most effective form of propaganda is to manufacture synthetic grievances against your enemies: Mr Putin's justification of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was based on numerous baseless grievances, such as Ukraine's Jewish president being an antisemitic NAZI! And this is why there will never be a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia; because Ukraine is required by Russia to right a whole raft of wrongs which never happened. 

Mr Andrew Bridgen MP has been totally cancelled and de-platformed for antisemitism  because he quoted, verbatim, a report by academics at a Hebrew University. Everyone in Parliament now knows this to be the case, all but about twelve members of Parliament continue to ostracise and vilify Mr Bridgen despite knowing that their basis for doing so is false. Future generations may never know the truth because this generation of MPs and journalists simply won't admit it.

And all of the above has been written simply to illustrate what happens within the families and social circles of stalkers, to make stalking multi-generational in many cases:

When a baseless grievance is used to explain, and justify, what the adults in a family are doing to someone else, and they might well be doing something that goes beyond harassment into persecution and mental torture, children growing up with that grievance (and often seeing what their adult carers are capable of) end up with some very limited choices:

They can challenge what is being done and the basis on which it is being done, in which case they will be bullied into submission or even killed.

They can try to escape, but they may be pursued and brought back out of the need of those who have bought into the baseless grievance to preserve it.

They can fade into the background and go along with it all as much as they need to in order to avoid repercussions.

Or, and in most cases this is what happens: the baseless grievance will be constantly repeated and reiterated in order to lend it force and this has a brainwashing effect, not just on those who hear it, but on those who say it. Add to this the fact that there is no good outcome for anyone in such a family or social circle who appears to disbelieve the baseless grievance and learning to believe the false grievance isn't so much the path of least resistance as the only available path.

Furthermore, whatever the baseless grievance is, it might not be spoken outside of the family or social circle doing the stalking, so the victims (and all outsiders) will be left guessing. And the stalking will go on until either the victims, their descendants or even their entire ethnic group, is gone.

Organised and individual stalking are not crimes against humanity on the same scale or intensity as the ongoing genocide against the Uighurs or the historical genocides against the Armenians and the Jewish Holocaust, which was inspired by the Armenian genocide, but they arise out of and are sustained by the same mechanism: the baseless grievance. And in Rwanda, stalking on the grounds of both inflated and baseless grievances was deliberately used by agents of the French Government to prepare the population to commit actual genocide.

(Interesting point: The French plan for the Rwandan genocide pretty much followed Haman's plot in the book of Esther in the Old Testament. And Haman had no substantial motive for his plot at all, really! The alleged but  scarcely believable motive for the Rwandan genocide is that the Tutsis used English as their lingua franca. The motive for both Czarist and Bolshevik repression in Ukraine was that the Ukrainians had their own language. Same story in Kazakhstan and Finland, really.)

Substack article series of note:

 This may interest anyone who suspects that organised stalking mainly serves to harness little psychopaths to the ambitions of bigger psychopaths:

https://spystack.substack.com/p/the-puppet-master-and-the-psychopath

Canada is somewhat further down the road than the USA or the UK, but the destination is still a country run by people with dangerous mental disorders and no moral conscience, manipulated from a distance by even more deranged people who may or may not be in Beijing. It's no longer "democracy versus authoritarianism" but reason versus psychosis.

Official WHO Paper describing a "likely" link between mRNA Covid vaccines and Multiple Sclerosis censored some days after publication.

 

For the whole pandemic emergency (and it has recently been declared "over" by the World Health Organisation), Medawar has given out NO information at all on the pandemic, vaccines or anything else. He would NEVER tell ANYONE to refer to any source other than official WHO documents for their information.

The above screenshot is from just such a document, describing a "likely" link between COVID mRNA and possibly other "spike protein" COVID vaccines and Multiple Sclerosis. There now appear to be ongoing online efforts to suppress this official document and it isn't at all clear who is doing this, or on what authority, or for what reason. 

At the time of writing this post, the report was still available here:

https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resource/pt/covidwho-2138820?lang=en

Given that an apparently important document that the WHO saw fit to publish globally is being censored on the orders of some unknown third party, it would perhaps be a sensible precaution on the part of the UK and other governments, NOT TO SIGN the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 unless and until it becomes clear who it is exercising the power of censorship over the WHO! Because the amendments hand more or less total power over to the WHO, including the power to decide what constitutes an emergency activating those powers, it is completely unacceptable for there to be a hidden hand capable of controlling the WHO as it exercises such extraordinary powers.

UK residents may like to sign the following petition, which seeks a Parliamentary debate before such wide-ranging powers are signed over. This would seem to be reducing the formalities on what amounts to a new global treaty to a minimum, but it's probably better to have that bare minimum than no formalities or debate whatsoever:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635904

When the number of signatures reaches or exceeds 100,000 the UK government has to allow a Parliamentary debate (in some form; there's a catch) whether it wants to or not. There's no possible harm in letting our sovereign Parliament debate the actions of a government that is supposed to be accountable to Parliament!

Signatories might like to contact their MPs asking them to attend and even participate in the debate, should it occur. To avoid the risk of "censorship by an empty chamber."

VOCT's response to Dr Michael R. Williams

Here is a link to a post by Victims of Organized Crime in Central Texas, responding in a non-adversarial and non-contradictory way to an Op-Ed article " A Message to the People of Fredericksburg and Gillespie County" published in the Fredericksburg Standard Radio Post newspaper (in Texas) on the 22nd of February 2023:

https://vocct.blogspot.com/2023/03/response-to-dr-williams-more-complete.html

Medawar has not yet been able to find a link that will allow readers to link to Dr William's well-written and authoritative article about the decline in the fortunes of Hill Country Memorial Hospital, successful efforts led by himself to revive those fortunes to the point where the hospital was winning national awards -and the rapid and wilful resumption of decline as soon as he moved on. Medawar does have an annotated copy of the article as printed in the newspaper, which he will not publish for copyright reasons and for other legal reasons involving the annotations.

A link would be welcome and if a reader posts one in a comment below (and it checks out as safe!) it will be promoted to the main body of this post. The only person who can properly give (or deny) permission for the article to be reproduced here is Dr Williams himself. He is invited to do this, and he may supply the text as he wants it to be. Although his article was intended, as the title suggests, primarily for those who use and depend on the Hill Country Memorial Hospital, VOCT's thesis is that the shenanigans he bears witness too is more long-standing and extensive than he thinks and has had international repercussions of a lethal nature. It might be in the interests of the people he served so well, to make his article available online somewhere, but it would be unfair to expect him to do this, or allow this, on VOCT's blog which might directly associate him with her views.

see: 

https://medawarscornflakes.blogspot.com/2021/03/how-to-contact-medawar.html

A link to the article a platform under the control of Dr Williams (Blogger is free) would be ideal. Even aside from VOCT's thesis, the story which Dr Williams tells resonates with that of many failing hospitals in many parts of the world. What is so helpful about his article, is that he shows not only that failure of a medical institution be reversed, but he also explains how he did it! That deserves a much wider audience.

Is "Gangstalking Australia" vindicated, more than twelve years later?

Gangstalking Australia is (was?) a talented mixed-race female artist and victim of very intense stalking and harassment, in Australia, who was in contact with Medawar up to 2010. Towards the end of her contact with Medawar, she was living on the road, in a van, in the Northern Territories, because her house had been made completely untenable by stalkers harassing her with both toxic chemicals and directed-energy weapons. One of the latter was definitely some kind of non-visible-wavelength laser which could scorch patterns on the net curtains and indeed the wallpaper of her house. Another energy weapon could penetrate clothing to inflict pain and cause blisters and other indications of burns. 

Toxic chemical explanations are much less favoured by conspiracy theorists, for some reason, but were definitely being used against Gangstalking Australia, and her vomiting attacks are strongly suggestive of chloropicrin, which is officially recognised as a chemical weapon under international treaties intended to ban such things. Do not believe anyone who states that chloropicrin is non-lethal! It was used in the Great War in conjunction with more toxic gases such as Cyanide, Mustard and Phosgene, because it is very fast acting (faster than most modern nerve gases in fact) and by opening a gas barrage with some chloropicrin shells, enemy soldiers could be incapacitated before they could put on their gas masks, allowing them to be killed by the more obviously-lethal gases or even masked soldiers with bayonets, because they would be completely unable to defend themselves. Chloropicrin causes absolutely convulsive vomiting within a few seconds of exposure and it is by no means impossible or even unlikely for this to cause death by asphyxia by itself.

During the same period that Gangstalking Australia was reporting these attacks via her blog, Medawar was in contact with several unconnected individuals in native North American communities who reported the same (and other) chemical attacks. Very few white American stalking victims reported chemical attacks by comparison, which may be why the "TI community" thinks it's all directed-energy stuff and to do with "satellites", but there were some white victims. Also in that period, some Sámi people (native Laplanders) reported similar abuse. Medawar suggested at the time that the objective of the harassment might be to destabilise (non-immigrant) ethnic minorities in preparation for some community-wide abuse; the native Americans thought that this was quite likely. Medawar didn't have enough contact with Sámi or native Australian victims to determine if the same might be true with them. The native American victims were journalists, community spokespeople and so on and so forth. Ideal targets for a destabilisation campaign in other words.

Directed-energy weapons which burn skin through clothing could be working either in the far infrared part of the spectrum or the adjacent millimetre-wave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The point where these spectra meet is also where a laser becomes a maser, or possibly even just a planar-array antenna (a flat plate, in appearance). So there's a variety of forms such a weapon could take and still inflict the same kind of pain and injury in the same kind of way.

Which brings us up to the present day and reports that demonstrators in Australia have been attacked (and burned by) what look most likely to be planar-array millimetre wave antennae from the published images of suspect equipment.

It could well be that what happened to Gangstalking Australia, the Native North American and Sámi victims a decade ago was some kind of experiment to test prototype weapons on people from marginalised communities (or people against whom individual testers had some kind of a personal grudge) in readiness for the day when officialdom might need to protect itself from the general public, that is, the electorate from whom the officials obtain the right to hold office!

Nonces With Actual Power: a new acronym for the post-Epstein age

There's a funny thing about all the witnesses to Jeffrey Epstein's life and work as a mentor of surprisingly young women entering the hospitality industry. That is, when pressed, they can bring themselves to remember Prince Andrew (a very slow-moving target with no actual power; during the Falklands War he flew a helicopter used as a decoy to protect more important targets from Exocet missiles) but they have so much trouble remembering former Israeli or British Prime Ministers enjoying Epstein's services that no-one is even pressing the issue. There's a similar memory problem with former US Presidents and, even more so, with the founder of one of the world's most powerful Tech companies. 

Medawar thinks that the world needs a new acronym for those so important and influential as to slip the memory of every potential witness and complainant that they encounter.

A NWAP, a Nonce With Actual Power also has magical powers which makes them invisible to witnesses and which erases their name from flight logs and passenger lists. Lesser politicians get mired in scandal and have their careers destroyed because of a small indiscretion such as doing paid work in their House of Commons office, but a NWAP can commit multiple felonies without their Teflon (TM) character being stained.

How to Cope with Organised Stalking: an open letter to Chris Packham

 It is apparent from the latest of several news items over the past few years, that the wildlife campaigner and broadcaster Chris Packham has fallen victim to what can only honestly be described as organised stalkers. This makes him an involuntary member of a club with very wide membership ranging from campaigners with views similar to his own, to those who are diametrically opposed and a rather larger number of people who have no idea at all why they are being persecuted. This post, while not comprehensive (or it would be far too long for anyone to read) sets out to offer some useful observations and tips for Mr Packham or anyone else, whatever their views on any matter, who finds themself in a similar position.

Don't be too concerned with discovering or speculating about your stalker's motives:

There are a few reasons for this advice. First and foremost, stalking and all other forms of targetted persecution are wrong, always wrong, and there is no cause, however urgent, however noble, which cannot disgrace and destroy itself by resorting to this kind of tactic. Recognising that stalking is always wrong and can never be justified is an important part of the solution, because it allows you to make common cause with those whom you might otherwise reject and bitterly oppose and it puts your persecutors on a collision course with the rest of the human race and, if you care to believe it, greater forces than that.

Secondly, Medawar once asked a psychiatrist why people were prepared to take part in stalking campaigns and the immediate and unequivocal response was "because they enjoy it." Everything Medawar has learned about stalking in the twenty years since that interview has supported that simple statement from the psychiatrist. Stalking doesn't just destroy the victim: it destroys those causes in whose name stalking is employed. Former members of the campaign group "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" believe they were defeated by a conspiracy between the government and "Big Pharma" but the harsh truth is that their methods, and the stalking of individuals and families in particular, turned pretty well the whole country against them and anyone who even sounded like them. There is no gain for the cause in the resort to stalking. Organised stalking, just like lone stalking, is done purely for the enjoyment of those organising it and those carrying it out. Your beliefs and your causes only really matter to them because they matter to you, allowing them to gain sadistic pleasure from frustrating your campaigns and destroying your hopes. Stalking is always about destroying hope in the end, because that's what gives a sadist the biggest thrill.

Consider, for a moment, that many victims of organised stalking have no history of activism at all; sometimes the trigger is amazingly trivial, almost always it involves the victim doing something he or she had a perfect right to do. Your beliefs, and the apparent beliefs of your persecutors, are usually not the real reason it is happening. There is nothing to be gained from compromising your beliefs, "toning them down" or doing anything other than regularly checking that you are happy in your own heart and mind with what you are doing. Artists are stalked, not usually to suppress any political message in their work, but because destroying their creativity gives the stalkers the thrill of cutting off a butterfly's wings, magnified a thousand times. The only satisfactory solution to stalking is to expose the stalkers and stop the stalking. Scuttling for cover is not only cowardly, but utterly futile.

And this brings us to an important observation based on more than two decades experience of these matters:

Lies Are A Stalker's Most Powerful Weapon (and thereby the most addictive)

Sometimes, lies are all a stalking campaign consists of, but more often they are used to complement and enable all the threats, vandalism, cruelty to pets and recreational arson which constitute the more obvious threat. Stalkers will spread lies about the victim, often before they notice anything amiss, to distance and then slowly isolate them from friends, neighbours and even family members. Those lies will also lie there waiting for a police investigation to start, which will always involve discreet inquiries amongst the victim's friends, neighbours and relatives -and the planted lies will be designed to cancel or fatally misdirect the police investigation in pretty short order. This is the major reason why victims frequently end up believing that the police are complicit in their stalking: the stalkers have carefully laid "evidence" for the police to unearth, perhaps long before the stalking appeared to start and the first complaint to the police is filed.

But because lies are so powerful and effective, stalkers come to depend on them and that can create a contradiction which suddenly collapses the house of cards. 

Note to policemen reading this: if everyone around the victim believes something that he doesn't think is true, try tracing that belief back to its source. Lots of people believing the same (bizarre and/or defamatory?) thing is actually unnatural: threat this phenomena with due suspicion.

The stalkers will lie to the victim, in that almost every bit of physical evidence they leave behind for them to find will be misleading in some way. Look for a pattern behind the pattern: "What are they trying to make me think? Is it something designed to drive a wedge between me and the police, or somebody else that I depend on?"

The stalkers will lie to campaigners and activists who might oppose the victim, in order to get them to help with the stalking. Perhaps without them ever realising how much has been happening and just how harmful it is.

Stalking is unrequited murder

Anything that speaks of a high, noble or political agenda behind the stalking is also a lie: noble aims do not need to be pursued by methods such as this. They are doing it because slowly destroying someone by stalking gives them a thrill akin to murder without the legal risks. There is a great danger for the whole of society in the police treating stalking and harassment as a trivial issue, not worthy of their precious resources, because the perception of risk is the only thing which separates the stalker from the murderer and current, dismissive, police attitudes are steadily eroding that risk.

Try and count your persecutors (at least approximately) before you spend undue effort identifying them

You should keep a log of everything that happens throughout the staking and harassment in any case: the police advise this, even if they are disposed to ignore the results if it suits them. But enhance the data by always suffixing an estimate of the minimum number of persons required to do it. Also always suffix how far away you were from home when it happened.

Over time, those two metrics can be a very useful tool for identifying your persecutors and may one day give you peace of mind, if the right number of stalkers are brought to justice or at least exposed. 

A small number of stalkers operating mostly in your local area may imply that it's a couple of mates (or brothers) and that all their communication with each other is face to face or by direct phone call, so they don't need social media for any purpose except adding to the pressure on you. 

A large number, operating almost everywhere you go, implies a group or network with some form of shared communication which the authorities might be able to penetrate.

And so on. Those two metrics will make your harassment log or diary more useful to the authorities, always assuming that they see the need to take genuine action. Which is constantly being demanded by successive Home Secretaries and ignored by successive Chief Police Officers.

It's Official: Mass Killer Jake Davison Was Not a Terrorist

Image from facebook via BBC

 Almost the first fact which emerged about the Plymouth mass killer, Jake Davison, was that he frequented "Incel" websites and was influenced by their ideology, which amounts to the promotion of armed struggle against the petty injustices of normal life. The first thing the government said about the incident was that it was "not terrorist-related."

 This reminds Medawar, strongly, of the linguistic gymnastics employed by ministers of previous governments, senior police officers and the BBC to ensure that nobody ever described SHAC and other ALF-offshoots as "terrorists" even as firebombs were planted, graves robbed both in the UK and in Switzerland and organised attempts were made to use the threat and exercise of violence and arson to alter public policy. 

These days, even the IRA cannot be described as "terrorists" and to be labelled a terrorist a killer has to have frequented either Islamist websites or neo-nazi ones. Even there, Danyal Hussein is another "not terrorist" killer even though he frequented many of the same satanic and neo nazi websites as offenders who have been convicted as terrorists. 

In the case of the Incels, the omission is startling because readers of Incel webites and other material kill really quite often, especially on a global scale, and Medawar would be inclined to bet that far fewer people are seeking out and reading this material than is the case with Islamist propaganda. Proportionately more "Incelists" may be turning to murder than Islamists!

There are two reasons why people in powerful positions might want to classify a habitually violent campaign group as definitely not terrorists. 

Reason number one is obvious, and obviously corrupt: ministers and officials are aware of wealthy and influential people who support the goals and objectives, if not (openly) the methods, of groups, such as the animal rights offshoot SHAC, which any normal person would see as terroristic. This kind of bias applies beyond terrorism to organised groups promoting other forms of illegality, such as the Paedophile Information Exchange, which once benefited from a publicly-funded grant to promote the acceptance and practice of child sexual abuse. Jimmy Saville had many highly-placed friends and so might have another prolific and weirdly unprosecuted child-molester, Thomas Hamilton. (The grant money was used by PIE to research the abusive habits of its own supporters, so that the organisation would know how best to cater for their needs. They even published the results, because the study was publicly-funded and at that time nobody in authority saw anything wrong with what was going on.)

Reason number two is more insidious: officials intend to use media and public outrage at Incelist atrocities to justify oppressive measures directed against the general population. For that purpose, officials must pretend that the authors of the atrocities are inseparable from the general population and therefore they and Parliament are powerless to take action against the would-be culprits in any selective way! 

People who assume that this will only affect holders of firearms certificates may be in for a rude shock when they find themselves being asked to prove not only their identity but their state of mind when buying long-distance train tickets or gaining access to football stadiums. Thanks to the willingness of certain American Tech Companies to work hand in hand with the Chinese Communist Party to develop artificial intelligence applications for "public security" purposes, the technological tools now exist for a much more durable and intrusive elimination of personal freedom than that which caused so much outrage during the (temporary) pandemic lockdowns. There are people in Whitehall for whom the mere existence of such tools is a good enough reason to find excuses to employ them.