It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So, on one hand we have crazy people who believe their reproductive organs are being 'targeted' via 'through wall' technology operated by dozens of others who for some reason find them fascinating or whatever
On the other hand, we have governments who're just as crazy, who've caused wars and the deaths of millions for profit --- and who attempt to justify what they've done by using expensively trained and equipped teams who pretend a certain individual poses 'a security risk', hence their being placed under surveillance
Most of us will never fall into either category
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.
Originally posted by Harassment101
Originally posted by ItsAgentScully
reply to post by Harassment101
Sounds more like manipulation or pressing up someone because they don't fit the standards to the point someone else decides to take charge and do it for them. It sounds annoying and genuinely frightening. It makes the "attacker" sound almost robotic, if the words control freak doesn't describe them enough in a plastic sense.
It's a bit more than that though. This is systemic elimination, and it's being used to target some very specific people. I am sure there are mentally disturbed people who do get placed on lists, but innocent people are being targeted, placed on these lists, and targeted, monitored and harassed for years.
If workplace mobbing can make someone breakdown, what do you think this is capable of doing?
The Office of Human Resources
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The University has developed an Employee Threat Assessment and Response Team (ETART) that will assess and respond to immediate and potential acts of workplace violence. The team's core group is composed of representatives from Employee & Management Relations, UNC Public Safety, the Office of University Counsel and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The team may consult with the organizational unit with administrative oversight for the appointment type of the perpetrator and the victim as well as other auxiliary members, as necessary. The team will be responsible for receiving threat reports, conducting thorough assessments, determining appropriate responses, tracking and reporting workplace violence information, and conducting related training.
Depending on the severity of the threat, a formal investigation may be required. UNC Public Safety will conduct criminal investigations, if necessary. Employee & Management Relations will conduct workplace violence investigations. Threat assessments will consider all details relevant to the threat and will assess the totality of circumstances when determining an appropriate action.
For more information and examples of immediate and/or potential threats, please see "Related Forms" section below.
Some people might argue that they would feel more secure if they were aware of the identities of dangerous offenders in their neighborhoods, 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.
Originally posted by ItsAgentScully
who exactly are they trying to eliminate? It sounds like it could eventually morph into a form of surveillance, instill behavior codes through mass fear and paranoia. One would think the more innocent people are target the more aware others would be of this but whatever the goal is they seem to be reaching it just fine.
Forgive me if im still misinterpreting. its rather late and i should probably have waited till morning to read through the thread but curiosity can get the better of me
Originally posted by Dock9
You still haven't explained who these 'Gang Stalkers/Stalking Gangs' are
Are they the unemployed ?
Or are they independently wealthy ?
(hint: most groups such as cookie-baking -- neighbourhood clean-up -- parents and citizens -- soccer parents --- stamp-collecting -- pottery etc. groups can't maintain focus for ten minutes without disgreements, tangenital goals, mutinies, back-stabbing etc.
You'll have to reveal just what it is that keeps your 'Gang Stalking/Stalking Gang' members so focused !
The armies of the world await your SECRET in breathless anticipation !
Come on .... spill the beans !
WHAT keeps hundreds of UNPAID, UNREWARDED, UNACKNOWLEDGED Gang Stalkers/Stalker Gangs so efficient ... so dedicated ... so focused ... so committed to their creepy cause ?
Originally posted by MajorDisaster
It's experiences like those that lead me to believe that this conspiracy goes all the way up into the government and intel agencies. They are the ones coordinating everything at the highest level.
With agents going undercover, state and local police coordinate their online activities with the Secret Service, FBI and other federal agencies in a strategy known as "deconfliction" to keep out of each other's way.
Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the duty to inform workers under subsection (1) includes a duty to provide information related to the risk of violence from persons who have a history of violent behavior and who may be encountered by a worker in the course of his or her work.
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 behavior.
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.
6# The words complained of contain personal information relating to Ms Clift. That is data which is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”). This Act implemented in English law some of the rights recognised by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). Later those rights were more fully incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”). The Council is a public authority. HRA s.6 (1) provides:
“It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention Right”.