I just had a visit from Skipp Porteous from Sherlock Investigations. He dropped by to assure me that his company is real, and not fake. He says that he still thinks that Gang Stalking is fake. Now I really respect that he took the time to drop by, so I wrote a response, and I hope he will do me the favor of reading the quick links, and looking over the Jane Clift case.
I suspect like many other good people Mr Porteous has been mislead into thinking that Gang Stalking is vigilante Gangs or Groups of some sort. I hope the information provided will disavow him of those beliefs, and I hope the correct information will provide him with new and informative insight into this phenomenon.
Here is his post, and here is my response.
Sherlock Investigations Inc. is real, but gang stalking is not.
Hi Skipp, thank you for taking the time to stop by, I really appreciate it. Are you telling me that people are not being placed on occupational health and safety lists? That they are not being followed around after being listed? Are you telling me that the psychiatric reprisal is not being used? Because i have a whole whack of evidence that says that it is. Now Skipp, I am not going to ask you to do anything as difficult as read a book on this topic. I am going to ask you to politely humor me, and have a quick look at the Jane Clift case, and the Gang Stalking quick guide. If you can read these over, and tell me this stuff is not happening, I will be very surprised.
Again thank you for dropping by, here are the links.
Now Skipp the evidence in the Jane Clift case is not information from my site, this is an independent investigation into what happened to this woman. After being placed on a list for sending a nasty letter to a customer service rep, her information was populated everywhere she went, and she was followed around. She was listed as medium risk, only to be seen in pairs.
I don’t know what your impression of Gang Stalking is, but the information that comes from the main Gang Stalking site is pointing to these occupational health and safety lists, which are very real. Threat assessment teams are putting people on lists, who they suspect have a mental illness. Notice the word is suspect? Meaning that they might not, yet these people are being treated as if they do, and their names are being flagged the exact same way that Jane Clifts was. As they go from community to community, an automated notification is sent via phone, or email, and the members of those communities do follow them around. Under these laws, the workplaces are sharing these listings with other workers, the community, and family members. For those closer to the target, a letter is sent out, just like it was with Jane Clift. Remember Skipp, this innocent woman was listed as medium risk, only to be seen in pairs, and added to a registry with violent sexual offenders.
So Skipp if you were lead to believe that Gang Stalking was something else, or that it does not exist you are dead wrong. As a private investigator, I honestly hope that you will give your clients the service they deserve and take a through look into the information that is being provided to you. It’s been well researched, well documented, and it is fact. If you have any points you are unsure of, please feel free to drop by again.
I do once again appreciate you taking the time, and I would love to hear back from you, after your review the information provided.
More Jane Clift case file references.
I think this case does have some relevance to housing law. It touches on a situation that (in my experience anyway) comes up in practice where a client has information about them, possibly highly prejudicial to them, shared between organisations. The case requires an authority to consider the proportionality of that distribution lest it be vulnerable to a claim for defamation. No HRA claim was brought, so this decision is, strictly speaking, confined to a claim for defamation, but in my view the reasoning on the duty of public bodies has wider application.
In practical terms it means that public bodies should be rather more careful about keeping records of alleged criminality or anti-social behaviour and about any distribution of those records. That, in my view, can only be a good thing. Calling a document a “Violent Persons Register” if you know full well that some of those persons have never used violence.
Clift Case additional reading
Clift Case additional readings 2
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’.”
“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.
Jane CliftJane Clift: Libel victory after a four-year legal battle
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.