PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997

1. Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Section 1. – A person must not pursue a course of conduct a) which amounts to harassment of another; and b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

Section 2. –

(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 of the standard scale, or both.

(3) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (m) there is inserted – “(n) an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (harassment)”.

Section 4.

(1) A person whose conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that this course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.

_______________________________________________________________

Frequently, council officers use their positions of power to harass members of the public. These same officers also incite other organisations to target, trouble, question or interfere in the affairs of members of the public against who the council is engaged in enforcement or other planning disputes.

For example: a farmer the council have targeted, will suddenly receive visits from the RSPCA. A charity helping a horse sanctuary will suddenly receive complaints from the Charity Commission. The Inland Revenue will suddenly decide to make enquiries. The Valuation Office will suddenly decide to call round. All of these will decline to reveal their source, and or claim any complaint is anonymous.

The methodology is simple, divert the efforts of the target to cause him to expend wasted effort in several directions at the same time. This leaves the target short of time and energy - and raises his stress level - which may cause him to act irrationally, or suffer a breakdown. The above constitutes harassment - big time!

In one case we know of Wealden District Council inflicted 186 recorded site visits on the same individual. Yes, One Hundred and Eighty-Six Gestapo style raids that were designed to cause mental harm contrary to international Human Rights law. When that didn't work they asked a court to remove his toilets - and when that didn't work they worked with Sussex Police to frame their target for sexual crimes that he did not commit, also enlisting the help of a former councillor who was master mason of the lodge in the street next door in Eastbourne. Naturally, the police force concerned failed to act to protect the citizen when he complained by way of a Petition in 1997.

If any of this happens to you - take heart. If officers of a council are going to these lengths, it is a sign they have a weak case. Also, by logging the frequency of events, etc you are building a claim or counterclaim against harassment, to report to the Police or seek civil redress. HENCE...............

Our advice to the public, is to log every visit by a council official: names, dates, etc. If possible tape record, or even better video record the event. Believe us, there is no substitute for hard footage to combat the lies of a corrupt council officer - and lie they will!

_____________________________________________________

* THIS SITE IS CONSTANTLY UPDATED AND REVIEWED *

With thanks to the Wealden Action Group and other Action Groups across the country for the supply of real case history and supporting documents.

*THAT THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW*