Jane's story

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 blacklist with thugs and sex attackers.

This is Jane Clifts story that resembles mine in so many ways. I think Jane Clift may have been one of the first ti's, but didn't know it. She was lucky to get the evidence she needed to prosecute. Since then the loopholes have been closed and the victimisation is now being carried out underground and off record. How many other people are now watch-listed without them knowing? Read Closing the Gap by GmB Bailey to find out.

‘I was turned in to a pariah for complaining about a yob’

By Andy Dolan for the Daily Mail 
Updated: 19:03, 8 October 2010

Her details were circulated to an extraordinary range of public and private bodies, including doctors, dentists, pharmacies, opticians, hospitals, libraries, contraceptive clinics, schools, nurseries, dustmen, shops and neighbours.

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. Now, after a bitter four-year legal battle with Slough Council, the stain on her character has finally been removed.

The High Court ordered the council to pay her £12,000 in libel damages and the legal costs of the case which will cost the taxpayer between £450,000 and £500,000  in legal fees.

Mrs Clift said last night: 'I hope this means others will never have to go through the hell I have suffered.' Her ordeal began in August 2005 when she called the police after the drunk threatened  her in Slough's Sheffield Road Rest Gardens. The man had fled by the time police arrived, but they advised her to contact the council, which was running a campaign to persuade local people to report anti-social behaviour.

‘But all it takes is some buffoon to take a dislike to you, or with a hidden agenda, and he or she can put you on this register whether you are guilty or not. There was no right of appeal. The only way I could overturn it is was to embark on this massive legal battle.'

Mrs Clift added: 'What is terrifying is that there is almost no proof required and no hearing to determine the truth of the allegation. It could happen to anybody who gets into even the most minor disagreement with their council.'

She said she had no idea such a register even existed before her name was added to it.

The entry expired after 18 months but by then she had been forced to leave Slough. Mrs Clift, who now lives in Birmingham, said: 'I am not and never have been violent  -  as the jury have found.

'It has taken me four years to clear my name and I hope Slough and other councils never again misuse their registers.' Simon Davies, from the human rights watchdog Privacy International, said:

 'This just shows the megalomania of these local authorities. This poor woman was subjected to a Kafkaesque ordeal because of an incorrect allegation made by one official. 'It is the sort of behaviour that we would have condemned if it came from China or Russia. Our councils seem to be out of control.'

During the eight-day hearing the court was told Mrs Clift had told another council worker that, as far as she was concerned, Miss Rashid could 'drop down dead'.

She followed up with a letter in which she wrote: 'I felt so filled with anger that I am certain I would have physically attacked her if she had been anywhere near me. I truly am not of that nature and so, surely, this should act as a wake-up call to the borough as to the capacity she has for offending people.'

But her counsel, Hugh Tomlinson, said the letter was misinterpreted and the decision to put her on the register had been 'completely ridiculous'.

Her name was added to the blacklist because she was 'a thorn in their side' and the council thought the move would mean no-one would take her seriously.

Mrs Clift brought the action under a 'no win no fee' arrangement with her legal team.

The Dailymail link below now seems broken, please try the BBC one above.

AND MORE........

Thousands on secret council blacklists: Personal details kept of residents who dare to complain

  • Nearly 9,000 people are on database
  • Data held includes phone numbers, car registrations and even nicknames

UPDATED: 01:16, 16 July 2011

Thousands of people involved in disagreements with council staff have had their personal details stored on secret blacklists.

Bureaucrats have listed the details of members of the public who have been involved in rows with teachers or dustmen over seemingly trivial matters. 

Scores of councils hold databases of ‘undesirables’ – individuals who could potentially pose a threat to their staff. 

They hold the details of almost 9,000 people, but most have never been charged with or convicted of a crime. 

Personal information such as car registration numbers, telephone numbers, household pets, nicknames and distinguishing features are listed on the databases.

Earlier this year the Coalition pledged to crack down on the legacy of Labour’s surveillance society.

Ministers have investigated the number of state powers of entry contained in primary and secondary legislation and were astonished to discover 1,200 in existence – more than 400 of which were created by Labour. 

Thirty-four of the 78 councils in England contacted by the Daily Mail admitted having the watch lists and five more are planning to introduce them this year. The total will be higher because there are more than 350 councils in England.

Councils have wildly different criteria for placing people on the blacklist. Many are put there simply after a form is filled out by a member of staff and then rubber-stamped by a manager.

Telford and Wrekin Council said it lists residents ‘if a person behaves in a way which is felt could pose a significant threat of physical or mental harm to employees’Doncaster Council said a ‘person needs to pose a potential danger to an employee of the council, or someone acting on behalf of council’ to be put on the list. 

But in many councils hundreds of staff can access personal information about people logged as a potential threat, even though they have no contact with the public and so could never be in danger.

Last night Daniel Hamilton, director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘It beggars belief to think that so many councils are wasting precious financial resources compiling databases of “undesirable” local residents. 

Big Brother: Better keep your cool when reporting graffiti to your local council or they could be watching you

'While councils have a duty to protect their staff, they also have a duty to respect the privacy of local residents. 

‘People who have never committed a crime should not have their details logged like common criminals. Their details should be deleted immediately.’

Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, has warned councils that they have a legal duty to keep the information secure.

A spokesman for his office said councils had a duty of care to protect their staff, which could involve putting them on a list. 

But he added: ‘These markers should be used very carefully and should contain the reasons for identifying individuals as being potentially violent.’

He said councils should inform residents who are on the database, setting out how they ended up on it. Only in extreme cases where a council believed that telling a resident they were on the list would lead to a violent reaction should they not approach the individual.

Good citizen treated like a criminal

When she spotted a drunk trampling flowers in a park, Jane Clift saw it as her public duty to report him.

But her efforts led to a nightmare in which she was branded potentially violent and put on a council blacklist with thugs and sex attackers.

Her details were circulated to public and private bodies, including doctors’, dentists’, opticians’, libraries, contraceptive clinics, schools and nurseries. 

Their staff were advised not to see her alone. The 44-year-old former care worker was forced to withdraw an application to become a foster parent and to leave the town where she had lived for ten years.

Her ordeal began in August 2005 when she called the police after the drunk threatened her in a park in Slough, Berkshire.

He had fled by the time police arrived, but they advised her to contact the council, which was running a campaign to persuade people to report anti-social behaviour. When a worker in the anti-social behaviour unit allegedly failed to take action, Mrs Clift went to a higher level. A co-ordinator claimed she became ‘very difficult’ during a phone call. 

In December 2005, Mrs Clift received a letter from the council to say she had been put on the register of potentially violent people. 

After a four-year legal battle, the High Court ordered Slough Council to pay her £12,000 in libel damages.

It seems there is a scheme called ‘facewatch.’ Apparently it’s a scheme where a list of names and photographs of undesirables/troublemakers is circulated to shops and pubs etc in the local area.

But who says who gets to be put on this list though? Can someone be put on this list by mistake? Can someone find out if they have been included by mistake? Can someone on this list challenge being included on it?  What if someone gets put on this list by mistake or worse maliciously by someone with a grudge?

This would certainly explain the rudeness, harassment and bad treatment I receive in local pubs and shops etc.

I think the Surrey Police or maybe just a few higher ranked officers are now persecuting me because of a run in I had with someone a few years ago, and they are now doing him a favour.

There is a scheme, ‘Facewatch’ whereby known criminals details are passed around to local shops, pubs etc. so that they are then harassed and treated like lepers.

Another scheme is MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements) where similarly someone’s details are passed around to different agencies, Doctors, Opticians, Libraries, Health Centres, Hospitals etc.

On the face of it, it sounds like a good idea, helping to protect shop staff and the public etc. from know trouble makers.

BUT what happens when a mistake is made, or these schemes are abused and an innocent person is included wrongly or maliciously on one of them?

No one is made aware of their inclusion on one of these schemes, so you are oblivious, only noticing that everywhere you go people treat you like shit.

Are you one of the 20,000 people wrongly branded a criminal? Police blunders give thousands records for crimes they have not committed

  • Official figures downplay the scale of the problem

UPDATED: 10:23, 28 December 2012

At least 20,000 people have been wrongly denounced as criminals or accused of more serious crimes because of blunders by the police and Criminal Records Bureau, it emerged today.

Many victims may have been unfairly turned down for jobs or volunteering positions, or have had their reputations destroyed because of the errors in vetting checks. 

Most chillingly, a lot of people would not even know of the errors until the criminal check is made and challenged.

Reputation: Some victims of the blunders would have been intending to take up jobs as teachers before being wrongly branded criminals

Criminal record background checks are regularly carried out for job applications, and the details can be passed on directly to current or prospective employers.

But more than 3,500 people have discovered their entries on the police national computer were inaccurate while in at least 3,000 cases police sent the wrong person's record.That means people have been linked with crimes they have never committed and it also raises the frightening prospect that genuine criminals have been able to slip through the net.


Amazingly, individuals cannot legally apply for criminal records checks on their own behalf. Checks can only be made if a prospective employer asks for it.

For the check to be carried out, applicants must provide their name, date of birth and current address, and provide documentary evidence of their identity.

The CRB check then searches their details against criminal records and other sources, including the Police National Computer and the independent safeguarding authority.

The check will either confirm that they don’t have a criminal record, or it will list any relevant convictions, cautions, reprimands, and warnings.

If applicable, it will also mention whether you have been barred from working with vulnerable groups.

The police can also include non-conviction information, for example, fixed penalties, that may be relevant.

Individuals can refuse to have criminal records check carried out if they think it is not appropriate, even after an application is made.

However, that can mean an employer refusing a job application.

The official figures have hidden the problem by massively underestimating the numbers of people wrongly branded criminals, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Through Freedom of Information requests, the paper discovered that the actual number of people wrongly linked to crimes is ten times greater than Home Office figures suggest.

Vulnerable: The CRB system was set up in 2002 and the figures suggest there may have been as many as 20,000 errors since it began operating

Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) statistics regularly suggest around 200 people are wrongly accused of crimes annually, but these refer only to errors made directly by CRB staff.

Including errors made by by other agencies or contribute to background checks, such as police and education officials, the figures soar in to the thousands.

A total of 19,551 disputes over inaccurate CRB checks have been upheld since 2003, the Telegraph said.

However, the CRB began operating in 2002, suggesting the total number of blunders could be higher than 20,000.

For the past year, 2010/11, the official figure stood at 172, but the new statistics show that in fact 2,343 errors were successfully challenged.

Over the past four years, it was found that 3,509 people have inaccurate information stored on the PNC and 2,918 had the record for the wrong person disclosed in a background check.

'It can take months for someone to clear their name and get the police to change basic errors. Companies will not wait months and will hire someone else instead.'

Josie Appleton, Manifesto Club

Wrong information was recorded or passed on by police at a local level in a further 3,547 cases.

Shockingly, errors will have included misleading details on cases where there was no conviction, such as when someone was questioned for an alleged offence but never charged.


A mother who applied to help out at her children's school was wrongly branded a violent junkie by a bungled CRB check.

Amanda Hodgson, right, applied for the checks so she could help at break times at the school where her children were pupils.

Weeks later she was horrified to receive a letter from the CRB claiming she was a recovering heroin addict who had assaulted police officers.

'When I first read the letter, I didn't fully understand,' said Mrs Hodgson, 36. 'I couldn't work out why I'd been sent all this information. I was horrified when I realised. I have done nothing wrong.'

The law-abiding mother of two had applied for the post of welfare assistant at the school after staff said she would be perfect for the job. But the Criminal Records Bureau sent her the history of a violent drug addict with the same name and date of birth.

They then told Mrs Hodgson, of Preston, Lancashire, it was up to her to prove her innocence.

The CRB investigated but said they could not be sure she was not the person named in the report.

Mrs Hodgson produced documents to show that she had only taken the surname of Hodgson after she married in 1993, four years after the first offences she was accused of had been committed.

But she was told that even this was not sufficient to prove her innocence. Mrs Hodgson's fingerprints had to be checked against every unsolved crime in Britain to clear her name.

Even then it was weeks before she was cleared for the voluntary work at the school.

This means that some innocent people could have been labelled a threat simply because police held inaccurate suspicions about them.

Officials figures also ignored cases of inaccurate data being passed on by education vetting databases, which are also used in CRB checks.

Josie Appleton, spokesman for civil liberties campaign group the Manifesto Club, told the Telegraph some victims would 'almost certainly' have missed out on jobs.

'It can take months for someone to clear their name and get the police to change basic errors,' she said. 'Companies will not wait months and will hire someone else instead.'

Nick Pickles, director of civil liberties and privacy group Big Brother Watch, said: 'The principle of innocent until proven guilty has been replaced with a reality of guilty until a CRB check says otherwise.

'These records are often not based on any court conviction, and as these staggering figures show are prone to high levels of error and inaccuracy. Innocent people are being labelled criminals because of a misguided belief that a giant database will improve public safety. 

'As the Protection of Freedoms Bill makes its way through Parliament, these statistics reinforce the need for the police to only hold a database of criminal convictions and not every half-baked suspicion that has never been proven.'

But a CRB spokesman defended the service, saying that its background checks had prevented 130,000 unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups.

The spokesman said: 'The inclusion of any incorrect information on certificates is clearly regrettable but only affects a very small minority of more than 4 million checks carried out each year.

'When a dispute is raised by an applicant, the employer is advised immediately so that no employment decision is taken based on the original information contained on the certificate.'


This story below is not an isolated case either. Their are now many corrupt officers carrying out this type of harassment around the country. I know because this is, and has been happening to me and many others for some time now. Police are now abusing their powers to abuse and harass innocent people for their own personal vendettas.

'Neighbours forced to flee after three years of terror at hands of police officer'

I think Jane Clift may have been one of the first ti's, but didn't know it. She was lucky to get the evidence she needed to prosecute. Since then the loopholes have been closed and the victimisation is now being carried out underground and off record. How many other people are now watch-listed without them knowing? Read Closing the Gap by GmB Bailey to find out.

This is Jane Clifts story that resembles mine in so many ways.

The police can destroy your life, and get away with it with only an apology... That's not much of a deterrent stopping them wilfully doing the same to others!

West Mercia Police sorry over false paedophile claims  06/07/2018

A Shropshire publican was mistakenly branded a paedophile, after police sent out an erroneous criminal record.

Darren Price, who runs the Boars Head in Bishop's Castle, said the claims about convictions for sexual offences destroyed his life.

West Mercia Police has apologised, and said it was a "genuine mistake".

The details were given to the solicitor of another resident, involved in an investigation into alleged harassment involving Mr Price.

Stafford Crown Court confirmed that that resident had received a restraining order preventing him from contacting Mr Price.

Stream of abuse

The information was provided to his solicitors through the Crown Prosecution Service, which West Mercia Police said referred to someone else.

Mr Price, who runs the pub with his partner Stuart, said he suffered a stream of abuse as a result of the false claims becoming public.

The 49-year-old added: "I don't go into any shops and haven't been for a number of years.

"I don't socialise. I've lost most of my friendship group and it's affected an awful lot of our local trade."

West Mercia Police's Professional Standards Division and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) upheld his complaint.

'Shameful' episode

He added: "It is the worst thing you could say about anybody.

"To think that the police could make you [a paedophile] just by sending out a document bearing your details. It is just shameful."

In a letter to Mr Price, Assistant Chief Constable Martin Evans said he offered his "sincerest apologies" for the distress caused and that it was a "genuine mistake".

He said the force would ensure that the error was not repeated.

Ch Supt Kevin Purcell added it had carried out an internal review into the incident but "it has not been possible to trace exactly how it happened".

The force said there was no suggestion that the solicitor who received the papers did anything wrong.

 Child spies being used as informants and gangstalkers

Police watchdog investigates 14 Scotland Yard officers over claims they covered up misconduct in Met force's biggest corruption probe in 40 years

  • Senior officers in the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) probed
  • Claims made of racial discrimination and officers interfering in investigations 
  • DPS was set up to tackle misconduct and corruption in UK's largest police force
  •  So far, gross misconduct notices have been served on three officers
  • One officer under criminal investigation, with others in the unit being assessed
  • One of UK's top police chiefs is also reported to be under investigation

Male stalking victim: 'People don’t take you seriously'

By Laura Harmes & Emma Forde5 live Investigates

  • 7 January 2018



Stalking reports treble as prosecution rates fall

  • 20 July 2018


BBC news re Jane Clift

BBC news re Jane Clift