View Investigation SCOT flipbook.
1 | P a g e To: The individuals and organisations alleged to have sought to recruit, assimilate or psychologically alter the individual concerned Subject: Formal Demand for Explanation and Accountability Concerning Alleged Coercive Recruitment, Assimilation and Attempted Personality Change Dear Sir/Madam, This letter concerns allegations that one or more groups attempted to recruit a 35-year-old refugee woman in Scotland by creating or exploiting conditions of extreme isolation and dependency, while simultaneously attempting to assimilate her into an identity, community or belief system against her wishes and alter aspects of her personality. You are required to explain precisely what you wanted from this individual. What exactly were you attempting to assimilate her into? The word "assimilation" is inadequate unless its intended meaning is made explicit. You are therefore required to identify: • the culture, organisation, community, ideology or belief system into which you allegedly sought to assimilate her; • who selected that identity for her; • why you believed she should adopt it; • whether she consented; • what characteristics you wanted her to acquire; • what characteristics of her existing identity you wanted removed; • and why you believed you were entitled to make those decisions on her behalf. If the claimed objective was integration into Scottish society, explain why coercion, isolation or group recruitment would be necessary. If the objective was instead integration into a particular organisation or community, identify that organisation or community.
2 | P a g e Why recruit someone through isolation? The allegations suggest that the individual was allegedly prevented from accessing ordinary employment, income, assistance, social relationships and independent support, while simultaneously being told or made to believe that joining a particular group was the only route out. You are required to explain why. A recruitment process that allegedly first removes a person's alternatives and then presents membership of the recruiting group as the only means of obtaining safety, companionship or assistance raises fundamental questions about voluntariness and coercion. You must therefore explain: 1. why the person's alternatives were allegedly restricted; 2. who restricted them; 3. whether your group requested or encouraged such restrictions; 4. whether you benefited from her dependency; 5. whether anyone controlled or attempted to control her finances; 6. whether anyone interfered with employment; 7. whether anyone discouraged her from contacting authorities; 8. whether anyone attempted to prevent independent legal or psychological advice; 9. whether refusal to join resulted in retaliation or further isolation; and 10. whether the group regarded her vulnerability as an opportunity for recruitment. Alleged personality-change programme The allegations further refer to an alleged objective of changing the woman's personality. You are required to explain: • what personality characteristics you wanted changed; • why; • who decided they should change; • what techniques were used; • whether the individual consented; • what professional theory justified the techniques; • whether any psychologist or other professional participated; • what records were created; • how progress was measured; • and when the alleged programme was supposed to end.
3 | P a g e If no personality-change programme existed, state that clearly. If one existed, identify its legal, professional and ethical basis. Alleged group abuse and coercive practices The allegations include conduct described as group assault, psychological torture, coercive control, intimidation and cult-like abuse. You are required to state whether your organisation has ever used: • isolation as a means of obtaining compliance; • threats; • humiliation; • sleep or sensory manipulation; • intimidation; • financial dependency; • social exclusion; • coordinated harassment; • surveillance; • forced confession or disclosure; • identity suppression; • pressure to abandon existing relationships; • pressure to adopt a prescribed personality; • or recruitment presented as the only escape from an otherwise impossible situation. If any of these practices were used, identify the person who authorised them and the purpose for which they were used.
4 | P a g e Treatment of a refugee The alleged exploitation of a person because she was a refugee would be particularly serious. The relevant question is not merely whether she possessed formal legal status. The question is whether anyone deliberately exploited the practical vulnerabilities associated with being alone in a foreign country, including: • lack of family support; • financial insecurity; • unfamiliarity with institutions; • dependence on public services; • social isolation; • language or cultural barriers; • uncertainty about where to obtain assistance; • or fear that authorities would not believe her. If the answer is yes, explain why those vulnerabilities were used. Disclosure concerning public officials You are also required to disclose whether you communicated with: • police; • government departments; • local authorities; • health services; • psychologists; • social services; • refugee organisations; • immigration authorities; • elected representatives; • or other public bodies about this woman. Where lawful, identify the persons contacted, the dates, the purpose of the communications and the substance of the information provided. If you asked any public authority to disregard, dismiss or prevent complaints made by her, that must be disclosed and explained.
5 | P a g e No legitimate authority to manufacture consent A person cannot reasonably be said to have freely chosen membership of a group merely because every alternative has allegedly been removed. If a group first contributes to isolation and then offers itself as the solution to that isolation, the circumstances surrounding the apparent "choice" require careful independent examination. Accordingly, I require you to explain why this individual's autonomy was allegedly treated as something that could be overridden for the benefit of a group. Final demand You are required to preserve all documents, messages, recordings, correspondence, instructions and other evidence concerning the individual. You are further required to provide a substantive response addressing: • the identity of the group or groups involved; • the purpose of the alleged recruitment; • the identity or culture into which she was allegedly to be assimilated; • the personality characteristics allegedly targeted for change; • the methods used; • the persons responsible; • any professional involvement; • any public-authority involvement; • any financial arrangements; • and any instructions to suppress or dismiss her complaints. If the allegations are false, you should state precisely which allegations are denied and provide the evidence supporting your position. If they are true in whole or in part, the responsible persons should expect the conduct to be examined by appropriate independent authorities. The objective of this demand is accountability, factual clarification and protection of the individual's autonomy and rights. It is not an invitation to continue any alleged programme of recruitment, psychological manipulation or coercive control. Any further attempt to interfere with the individual's access to independent assistance, legal representation, employment, financial support, public authorities or other legitimate avenues of protection should be documented and independently investigated. Yours faithfully,
6 | P a g e To: The individuals and organisation alleged to be involved in the conduct described below Subject: Formal Demand for Disclosure Concerning Alleged Identity Erosion, Coercive Control, Isolation and Psychological Abuse Dear Sir/Madam, This letter concerns allegations that a group of individuals deliberately targeted a 35-year-old refugee woman living in Scotland and subjected her to prolonged isolation, surveillance, psychological pressure and coercive conduct for the purpose of eroding or replacing her personal identity. These allegations are extremely serious and require a clear explanation from anyone who participated in, authorised, encouraged, facilitated or had knowledge of such conduct. You are required to state plainly whether your organisation or any person acting on its behalf has ever participated in activities intended to alter, suppress, erode, destroy or replace this woman's personal identity. If the answer is yes, provide a complete explanation. If the answer is no, provide a clear denial identifying which allegations you dispute. Alleged identity-erasure programme The allegations describe a process in which the woman's existing identity was allegedly treated as something that had to be broken down before another identity could be imposed upon her. You are required to explain: • What did you mean by "eroding" her identity? • Who decided that her identity required alteration? • What objective were you attempting to achieve? • Who designed the alleged process? • What methodology was used? • What psychological or behavioural theory was relied upon? • Who authorised it? • Who monitored it? • What records were kept? • What outcome were you seeking? • What criteria were allegedly used to determine whether her identity had been sufficiently "eroded"? If you claim professional psychological expertise, identify the relevant qualifications, registration and professional organisation.
7 | P a g e Isolation and coercive control Explain why the woman was allegedly isolated from employment, income, assistance, ordinary social relationships and independent sources of advice. Explain why she was allegedly placed in circumstances in which joining or submitting to a particular group appeared to be the only available route to social contact, security or escape from isolation. If anyone deliberately created such dependency, explain why. If the purpose was psychological conditioning, identify the precise methodology and legal/ethical authority relied upon. A person's refusal to join an organisation cannot reasonably be treated as consent to being isolated until they submit. Alleged cult-like practices The allegations include practices described as resembling cult abuse, including: • forced or coercive recruitment; • psychological domination; • isolation; • identity suppression; • intimidation; • dependency creation; • manipulation of social relationships; • financial control; • group pressure; • punishment or retaliation for refusal to comply; • portraying the group as the only source of safety; • and preventing access to independent assistance. You are required to state whether any of these practices were used. If you deny them, identify the evidence supporting the denial. If any such practice occurred, identify who authorised it and why.
8 | P a g e Alleged use of psychological warfare It has been alleged that the activities were described as "psychological warfare" against one individual. If that description was used by any member of your organisation, explain: 1. who used the term; 2. what it meant; 3. what objective was intended; 4. what methods were used; 5. whether the individual gave informed consent; 6. who supervised the activities; 7. whether an ethics review was undertaken; and 8. what professional or legal authority was relied upon. If no such activity occurred, provide a clear statement to that effect. Demand for identification and records You are requested to preserve all records relating to the woman, including communications, instructions, recordings, notes, plans, correspondence, messages and records identifying participants. You are further requested to identify: • all persons who participated; • all persons who gave instructions; • all persons who received reports; • all organisations involved; • any professional persons involved; • any public officials contacted; • and any person who attempted to prevent her complaints from reaching an independent authority. If information was deliberately withheld from her, explain why. If any person contacted public authorities concerning her, identify the subject matter and purpose of those communications to the extent lawfully disclosable.
9 | P a g e Human dignity and accountability An individual's cultural identity, personality, beliefs, relationships and autonomy are not legitimate objects for collective experimentation merely because another group believes it knows what that person's identity should become. If you claim that your activities were intended to benefit this woman, explain precisely: • what benefit was intended; • why she was not allowed to choose it herself; • why independent advice was allegedly prevented; • why isolation was necessary; • why coercion was necessary; • and what lawful authority permitted the intervention. If there was no lawful authority, that must be acknowledged. I require a substantive written response addressing each category above. If you deny involvement, preserve all evidence capable of establishing that denial. If involvement is established, the individuals responsible should expect the matter to be referred, as appropriate, to independent regulatory, legal, safeguarding, human-rights or law-enforcement authorities. This letter is not an accusation that every allegation is already proven. It is a formal demand that persons alleged to have exercised extraordinary power over another individual explain what they did, why they did it, who authorised it and what evidence supports their position. Yours faithfully,
10 | P a g e To: The Scottish Government Subject: Formal Demand for Independent Investigation, Disclosure, Preservation of Evidence and Accountability Concerning Alleged Coordinated Targeting, Isolation and Abuse Dear Sir/Madam, I write to require a formal, independent and properly documented investigation into extremely serious allegations concerning the treatment of a 35-year-old woman who is a refugee and has lived in Scotland for approximately ten years. The allegations concern an alleged period of approximately two years and two months during which the woman states that she was effectively subjected to severe social isolation and prevented from obtaining ordinary routes out of that isolation. She alleges that she was surrounded and persistently targeted by several organised groups and that the alleged objective was to erode her personal identity, assimilate her into an identity or culture selected by others, and alter her personality. I emphasise that these matters are presented as allegations requiring investigation. I am not asking the Scottish Government simply to accept the allegations as established facts. I am demanding that the Government establish, through an independent process, what actually occurred, who was involved, what authority—if any—was relied upon, what information was held by public authorities, and whether any public officials participated in, facilitated, ignored, concealed or improperly dismissed the conduct complained of. 1. The central questions requiring investigation The Scottish Government is requested to provide a substantive answer to the following: 1. Did any Scottish Government department, public authority, police body, health service, local authority, contractor, publicly funded organisation, psychologist, social worker or other public servant have knowledge of the alleged targeting of this woman? 2. Were any instructions, informal or formal, given to public servants to disregard, dismiss, minimise, redirect or otherwise prevent her complaints from being properly investigated? 3. Did any public authority maintain records concerning her complaints, reports, welfare, employment, finances, housing, immigration/refugee status, mental health, communications or alleged targeting? 4. Were any public authorities communicating with persons or organisations concerning her without her knowledge or consent? 5. Was any information about her shared between agencies or private persons, and if so, on what legal basis? 6. Did any public authority ever assess whether she was at risk of coercive control, exploitation, stalking, harassment, psychological abuse, financial abuse, trafficking, discrimination or other forms of serious harm? 7. If such risks were identified, what protective measures were considered or implemented? 8. If no investigation was undertaken, who made that decision, on what evidence, and under what procedure?
11 | P a g e 9. If complaints were dismissed, what evidence supported the dismissal? 10. Were allegations concerning organised psychological manipulation, coercive control or coordinated harassment ever referred to an appropriate independent body? 2. Alleged "erosion of identity", "assimilation" and personality change Particular clarification is required concerning the alleged terminology of "identity erosion", "assimilation" and "personality change". If any person acting for, connected with, or communicating with a public authority used these concepts, the Government is required to explain precisely what they meant. In particular: • What does the Scottish Government understand by "assimilating" an individual into Scottish culture? • Does the Government recognise any lawful procedure by which an adult can be deliberately isolated in order to alter her identity, beliefs, personality or cultural identity? • If such a procedure does not exist, will the Government expressly confirm that no public authority has authority to conduct such a programme? • If anyone purported to conduct such a programme while claiming professional psychological expertise, what professional body, employer or institution authorised them to do so? • What safeguarding and ethical procedures would apply? • What legal authority could possibly permit the deliberate destruction or suppression of an adult's identity? • What distinction is being made between lawful cultural integration and coercive assimilation imposed upon an unwilling person? Scottish Government policy states that human rights are to be protected, respected and fulfilled, and identifies the Human Rights Act 1998 and Scotland Act 1998 as part of the framework protecting civil and political rights in Scotland. Scottish Government Accordingly, "integration" must not be used as a euphemism for coercion, isolation, psychological domination or the forced replacement of an individual's identity.
12 | P a g e 3. Alleged professional psychological involvement The allegations also refer to persons presenting themselves as professional psychologists and allegedly describing their activities as psychological warfare against one individual. This requires urgent clarification. The Government should establish: • Who these individuals were; • What professional qualifications they claimed; • Whether they were registered psychologists or other regulated professionals; • Whether they were employed by, contracted by, funded by or otherwise connected with a public body; • Whether any professional body received complaints concerning them; • What psychological methodology they claimed to be using; • Whether any formal research, treatment, safeguarding or other authorisation existed; • Whether informed consent was obtained; • Whether any independent ethics review occurred; • Whether records of their activities exist; and • Whether any public money or public authority was involved. No legitimate professional status should be treated as immunity from investigation. If psychological techniques were allegedly used to deliberately isolate, intimidate, destabilise, manipulate or alter an unwilling adult, the Government should identify the legal, ethical and professional basis relied upon.
13 | P a g e 4. Alleged deprivation of routes to safety Particularly serious are the allegations that the woman was deprived of ordinary routes to independence, including employment, earnings, assistance, social contact and access to support. The allegation is that she was effectively presented with a constructed situation in which she had no safe route out except joining or submitting to the very groups she believed were targeting her. If established, such conduct could represent an extreme form of dependency and coercion. The investigation should therefore determine: • Whether employment opportunities were obstructed; • Whether financial assistance was improperly withheld; • Whether access to housing or welfare services was interfered with; • Whether applications for assistance were deliberately prevented or disrupted; • Whether anyone attempted to make her financially dependent upon a particular group; • Whether her refugee status was exploited to increase dependency or vulnerability; • Whether anyone threatened her with loss of support; • Whether anyone attempted to isolate her from independent sources of advice; • Whether anyone attempted to make membership of a particular group appear to be the only means of obtaining safety or social contact. The fact that an individual is a refugee, a woman, financially vulnerable or socially isolated should increase the seriousness with which safeguarding concerns are treated—not reduce it. UK Government guidance recognises that asylum/refugee support systems can involve assistance concerning housing, finances, agencies, legal representation and protection from threats or harm.
14 | P a g e 5. Alleged coercive control and cult-like practices The allegations include conduct described as coercive control, group assault, psychological manipulation, forced recruitment, identity destruction, intimidation and practices resembling cult abuse. I therefore require the investigation to establish whether any organisation or group: • deliberately isolated the woman; • attempted to make her dependent upon the group; • attempted to sever her connections with independent society; • demanded obedience; • attempted to control her identity; • attempted to control her relationships; • attempted to control her finances; • used threats or intimidation; • used psychological pressure; • represented membership as the only escape from danger; • punished refusal to participate; • attempted to recruit her against her wishes; • or used professional, political or institutional connections to prevent her from obtaining independent assistance. The Government should not dismiss these questions merely because the alleged perpetrators describe themselves as a social, cultural, religious, psychological, professional or political organisation. 6. Alleged institutional cover-up If any public authority received repeated reports and failed to investigate them, the investigation must determine whether this resulted from ordinary administrative error, incompetence, misunderstanding, inadequate safeguarding, conflicts of interest, improper influence, deliberate concealment or another cause. If officials were instructed to suppress or disregard reports, the source of those instructions must be identified. If information was deliberately concealed, the persons responsible must be identified. If public officials participated in wrongdoing, the matter must be referred to the appropriate independent authority. If officials did not participate but nevertheless failed to act when legally or professionally required to do so, that failure must also be examined.
15 | P a g e 7. Preservation and disclosure of evidence I formally request the preservation of all potentially relevant evidence, including: • emails; • letters; • telephone records; • meeting notes; • case notes; • internal messages; • referrals; • safeguarding records; • complaints; • police communications; • health and social-care communications where lawfully accessible; • records concerning financial support; • records concerning employment or housing; • communications between public bodies; • communications with private organisations; • records identifying persons or organisations involved; • policies or instructions concerning the handling of her complaints; and • any records concerning alleged psychological, behavioural or identity-related programmes involving her. No potentially relevant material should be destroyed, altered, retrospectively rewritten or otherwise compromised. Where disclosure cannot lawfully be made, I require the Government to identify the category of material withheld, the legal basis for withholding it, and the appropriate route for challenging that decision.
16 | P a g e 8. Independence of the investigation Because the allegations include possible institutional involvement and possible suppression of complaints, an investigation conducted solely by the same persons or department whose conduct is being challenged would not provide adequate confidence in its independence. I therefore request an investigation by an appropriately independent body or investigator with no involvement in the underlying events. The investigation should establish: 1. what happened; 2. who was involved; 3. what each person did; 4. what authority they relied upon; 5. what information public bodies possessed; 6. why previous reports were handled as they were; 7. whether any wrongdoing occurred; 8. whether any public resources were misused; 9. whether any conflicts of interest existed; 10. whether any professional standards were breached; 11. whether any human rights were infringed; 12. whether discrimination or exploitation occurred; 13. whether any attempt was made to conceal wrongdoing; and 14. what remedial and accountability measures are now required.
17 | P a g e 9. Accountability If evidence establishes misconduct, abuse of authority, unlawful discrimination, corruption, obstruction of complaints, misuse of public resources, improper disclosure of personal information, failure of safeguarding or deliberate concealment, the Government should identify the appropriate disciplinary, regulatory, civil, criminal or other accountability mechanism. The Scottish Government itself states that complaints may concern failures to follow proper procedure and treatment by staff, and provides a staged complaints process culminating, where appropriate, in consideration by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Scottish Government This complaint should therefore be formally registered and assigned a reference number. If the Government considers that any part of this matter falls outside its complaints procedure, it should identify the correct independent mechanism rather than simply closing or dismissing the complaint. 10. Final demand I require a written response addressing each substantive question above. The response must not consist merely of a general statement that the allegations are "unsubstantiated". If the allegations are disputed, the response should identify what investigation was conducted, what evidence was considered, who conducted it, what conclusions were reached and what independent review is available. The seriousness of this matter is heightened by the allegation that the case has already been brought to the attention of international refugee/human-rights mechanisms. This letter should therefore be treated as a formal request for accountability and preservation of evidence. The Government is on notice that continued failure to investigate credible allegations of institutional involvement, where evidence exists, may itself require examination by appropriate independent oversight, regulatory, legal, parliamentary, human-rights or international mechanisms. I expect confirmation that this complaint has been registered, identification of the responsible investigating authority, confirmation that relevant records have been preserved, and a substantive response to the matters raised above. Yours faithfully,