A couple of days ago I sat through a BBC reporter's interview with a woman by the name of Claire Waxman. It was as compelling as it was horrendous and excruciating.
Claire was the victim of an obsessive `stalker` for nine years. As a former police instructor I predict that the BBC News 24 channel interview will become an integral part of the public protection training regime for many years to come.
As I listened to her story, told with great calmness and clarity, something terribly sad occurred to me. I actually believe that she would probably have faired better at the hands of the State had she suffered a sudden and temporary loss of self control and ran him over in her car and killed him, as almost happened during one of her countless stalking encounters. Certainly, the law has several legal precedents and statutory defences to such things when committed in extremis, under duress, diminished responsibility or even, streching it somewhat, under automatism. Either way, that result would have arguably put her life back to normal far quicker than the status quo. But then again, why should she have to be pushed to that limit?
Set aside 30 minutes.
You have 5 days left to watch this online
11 comments:
And how, I wonder, would a male being stalked by a female fare in similar circumstances? Not, I suspect, half so well...
JuliaM: I can hear the advice from here; "Calm down dear".
I still don't get it. I'm a stalker. I'm in a similar position to the man in this story except my stalking isn't based on just one specific individual. But I watched that whole program and I still can't see why she's so worried. He's never touched her or hurt her or done anything to her! Why can't he just look. That's all I want to do to the people I harass. I just want to look. That is enough for me. I just don't get it. :s I've been told countless times that I'm causing alarm and distress, but I simply don't believe it. I think they are only using those words to get a prosecution, I don't believe they are truly feeling alarmed and distressed because I can't see how someone sitting and looking at you from a distance can cause you alarm and distress if that's all they are doing. My case has gone on over a similar timescale to this one. I've spent some time on remand for the same reasons as this man and my thoughts still haven't changed. I just have to accept that my mind doesn't seem to work like other people's and what I think is acceptable doesn't seem to be acceptable to other people. I just don't get it. I'm sure this is how that bloke is thinking/feeling as well.
I know this will be an unpopular post but thought someone should represent the other side of the story.
K - Y
Kay, assuming you are not a troll, I can see where you are coming from - but I think you should consider your own words -
"I just have to accept that my mind doesn't seem to work like other people's and what I think is acceptable doesn't seem to be acceptable to other people. I just don't get it."
I think unfortunately that you are exactly correct here - you are acting in a way that the overwhelmingly vast majority of would not. I am not in any way a specialist but is it possible you may lie on the autistic spectrum - your attitude to relationships with others and acceptable behaviour seems skewed.
I genuinely hope that you are seeking help for this - the problem is that those you say yourself harass WILL feel alarmed and/or distressed and until you realise this I suspect your behaviour will be unchanged and you will keep ending up at the wrong end of the CJS regardless of your intentions.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to worship, freedom of travel, freedom to sit and stare - human rights - but in our society freedom is ladled out in order that one persons freedom doesn't invade someone else's take on the concept. That's why we have traffic lights. If our freedoms weren`t regulated then none of us would be free to accept that a green light meant it was ok to drive across the road junction.
To Anonymous 9:15-
First I am not a troll and thanks for a frank and non-judgemental answer I appreciate that. I am under the mental health services but until the last year when things were becoming overwhelming I have had very little support from them as I function at a high level and therefore am not considered a priority in their very overstretched workloads. My official "label" is borderline personality disorder but I have repeatedly said and personally believe that I am aspergers (high end autistic). The mental health professionals refuse to follow up that suggestion saying everyone is on the autistic spectrum. When I've taken online tests I come out a few points short of the diagnostic level for aspergers but it's very close. You can tell me I am causing alarm until you're blue in the face but I still can't see it.
I am however doing fairly well at the moment in that I'm on a 4 year ASBO (which the judge said could be extended for another year if necessary). The terms of the ASBO are VERY specific and are effective at controlling my behaviour. I do try my hardest to keep to the terms and as such at the moment, the people I harass are feeling a lot safer. However, it said in that interview that the day one order ended he sent a card. That's exactly what I'm like. The day my ASBO ends, I'll be straight back where at the moment I cannot go. The reason for that is because I honestly can't see the harm it's doing. I do know that's warped but you can't change your thoughts and the mental health people don't seem to be able to help me.
"...but in our society freedom is ladled out in order that one persons freedom doesn't invade someone else's take on the concept. "
The acid test there is - or rather, has always been - the potential for harm. I might not LIKE my neighbour sunbathing naked in his own garden, but does it 'harm' me?
The problem has arisen in that 'harm' is now being stretched far too thinly, to incorporate more than it was ever intended to.
I can't watch it, being on a dial-up account. I do wonder, though, why the State these days seems to be on the side of the bad guys, instead of the good guys.
JTG, sorry you couldn't get it. I've always pondered your question and came to a conclusion that the bad guys must be less of a nuisance and easier to deal with.
Kay, please excuse me if I'm wrong but I think you have, or had, a registration number with 999 in it. If you are that person I don't recall you mentioning that it was police officers you were stalking.
Post a Comment