Continual Coercive Control Activities Across Borders                    

By UK Cartel since Nov 2019




The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped back from senior Royal duties at the end of March 2020.  Prince Harry announced their decision to step back in order to protect their mental health, due to the continued activity of UK media, on the 8th January 2020 after returning to the UK from a six week break in Canada to assess and finalise their situation.  During that time, their location in Canada was leaked to the Press by the Royal Family and their security was removed.  A tabloid employee also contacted the Sussexes and informed them that he was aware that they were contemplating on leaving their roles, and he wanted a story.  That same individual gave the Sussexes 10 days in which to respond, otherwise the tabloid concerned would print the story anyway.  This is the same individual who continuously bombarded a female presenter with negative articles and even on her birthday published an article with a supposed birthday card image, containing items which indicated blood spats.  That same presenter committed suicide shortly afterwards, and that media employee (like many others that day it was announced that this lady had taken her own life) spent that day erasing articles that they had written about her for months.  Towards the end of her life, the articles were daily and multiple in numbers and none of them anything but critical and accusatory.  The receipts exist, so there can be no denying the removal of articles and posts on social media by most of the tabloid media the day the suicide was made public.

Lessons were clearly not taken on board, if ever they were understood, because this same style of reporting has been going on for years in the UK, and continued after the death of the said presenter.  The target in this case was Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex.  Meghan was targeted as soon as the tabloids knew of the relationship between her and Prince Harry, and in obvious partnership with the Royal Family, a plan of action was put in motion that had no positive end goal, and when the first objective failed (ensure that a marriage never took place), things became far more sinister and dangerous.  Every goal that the media, and the Royal Family set themselves, failed, and the silence of those in government over the treatment of a USA citizen in this way on UK soil, implies complicit consent.  There were and are other forces acting against the Sussexes but from 2016 the three I have just mentioned have been at the helm.  At no point did any of the establishment step forward and implicity state this had to stop.  None of the charities that the Duchess supported stepped forward either, but all were benefiting from her input.  The very first project that Meghan took on, was the Community Kitchen that emerged from the trauma and tragedy of the Grenfell Fire.  The women of that kitchen became and remain public supporters of Meghan and Harry.  The kitchen was not a patronage but yet it has been the most supportive – no doubt helped by the fact that the women all knew and lived the day to day experience of being treated differently because of their ethnicity.  The tabloids, even in this traumatic period, wrote a series of articles that were beyond shameful.  Truly disgusting, with zero concern or interest about the deaths of over 70 people, and the ongoing social issues that continue today.

This is the style and culture of the UK media, both printed and televised, and this is the backdrop to a culture of isolationism, and treating people who are not considered sentient beings as acceptable to be treated without any respect.  To summarise, the UK treatment of refugees and also people from Commonwealth countries, are just two examples of the difference in treatment by the tabloids and the government in the UK.  When you hear about those two examples, then the subsequent treatment of Meghan marrying into the UK Royal Family will come as no surprise.  Even Harry I am sure never for one moment thought his family and country could operate in this way, but as he has said himself, the things he is learning and experiencing and seeing first hand since his marriage to Meghan has opened his eyes.  The fact that Harry speaks up about those experiences, and has in fact had to remove his wife and children away from the UK for their safety, lets the world know, that Harry understands now, and I doubt if he knew then what he knows now, he would have left the UK before March 2020.

Refugees seeking safety on UK soil have not been welcomed, and more importantly have not been treated sympathetically with respect.  In fact there was a time that they were described as “roaches”.  Recent refugees seeking safety are from the Ukraine.  All refugees should be treated with respect and care, but yet, the UK acted differently to Ukrainian refugees than any other.  People of the UK were offered payments to take families into their homes, and give them a place of safety until things could be worked out.  People from the Ukraine were treated humanely, and rightly so, like all people in that situation should be treated.  Other refugees were treated like “roaches” and the future plan from the UK, officially described as a “partnership” with Rwanda is to “ship people off to Rwanda to be processed”.  An out of sight out of mind mentality, and one which the UK could give two xxxxx about how the day to day quality of life will be.  None of the government ministers concerned care one iota.  Rwanda a place where there is a mountain of evidence of major serious breaches in Human Rights, but it is obviously deemed as not a problem for the UK to worry about, as it is not their concern right now, but at the same time Ukrainian are being rightly housed around the country, and not shipped off to a known dangerous place, to be processed by people who are also of no interest to the UK.

The other group I wish to mention for the purpose of this topic of Human Rights breaches, and the difference in treatment by people from different groups and backgrounds.  The UK has enjoyed telling the world that there are 53 countries as part of the Commonwealth.  In my mind, it is just another description that sounds better than describing them as being part of the British empire and their colonisation of various nations.  We have the ongoing scandal of the Windrush deportations from the UK to Jamaica, returning people some of whom left the island as babies with their parents, who answered the call from the UK to travel and work in the UK in sectors such as transportation and health.  Now that some of those nations are critical of the way the UK treats them, and they have seen how the UK treated the first person of colour to enter the Royal family, and who had to leave the country because of the risk to life and limb, the Monarchy and its press and its government are not looking too good right now, not to mention the questionable business dealing that has gone over the years, and the involvement in legal matters which allow them to alter things in favour of the Monarchy wishes.  Eg.  Do not have to comply with Equality and Diversity legislation.  Only the black nations have to apply for a visa to enter the UK, but the white ones, such as New Zealand and Australia do not have to apply for a visa – they are free to travel regardless.

So in case, you have missed my point on these examples, the people of colour are and continue to be treated adversely compared to their white Caucasian counterparts.

I believe, with my non legal brain, that the action of ‘sending refugees to Rwanda’ to be ‘processed’ is a breach of Human Rights legislation but the white refugees treated differently.  The treatment of the women of Grenfell in the media was vastly different to the rest of the patronages. The treatment of commonwealth countries is different dependent upon skin colour.  The treatment of the only person of colour to enter the UK Royal family is vastly different to any other member who has married in.  The absolute daily onslaught by UK media on the Sussexes and in particular Meghan is in breach of so many areas of law, yet not one legal ‘expert’ in the UK has stepped up and challenged the UK stance, and for that matter the established International Forums usually cherry pick the nations where they intervene, and say nothing about the others.  I would argue that a high profile case such a member of the UK Royal family being treated so badly on UK soil and then on USA soil since 2016, is something that I find unjustifiable to be ignored.  Meghan and Harry’s treatment is the tip of a growing iceberg of people who are in no position to challenge their abusers, and who in some cases have taken their own lives out of despair, and others are heavily impacted by growing mental health issues.  The Duchess herself had suicidal ideation, and was refused assistance by the Royal Family because it would be embarrassing for the family??  The Sussexes miscarried a baby in the middle of a very nasty and insidious campaign of the content of reporting on the Sussexes, and when a Royal Reporter admitted on camera and in a podcast that they were in close contact with the Royal Human Resources team, and they were aware of Meghan’s suicidal ideation, rather than back down, the Royal Reporters doubled down on the onslaught.  What was the end game here?  Whether it was crushing spirit or end of life, none of them thought that Harry would take his family out of the toxic environment, and become independent from this cruel and abusive environment.

A group of us, have started a campaign, aimed at the International Legal Community for the updating of the new ways of abusive behaviour spreading via electronic means, and that abusers and their victims need not be in the same town or country to deliver their blows.  The incitement of hatred on people of all ages, has implications for all countries, not just those who appear as the face of the very obvious network which operates and funds it from a variety of sources and chains, that clearly are set up to hide the person at the top of the chain. Enough is enough.  Meghan and Harry are part of a much wider group of people who are suffering, and the global community needs to step up or step aside and let others take the reigns to tackle these new phenomenon of co-ordinated and financed groups and the social media platforms and channel owners who are making telephone number profits from inciting hatred and describing it as freedom of speech.  Time for action.

Under the basic tenet of Human Rights legislation, there are many categories of law that run parallel to what is going on with the Sussexes, and where action has been taken against people who are not considered powerful or wealthy.  Yet when it comes to people in powerful positions and who have senior professional posts in the business or legal world, or are considered as influencers in certain areas of business or politics, then the world turns a blind eye until things become so serious, or what was once hidden comes to light, the powers that be are forced to respond in some way, even if it is decades too late for the victims of those activities.

When you read about these examples, if you replace “partner, ex partner, spouse” etc with all those groups of people who have abused the Sussexes, eg the Royal Family, the tabloid press Royal Reporters, Government by their silence are complicit, keyboard warriors, the other blood relatives with less funds – they are behaving like an ex partner who refuses to accept that the marriage is over, and are now becoming dangerously obsessed with pursuing them and putting their lives at risk, with an added bonus of income generated from inciting hate, and describing it as freedom of speech.

If on the rare occasion the abusers are powerful and/or wealthy, and their victims are in a similar category, there seems to be a position taken that say to anyone caring to watch, that it is best to let them sort it out between themselves. No need for us to be interested.  It is just rich folk doing their thing. If the victim is a person of colour, then it seems it matters even less.  The view seems to be, the victim has the financial means to pay for multiple legal actions, and can move home several times in order to try and remain safe, can afford to pay for top class security teams etc etc.

Everyone knows deep down if the perpetrators were POC, it rarely takes decades for legal professionals to step in.  If the victims are poor Caucasians and their abusers are wealthy and powerful etc, no one is interested, until the abusers have long since passed on.  The basic aspect of everyone is entitled to protection under the law, seems to be pushed to one side.  The danger with that is that victim s are left to suffer, and if the abuse continues for years, the cost to the individuals concerned is more than financial, and therefore the damage to the authorities and the countries concerned is not easily repaired.



“Abusive men are just as likely to be lawyers, accountants and judges

as they are to be unemployed. It is about power and control.”

Sandra Horley CEO of Refuge.


I regard the treatment of Meghan and Harry, Meghan in particular like that of a person in a violent marriage. I stated this in two podcasts last year (2021)

The abuser continually trying to erode the self esteem of their victim, and telling them how they could be nothing without them etc., and to put fear in their minds about leaving.  When that victim manages to escape, the abuser then goes on the defensive, trying to justify their actions, and ultimately try to make life so difficult outside of the marital home that the victim returns and becomes compliant, and in fact inevitably the level of abuse is worse than before.

I have used the Kubler Ross 7 Stages of Grief Model in the past, to show how the British Royal Family, the Royal Reporters working for the tabloids, but who have an ‘invisible’ contract with the Monarchy to always give them positive press coverage, in return to access to the Royals for exclusive scoops etc. I include Government in the analogy, aristocracy and keyboard warriors in the frame.  It is a very useful model for a number of things.  Highly recommend you look it up, and also if you have time, read my article which maps categories from the model, to particular antics of the above groups.

This is a little background for new subscribers and listeners to my podcasts and articles.  Todays podcast is using the framework of Coercive Control and how it can apply to describing what has been and continues to be done against Harry and Meghan. “Experts have thus often used the non-injury model of “coercive control” to explain the dynamics of intimate partner violence. The term was first popularized in 2007 by the work of Dr. Evan Stark, who described coercive control as a pattern through which abusive partners–typically males–employ combinations of violence, intimidation, isolation, humiliation, and control”[i]   I list reference material and websites at the end of the articles, to help you on a journey of discovery of some of these topics.  I try to give you a user friendly starting point.[ii]I have done the same with this one.

Post Separation Control

  • Is a form of abuse, that a male ex partner uses to maintain power and control over a woman, long after the marriage/relationship is over. Gender can be either.  Think of all the groups I have mentioned, particularly the Royal Family, and its partners in the media, behaving as though they are trying to keep control over what Harry and Meghan do in life.  Still desperately trying to cling on to power over their actions.  The BRF never once anticipated that Harry would leave with his family.  The aim was clearly to destroy Meghan, in any way it panned out, and if she remained alive, she would get up and walk away.  No one thought that Harry would leave too.  The next step was to take away their security and to reveal their location in Canada, and then again in USA (Tyler Perry’s property).  Charles was responsible for the security leak and the details of their location, along with stopping funding early on in the 12 month transition period that the Royal family themselves insisted on having in the first place.  Charles was willing to place his own son in danger in an effort to force him home and to secure more years for the Monarchy.  They would never risk the life to the heir to the throne, but the “Spare” was expendable.  What a family. The irony of a black man, from an industry that the UK constantly malign as of no importance, stepped forward and provided security and a home for the Sussexes, and sent a private plane to collect the Sussex family from Canada and take them to the LA property, is not wasted on me.  Gives me joy every time I think about it.  God Bless Tyler Perry.  An angel on this earth.
  • Another example is this dangerous game being played regarding security for the Sussexes when/if they visit the UK. Harry offered to pay for the services of the Metropolitan Police whenever he and his family are in the UK for whatever purpose. The last visit for the funeral of his grandfather, proved to be problematic, whereby his vehicle was chased by paparazzi on the return to the airport.  A Freedom of Information request has revealed that it is normal for the Met Police to be hired out by private individuals or organisations for certain periods or events.  The Sussexes do not want security at taxpayer expense.  The Sussexes do have their own private security team that is with them at all times but they are not allowed to carry guns in the UK whereas they can within the States.  Funding has been refused twice, and now there is an Appeal process underway.  It seems that the press are reluctant to accept responsibility for the increased risks to the Sussexes due to the nature and content of reporting in the media, both televised and in the printed format along with online newspaper editions.
    • The compromise offered to the Sussexes was that if they stayed at Clarence House when they visited the UK, then they could have the benefit of tax funded protection by the Met Police officers as the rest of the family do now. Anything outside of that location of residence for each visit, then security paid or free was not an option. Hence the appeal.
    • Never forget, that the next two heirs to the throne sit on the Board that decides who received protection for hire or not. I would argue that there is a huge conflict of interest to have two members of the Royal family decide on whether or not a family member can have what everyone else in the Royal Family has for free, has been refused to be allowed to pay for security, and in so doing, go about their business without discussing it with any of the Royal Family, because the nature of the visits would be their private business visits, and equally, they should be allowed to stay wherever they wish to, throughout their visits, because they would be paying for it themselves, and they are no longer working Royals, therefore no one in the Royal family needs to know their itinerary for any visit that is not Royal business.
      • By only allowing security if the Sussexes stay on Royal grounds, indicates in my opinion, a way to exert control over the Sussexes if they visit the UK, and therefore any non Royal business, would be private Archewell business, which the Met Police committee are currently stating that the Sussexes cannot pay like all the other famous people and ex politicians do all the time, with no problem.
        • The real issue here is about CONTROL.

Often when the abuser is in a position of power, the abuse is not physical – not least because of the potential for reputational damage.  The control is often “psychological and emotional terrorism”, which is harder to prove.


One example:- control tactics using the legal system to repeatedly drag women through expensive litigation, or launching a defamation campaign, in an attempt to silence or discredit the victim and to preserve the reputation of the abuser/s.

  • Think here of Meghan and her treatment by the Royal family and the media in particular. All of those tricks/tactics are clear to see, when you stand back and make comparisons with these proven academic models I am quoting and what has been happening to the Sussexes.  NB There is civil and criminal law already in place to deal with Coercive Control, and with my non legal mind, I fail to see how it can be too far a step to take, to apply the law after 5 years of abusive activity in various forms.  Never forget that Meghan had suicidal thoughts when she was pregnant with Archie.  We nearly had a 2nd death in the Royal family under questionable circumstances, and with clear evidence of various strands of activity which was put in place to drive Meghan out of the family, by any means.
  • Stonewalling, gaslighting and threats of legal action, are all part of an abusers repertoire, they employ these and other tactics to retain power and control to ensure that you are prevented from exposing them.[iii] NB  Think here of the Royal family and the media.  Remember their behaviour before the Oprah interview even came out, and they are doing the same now, about a book that is still being written and will not be published until over 12 months time.  Only people who are guilty of less than good behaviour would be worried about a tv interview yet to air, or a book yet to be published.  The two groups doing the most ‘protesting’ hiding behind other labels are the family and its media.  Speaks volumes to me, and is all part of trying to desperately cling on to the control and the narrative, using a decades old playbook which is no match for the astute minds of the Sussexes, exhausting as it must be for Harry and Meghan.  I repeat, what are legal minds doing?  What has to occur for a trigger to move to action mode?

Women’s Aid [iv]

“Controlling behaviour is designed to make a person dependant by isolating them from support, exploiting them, depriving them of independence and regulating their everyday behaviour.

  • Think here how Meghan was asked to make herself “less visible” .
  • Think here how Meghan was asked to be 50% of herself.
  • Think here how Meghan’s Passport and ID, credit cards, car keys etc were kept by HR. Which meant she would have to ask for them if needed.  They would know her every move.
  • Name removed from Archie’s Birth Certificate, only the Title remains. Harry’s full name and Title is still there.  All other Royal Wives have their name and Title on their children’s Birth Certificates – only Meghan has it had hers removed.
  • Meghan stayed in Frogmore Cottage once for 40 days without leaving it once, and still someone commented that she appeared too soon.
  • Not allowed to see friends without courtiers being in the same room.
  • Like I stated previously, let’s explore the topics of domestic abuse including Coercive Control, and harassment. Look at financial abuse too.  My list of references are just a starting point.  There are multiple sites out there, and all will tell you that laws exist for the prosecution of the abusers, no matter who they are.

Many grassroots organisations worked hard to ensure that coercive control became a criminal offence. This has marked a huge step forward in tackling domestic abuse. Now it is important  to make sure that everyone understands what it is.

Coercive control creates invisible chains and a sense of fear that pervades all elements of a victim’s life. It works to limit their human rights by depriving them of their liberty and reducing their ability for action. Experts like Evan Stark liken coercive control to being taken hostage. As he says: “the victim becomes captive in an unreal world created by the abuser, entrapped in a world of confusion, contradiction and fear.”

An extract from the Laura Richards website.  Details contained in my reference list at the end of this article.  I can see a number of experiences of things that have been done (that we know of) to Meghan whilst on UK soil and Canada and now in the Sussexes home in Montecito.  A very useful site with lots of resource material and information.  Here is one extract:-

“A number of feminist psychologists in the 1970s identified the domestic abuse victims that they worked with as living like hostages and coined the term ‘coercive control.’

This dangerous form of abuse relies on a range of behaviours or actions that can be very subtle and nuanced. The intention is to exploit and dominate and to ultimately deprive the victim of their most basic rights and needs. Over time, the victim may lose the very essence of being, the sense of who they are, their likes and dislikes, rendering their needs and desires irrelevant – hence hostage taking and living under an enforced regime”


In the UK the Government has developed a definition of coercive and controlling behaviour.

Overview of cross-governmental definitions (Home Office, 2015)1

Control Coercion
‘Controlling behaviour is a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.’ ‘Coercive behaviour is a continuing act or a pattern of acts of as­sault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.’

I sincerely hope that Harry writes about acts and the complicity of a number of organisations and individuals, in the now obvious effort to prevent the marriage of the Sussexes, and then having failed at that, went out of their way to try and destroy Meghan’s character, and when that failed, went out of their way to destroy her mental health.  I do however, want him to talk about the severe and traumatic impact of the cruelty of actions by BRF, usually by using other vessels to carry out the deeds.  Actions which continue now on USA soil by perpetrators based elsewhere. Not to mention the abject cruelty around the creation of Spares in the Royal family and the child protection services needed around that whole ideology.

It is safe to say that their success has not gone down well, as all the key abusers wanted the Sussexes (well Harry at least) begging to be let back into the fold, as opposed to residing in a tent under a bridge somewhere.

Harry’s memoir is not even published yet, but the level of outrage and vitriol is embarrassing for all those complaining.  Just to put this outrage over one book into sensible context, on Amazon alone, there are 738 UK Royal biographies alone.  There are other categories pertaining to UK Royals.  At no point was there any outrage.  None of the Royal Reporters had anything negative to say about any of them.  True to form, however, anything that Harry or Meghan produce, they are treated like traitors.  One cant help but think, that only people who may have done undesirable things, or know about undesirable things done by others within Palace walls, would be having apoplexy about a book that has not yet been published and wont be until later this year.  All it has done, has garnered global attention, and guaranteed even higher sales than it possibly would have achieved, purely because now even more people worldwide are beginning to speculate what on earth did actually happen behind palace walls?  As per usual, the propaganda team of the Royal family gave themselves away within hours of the announcement of this forthcoming book.  Just like they did for a whole week before the Oprah interview with the Sussexes.  95% of what the Royal Reporters were blowing gaskets over for 7 days beforehand, were not mentioned in the interview, but immediately provided further receipts for the Sussexes.  Karma in motion.

The Sussexes are living proof (Diana was not so fortunate) of what happens when anyone expresses independent thought.  Slave and Master mentality is living and breathing within the Royal Cult that UK taxpayers fund.  This has to stop.  It is like a bounty has been placed on the heads of USA citizen family and the world is watching because it involves wealthy people.  If it was a wealthy black family doing all of this, it would not be still going on now 5 years down the line.

I think that this extract relating to new legislation approved in the State of California on 29th September 2020[v] is very useful in the current climate surrounding the Sussexes.  I have to keep reminding people that I am not legally trained, but from all the research I have done over the years with mainly womens groups, and an element of personal experience, the treatment behind gilded gates, or by groups who act as Associates of the people behind those gates, who in turn have hired people themselves to carry out certain activities against the Sussexes, has gone way beyond a family asking for a family member to return back to the fold, without his wife and children.  Years down the line it has moved into a range of illegal activity and no one yet has come forward to call it what it is.  Coercive Control is one of the often unseen elements of the abuse, and harassment of the only person of colour to enter the UK Royal family.  The sheer volume of race hate inciting bile written in scores of articles every day in the UK is in itself a crime.  The Sussexes have not been afforded their basic Human Rights, and to date have had limited protection under the law in terms of Human Rights legislation, at a national level but none at an international level.  After 5 years of such activity with no action taken to prevent the flow of hate and increased risk to the Sussex family, it is safe to say that only the International legal community can take the lead on this, with the conjunction of the USA.

The laws exist for a reason.  International laws exist for a reason.  If not, just disband all the international organisations who on paper have the power to intervene, or is it that they only intervene on less wealthy people’s behalf, or regimes who are abusive and who are also POC?  I have zero faith in the UK legal bodies who have chosen to protect themselves rather than take on the establishment.  If the international bodies are the same, then lets all shut up shop and go home, and let the revolution begin, and natural selection take out those who are not popular.  Let’s recreate Mad Max or The Matrix or The Hunger Games in the modern age.



  • Article 8

A private and family life: Nobody should be able to secretly watch what you are doing without good reason – and we have the right to enjoy family life in the way we choose.

  • The right to a private life protects your dignity and autonomy (your right to be independent and make your own decisions about your life).
    • That includes:
  • the right to personal autonomy and physical and psychological integrity (this right means you must not to be physically or psychologically interfered with)
  • respect for your private and confidential information, including the storing and sharing of data about you
  • the right to control the spreading of information about your private life, including photographs taken covertly.

NB//  Article 8 is the Section of the Human Rights legislation that was used  in the communication from Prince William’s legal team to UK media and whoever else, and all action ceased, and even comments made by some reporters on social media was removed; I am guessing by the authors.

Taking all the examples I have given about what Coercive Control means, and the daily events and culture of reporting on the Sussexes and in particular Meghan, I believe strongly that there is a very good case for action to be taken against such treatment on an American citizen, who is living her life in own country, and the Foundation that the Sussexes have created for their philanthropic work is thriving and going from strength to strength.  The tabloid that is the worst of the bunch, is the same tabloid that Meghan has been successful in two court decisions about their activity towards her, and the behaviour has not ceased.  I am aware of the wonderful work and legislation that has been passed in California in September 2020 relating to Coercive Control, and in view of the fact that a family who live in the state are still being treated this way, and that one of the chief abusers of Meghan in the televised and newspaper tabloid industry, has a home in a California as well.  He has publicly made his intentions clear on tv that he intends to continue his stalking of her, and the image used was of him with a clenched fist.  This man used to tell verbally abuse Meghan every day, and more than half of the week, he would tell her to go back to the USA.  He has since been removed from his post, but he has joined a right wing news organisation, and his abuse continues.  His stalking and obsession with and about Meghan would have had police intervention if it was a black presenter doing the same things.  He is dangerous, and he resides in California for part of the year.  The other UK media bullies reside in the UK, and continue their activities across borders.  Right now, most of them are in the Netherlands, even though the Sussexes stopped working with any of them as soon as they stepped back.  The Sussexes are not tax funded, and the Royal Rota reporters are meant to report on the tax funded Royals, yet they still pursue them and write toxic articles.  When they don’t physically travel to the countries where the Sussexes are, others turn up on their behalf.  The mental trauma and stress that this must cause, needs to be addressed, along with the huge online co-ordinated targetted hate online. How many lives need to be lost or damaged before a trigger button kicks in to lead to exploration of this issue?.

International Bill of Rights:-


  • The right to equality and freedom from discrimination
  • The right to life, liberty and personal security
  • Freedom from torture and degrading treatment
  • The right to a fair trial
  • The right to privacy
  • Freedom of belief and religion
  • Freedom of opinion
  • Right of peaceful assembly and association
  • The right to participate in government
  • The right to social security
  • The right to work
  • The right to an adequate standard of living
  • The right to education
  • The right to health
  • The right to food and housing

Time for Action.  Global Action.  You will soon hear about this campaign, and it involves many countries and legal advocates and research groups to name but a few, who have skills and experiences to contribute to the argument.  Time to mobilise.


Ivy Barrow

17 April 2022



Useful Links:-




California Approved a New Bill on Sept 29th 2020 including Coercive Control as part of the Domestic Violence legislation

[v]      (Essex Council website of their Safeguarding Board)  It gives a useful list/breakdown of definitions and authors/professionals in the various categories.       Look for a 116 page study, requested by the FEMM Committee, which it states would be of use to the UN.  The Study is entitled:- Violence Against Women: Psychological Violence and Coercive Control   ref: “Policy Departments for Citizens Rights & Constitutional Affairs. Directorate General for Internal Policies. PE 650.336-April 2020

Print: ISBN 978-92-846-6494-8     PDF: ISBN 978-92-846-6495-5


Articles 1 and 13

Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR do not feature in the Act. This is because, by creating the Human Rights Act, the UK has fulfilled these rights.

For example, Article 1 says that states must secure the rights of the Convention in their own jurisdiction. The Human Rights Act is the main way of doing this for the UK.

Article 13 makes sure that if people’s rights are violated they are able to access effective remedy. This means they can take their case to court to seek a judgment. The Human Rights Act is designed to make sure this happens.


A Little Information on this remarkable lady, Laura Richards:-

Laura Richards, BSc, MSc, MBPsS

Laura is a renowned international expert on domestic violence, stalking, sexual violence, homicide and risk assessment. After a decade of analysing violent crime at New Scotland Yard Laura became the violence adviser to the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC). Trained by world leaders as a criminal behavioural analyst at the Behavioural Analysis Unit, National Centre for the Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI and New Scotland Yard, Laura has applied her psychology degrees to analyse violent crime from a behavioural and preventative perspective. Laura has a BSc in Psychology and Sociology and an MSc in Forensic and Legal Psychology, and with a background in intelligence-led policing, has been the architect of law reform to better protect victims on six occasions.  Laura is Founder of Paladin, the world’s first National Stalking Advocacy Service. Paladin was set up following the highly successful All Party Parliamentary Stalking Law Reform Campaign spearheaded by Laura, which led to stalking becoming a criminal offence in 2012.

More recently Laura spearheaded the Domestic Violence Law Reform Campaign to criminalise coercive control. Laura helped draft the new law and the statutory guidance and developed and delivered the first training on the new law in the UK.


A little Information on this Remarkable Man – Evan Stark.

Professor Evan Stark is a forensic social worker, author of Coercive Control (Oxford, 2007) and a lecturer who has taught at Yale and Rutgers University and held appointments at the University of Essex, Bristol University and the University of Edinburgh. Professor Stark’s award-winning book was the original source of the coercive control model when the United Kingdom’s Home Office widened the definition of domestic violence and he played a major role in the consultation that led to the drafting of the new Coercive Control law in the United Kingdom.  (

In the United States, Professor Stark, the world renowned expert on Coercive Control is consulted by state governments, domestic violence organizations and the media on this mostly unknown method in the United States of intimate partner abuse through controlling and psychological manipulation and terror.

NB  Evan Stark CV is superb!!  It is simply “wow, just wow”.  See for yourself on his website.