I've just read this blog post by Kelly, and her story strikes me as a very effective way of explaining to certain individuals why people who are passionate about protecting all of our liberties are not paranoid, angry and delusional as some would have us think. And then just before I hit publish on this post I read that Robert Green is in police custody.

It's easy to smear somebody as unbalanced because they are mistrustful of:

organisations - particularly supremely powerful ones (governments and corporations spring to mind) or organisations that seek power off them - quangos, fake charities etc.

experts - particularly the educationalists, health professionals etc. - who are protective of their status and do not want to empower people to take control of their own education or healthcare, for example

individuals - particularly those who do not have a strong sense of self, who do not think logically and critically, who cannot bear to be wrong, and who are desperate for approval and acceptance - or power

But it's naive to believe that anybody is a bit of a fruitcake because they subscribe to an idea of a world in which human transactions are complicated, messy and driven by a million and one different agendas that do necessarily reflect their own.

Social workers. Yes, we've seen how they can work against you, even if you know that you are a good and loving mother with clean, healthy, well-educated children and a shiny new house.

Not to mention the constant stream of teachers and other professionals in positions close to children who turn out to be paedophiles - but really, what is so surprising about that?

And as for this police officer, a Scottish sheriff, a nurse, a solicitor and social workers amongst others - well, they are child rapists who are still being protected by the state- as Robert Green is fully aware.

So, I am in general super-mistrustful of the aforementioned organisations, experts and individuals - and the bad behaviour exhibited in these stories does not shock me as it once did. Likewise, the machinations of Balls and other Bad Men and Women sicken me, but their tactics are oh-so familiar. See if you can spot the patterns:

Once upon a time, there was a young woman who secured a job as a government programme manager. She was 25 and the youngest of her kind in the country. She did her hair, and wore skirts and make up. She perhaps looked a certain way. But she thought and acted in quite another.

Rightly or wrongly, the programme's aim was to get drug users out of crime and into treatment. No-one took the time to find out about this young woman's background, knowledge base or understanding of this area, but some people - local authority commissioners and service providers - all best friends together - assumed that, being so young, she knew nothing. Others assumed that, looking the way she did, she knew nothing. 

Perhaps it suited those people to think that. They had their eye on the young woman's £2m budget and, new government programme or not, they expected it to be channelled into their pet service. A pet service whose owner could not, and would not, for deeply held philosophical reasons, ever provide what was required. But that didn't matter. What mattered was the money, the glory and the kudos of securing the big contract. Outcomes? Well, they could always be fiddled. Drug users are generally pretty easy to manipulate and nobody much expects them to tell the truth, anyway.

And so, on the third day of her job, some important people sat around a table and group-thought their way into accepting a totally substandard tender document. The young woman's protestations were studiously ignored and the decision formally made and minuted in her absence. From then on, her fate was sealed.

The contract was impossible to manage. Chaotic drug users, finding the service completely unsuitable, were entering the programme and disappearing left, right and centre. A shroud of mystery hung over workers' caseloads, but no-one would speak out. There were murmurings of serious overdoses and hospitalisations. The young woman, herself accountable to central government, was unable to answer their questions. She pushed and pushed for answers. The service provider tried everything to deflect her: flattery, bragging, asserting authority through her "expert" status, smearing the young woman, bullying, and, as you will see, all-out thuggery.

The situation was meticulously sewn up. Interviews for workers were deftly organised to clash with the young woman's prior engagements, then rigged. Dead-eyed, parrot-tongued automatons were appointed, some of whom had personal relationships with the drug users on their caseloads. Sycophantic "moles" were appointed to key strategic positions, including administrative support, which resulted in hacked email accounts, earwigged phonecalls, forged or inaccurate meeting minutes and handily "lost" documents and "forgotten" letters. Some of the budget was covertly drawn down to appoint another manager, employed by the service provider herself to replicate and usurp the young woman's roles and responsibilities. Words became slippery with implied or subconscious emphasis - pinning down the meaning of language became a constant battle and the service provider hid behind the jargon of addiction. Glib phrases were created and used to programme people's thoughts and expectations, spreading like wildfire. The downright incompetent, often in influential positions, were reeled into the world this service provider had created, wooed with promises of protection and favour.

And still the money was taken, and still the chaotic drug users disappeared. In desperation, the young woman approached her manager's manager, the Chief Constable. He had already received a visit from the service provider, who had complained about the attitude of the young woman. The Chief Constable commended the young woman on her integrity and advised her to keep on challenging. So, buoyed by the support of someone she thought she could trust, that is exactly what she did.

She kept on challenging. She recorded everything. She took copies. She made her own notes of meetings. She was honest, open and transparent in everything she did. She forged strong professional relationships with people who understood what was going on. And that is the only thing that afforded her some small protection by the time she arranged to meet head to head with the service provider and resolve the situation, once and for all.

The minutes presented by the service provider as an accurate account of the meeting were astonishing - bizarrely (and inaccurately) descriptive, full of lies and subjective opinion. A fabricated example:

"These minutes are astonishing; bizarrely (and inaccurately) descriptive, full of lies and subjective opinion", said the unpleasant young woman angrily, her eyes flashing, before she threatened to go running to central government to report the service provider using forged documentation, obtained after sleeping with the postman and shoplifting a sausage roll from Sainsbury's. 

And yet still the young woman was shocked by this behaviour. She could not believe that someone would have the arrogance to lie like this about her - on paper too! This was before she understood about psychopathic behaviour, of course. The service provider went back to the Chief Constable, who again said that there was no case to answer. He told the young woman to keep on challenging. The service provider fumed. The young woman kept on challenging.

The service provider pushed her "replacement" manager to the forefront like a pawn, keeping him at all times between her and the young woman. The manager was rather stupid and only capable of regurgitating that which he had been programmed with. He could not answer the young woman's questions without having been fed weasel word answers. He stumbled and fumbled and bumbled. He failed to clarify. He eventually made some serious errors that exposed the real agenda. And the young woman, relieved that she was not in fact going mad, made sure this was witnessed and documented. Other people finally started to understand her concerns.

After a particularly uncomfortable meeting, the manager (no doubt perplexed by his own confrontation with the truth, and unable to accept it) finally snapped. He ordered the young woman into a room alone. He screamed at her hysterically and demanded that she obey him. He asked her how old she was. It turned out that he was SEVEN YEARS OLDER THAN HER so he yelled it into her face to make sure she understood. He demanded that she respect him RIGHT NOW. The young woman said that his behaviour was not acceptable and that she was leaving the room. He moved to prevent her from leaving and raised a fist to her face. Two of the young woman's colleagues, standing on the other side of the glass-panelled door, witnessed - and heard - the whole thing.

And that is when they all knew that something was over. And that is when the young woman realised the sheer violence that can result when some organisations, experts and individuals are threatened with the truth which threatens to obliterate them.

The young woman's experiences were not uncommon. She found this out during the year and a half in which she was investigated for allegations of serious professional misconduct. Many bully victims and whistleblowers tell almost identical stories.

After having her hand forced into getting rid of the violent manager (who demanded a tribunal), the service provider made a formal complaint against the young woman to her employing body, which happened to be the police. She accused the young woman of everything she herself had been guilty of. The investigation resembled something of a cross between Bleak House and Animal Farm. A lengthy and bureacratic sham, it was categorised by cover ups, consistent procedural failures and general professional incompetence. Due to the (non-negotiable) amount of time she was off work, in order to continue being paid the young woman was required to undergo psychological assessment. She was "diagnosed" by a force-employed psychologist as suffering from work-related stress as a result of workload mismanagement. 

Yeah, right.

There was more, a lot more. But this is enough. The young woman didn't wither up and die, although at times she felt like it. It was probably the start of her career, not the end, although she didn't know it at the time. She carried on fighting because to give in was not an option. It would have stopped her from telling the truth publicly. Finally, she was found to be innocent - and a significant number of respected colleagues from a number of different professional backgrounds stood up and spoke out on her behalf, even if the Chief Constable did not.

Through this she learnt the best lessons of her life:

You listen to your little voice within, and you do not let other people - whatever their age, rank or status - put you off your pursuit of the truth.

You do not trust anyone simply on the basis of their age, rank and status.

Many people, including those of age, rank and status are prepared to keep their mouths shut, lie, or act violently to get what they want. 

Certain organisations and environments act as enablers for these people, where their behaviour becomes so deeply entrenched it is almost invisible.

You keep away from these organisations and environments wherever possible to minimise the chances of being sucked in.

Take notes, keep copies, record conversations, ask questions and push for answers.

Forge bonds with those you trust to support you personally or professionally.

Again, you listen to your little voice within, and you do not let other people - whoever they are are - put you off your pursuit of the truth.

And that, I think, is your best chance of success when faced with any sort of similar struggle.