By Andrew T. Austin. Adapted from my video published on 4 June 2020.
Being stalked was one problem. Dealing with the people who surrounded the situation was another. During the two years in which I experienced stalking, some of the most difficult moments came from people who believed they were helping, people who wanted a story, and people who treated allegations as evidence.
This article develops the account in my first video on stalking. It concerns my experience and the patterns I observed, rather than a promise that one response will work in every case. The circumstances of stalking differ, particularly where there is physical proximity, a former intimate relationship, shared responsibilities or an immediate threat.
Stalking can spread beyond the original target
The person who stalked me was known to me through the professional world. This was not a former romantic relationship. Two colleagues became particular targets as well, receiving similar hostility and unwanted contact. We only gradually understood the extent to which our experiences overlapped.
Much of the conduct arrived through email, text messages, Facebook messages and other online channels. Websites appeared using free publishing services, presenting accusations and drawing more people into the situation. Physical distance did not make the interference harmless. The person could enter our working lives and reputations without being in the same room.
The practical burden was substantial. Removing one profile or website did not prevent another from appearing. Saving evidence, reporting material, blocking accounts and responding through appropriate professional channels became a continuing task. In the recording I describe receiving approximately 8,000 emails in a single day. The point is the scale of interruption and the effort required to manage it.
Why a series of incidents is hard to explain
People readily understand a single event such as a burglary or a car crash. There is an incident, an aftermath and a recognisable period of recovery. Stalking is often experienced differently. Several messages arrive today, a call comes tonight, a webpage appears next week, and another account makes contact after the previous one has been blocked.
An observer can look at each event separately and ask what is so serious about it. The person receiving the contact experiences the sequence, its history and the uncertainty about what will happen next. A small event can carry a very different meaning within that pattern.
This creates an additional difficulty when seeking support. Repeatedly describing new incidents can make the target sound preoccupied to somebody who has not followed the whole history. In my experience, people sometimes stopped asking about the situation while it was still continuing. Their loss of interest did not mean that the problem had ended.
Familiarity can make the change more confusing
When the person is already an acquaintance, client, colleague or former partner, there may be a long history of apparently ordinary interaction. Once the behaviour changes, that history can be retold in a hostile way. Remarks are lifted out of context, previous disagreements acquire new meanings, and explanations become further material for accusation.
The troubling feature is that an account may contain recognisable facts. You remember the conversation, the meeting or the message, but the meaning now attached to it is different. That can draw you into checking your memory, defending every detail and wondering whether you caused what is happening.
My experience was that continuing to explain myself did not restore a shared understanding. It supplied more information to someone who was using information against me. Recognising that change in the interaction was more useful than producing an ever longer defence.
Victim blaming disguised as humour
Some people responded by asking what I had done to provoke the person. Others treated the attention as flattering or joked that I was lucky to receive it. These responses made an already difficult situation more isolating.
A joke can quietly introduce an accusation. The raised eyebrow and the suggestion that somebody must have been a “naughty boy” turn a disclosure of harm into an invitation to defend oneself. The person seeking support then has to manage the listener as well as the stalking.
Unwanted pursuit is not made welcome by the target being a man, by the pursuer appearing attractive, or by somebody else imagining that they would enjoy the attention. A useful response begins with taking the unwanted nature of the conduct seriously.
When helpful people become intermediaries
I encountered people who asked for details because they wanted to help, then communicated with the person responsible. One individual attempted to become a go-between after I had supplied only limited information. That gave the situation another route through which messages could travel.
Others offered to contact the person and put them straight. They assumed that a forceful conversation, a clever explanation or their personal authority would settle the matter. Meanwhile, we were already working with police, a lawyer and other agencies. An unsolicited intervention could interfere with that work and provide further attention.
The question is not simply whether a person has good intentions. It is whether their actions respect the target’s boundaries and the plan already in place. Offering practical help is different from appointing oneself negotiator, investigator or spokesperson.
Rumour, spectators and the online crowd
Another group treated the unfolding situation as entertainment. They wanted names, the full history and access to the latest developments. Curiosity can sound sympathetic while placing yet another demand on someone who is already under pressure.
Rumour spreads through a related process. Someone shares an accusation because it sounds serious. The next reader interprets the number of shares as evidence. A photograph and a caption can circulate far beyond the original context, while the people repeating them know little about the facts.
The phrase “there is no smoke without fire” was particularly revealing in my experience. It permitted people to assume guilt without investigating what they were repeating. The existence of a public allegation became its own justification.
Before forwarding material about an identifiable person, consider what is actually known. Sharing is an action with consequences. A person who thinks they are exposing wrongdoing may be extending somebody else’s harassment.
Professional confidence is not the same as competence
The recording also describes people from therapy and training circles who inserted themselves into the situation. I had expected people in those fields to understand boundaries and the consequences of intervention. That expectation was not always justified.
An impressive online presence can produce a strong feeling of familiarity. Repeated posts, professional language and confident opinions can make someone seem well known to us even when we have never worked with them. Their competence in a stalking situation still needs to be established.
Some interventions generated additional drama and shifted attention towards the helpers themselves. This created more work for the original targets. Appropriate support should reduce demands on the person being stalked and cooperate with their chosen professional support, rather than create a new public story.
Public restraint and private support
My approach was to avoid public arguments, counter-accusations and hints directed at the person stalking me. Even a vague post about somebody getting what they deserved could provide a response for them to interpret and circulate.
That restraint was difficult. Watching false material appear naturally produces anger and a wish to correct the record. The distinction I was trying to maintain was between managing the situation through appropriate channels and performing the dispute for an online audience.
Keeping a public boundary should not require becoming isolated. Confidential support from trusted people, a lawyer and specialist services serves a different purpose from asking a social-media crowd to take sides. Supporters can listen, help with practical tasks and respect requests not to contact the person involved.
Keeping an organised record
One of the strongest practical lessons in the video is to keep records as events happen. Memory is a poor filing system when new incidents continually displace the previous day’s details. I retained emails, screenshots, messages and items sent through the post, and kept a second copy of the digital material.
A useful record preserves the date, the original communication, the account or number involved and the context needed to understand it. Screenshots need enough surrounding information to remain intelligible later. Where possible, retain the original message as well as an image of it.
Be aware that messages or accounts may disappear. In the recording I describe learning that a phone could remove older messages automatically. Evidence gathering should support safety, however. It should not require answering the person or putting yourself at risk to obtain more material.
The strain of a prolonged process
I describe frustration with delays and repeated proceedings, alongside positive experiences of individual police officers, the prosecutor and victim-support staff. Those two observations belong together: people can work hard within a process that still feels painfully slow to the person affected.
Some comments about legal thresholds in the original recording describe my understanding at the time. They should not be read as rules about how long stalking must continue before it can be reported. Current CPS guidance for England and Wales considers the connected course of conduct, including conduct on two or more occasions; it does not impose a general waiting period of weeks or years.
The recording’s language about a “perfect victim” expresses the pressure I felt under scrutiny. It is not a condition of deserving protection. Current CPS guidance explicitly recognises that victims respond in different ways, including with anger. Obtain advice about the particular case rather than assuming that one imperfect response cancels the harm experienced.
Read the stalking series
- Stalking, Social Networks and Smear Campaigns
- Stalking, Manipulation and the Two Kinds of Lie
- When Stalking Begins: Before the Target Recognises It
- What Does a Stalker Want? Responses, Boundaries and Their Limits
See also On Stalking and Being Stalked and the General Writings hub.
Support and source material
Watch the original video. For support with your own circumstances, contact the National Stalking Helpline.
Legal context: CPS guidance on stalking or harassment in England and Wales.
This is an edited account of the video, with historical observations distinguished from present-day guidance. Individual safety and legal decisions require advice appropriate to the circumstances.