Ruling by Fear – How it Works

In the community, living in fear has a number of causes.  It most likely results from excessive control being asserted over one or more members of the population and a need to avoid sanctions. In the extreme it can lead to stress, violence, and ultimately cause suicide.


This article focuses on controlling neighbours using fear for their own gratification.  It examines how one vulnerable group of people is affected by bad laws and lack of public service resources leaving them open to abuse by controllers.

According to Wikipedia, Abusive power and control (also controlling behaviour and coercive control) is the way that an abusive person gains and maintains power and control over another person, as a victim, in order to subject that person to psychologicalphysicalsexual, or financial abuse. The motivations of the abusive person are varied, such as personal gain, personal gratificationpsychological projectiondevaluationenvy or just for the sake of it, as the abuser may simply enjoy exercising power and control.  See here for an article on controlling behaviour.

Fear of What?

Sanctions.  These are measures which a controller has within his power to invoke.  In the neighbourhood these include stigmatisation and social exclusion.  Once sanctioned the controller can use that information to control others.

When a controller has no power, their devious and manipulative traits and their need to control others is enough to escalate.  Once they have started this obsessive behaviour they have got to go on until the end is achieved.  They will be coercing others with more power into carrying out their exploits.


In the community, council workers at all levels, including the police appear vulnerable to becoming a proxy acting on behalf of the controller, by the nature and powers of their job.  They are hired and trained especially for similar traits and attitude.

Fit in or Fuck Off

This inappropriate standard is a threat which has been applied by human resources in the workplace, and bullies nationally to ensure control is maintained, over potential trouble makers for example.  It is highly likely to be applied in the community.  In itself it invokes extreme behaviour.  It is the direct opposite of live and let live, which is the desirable objective of communities.  Fit in or Fuck Off in the community means if the victim doesn’t comply he or she will be forced to move away.  This is outlawed in Great Britain under the freedom from harassment act).

If you aren’t open to being controlled and don’t have the strength to resist it, then its a sure sign your life could become poisoned by controlling behaviour.

Normal people will try to live within social rules, deviation can lead to a range of sanctions.  designed to ensure people stay on the side of the controller.  The level of sanctions applied depends on many factors such as autonomy, power and the resources available to enforce control.  It can depend on rank whether sanctions are imposed or even fitting in.  Once a “limit” (also variable) of deviation  is reached sanctions are invoked.  Challenging authority and the ability to escalate invokes a greater response.

In normal life it stands to reason that to apply sanctions requires authority.  Sanctions must be measured and appropriate, to be effective.

Abuse of Power

Among the tools of the controlling mindset are lies, plausibility and gullibility and misinformation.  An abuser may use fear mongering or other forms of abuse such as emotional blackmail to obtain conformity.

To live in the vicinity of a coercive controlling character is to live in fear.  He or she will have many controlling skills to be avoided and will be able to conceal his or her actions when they are used.

On the receiving end of prolonged abuse are psychiatric or physical injury.

Common Example

In the community, one common way to poison the life of somebody you don’t like, (assuming the victim hasn’t already done it them self), is for the controller to tell lies or half truths about them.  Where the victim is a couple, this is more effective.  Some husbands won’t care what people think or say, but the stigmatisation will have an impact on the female partner who values social contact and neighbourliness.  An attack by a controlling neighbour can lead to strained relationships and trigger controlling within the partnership.  The power used here is the relationship the abuser (may) have with the neighbours he or she shares with the victim.  To escape this treatment one only has to comply completely with the poisoners personality.

Real Life Examples

In three of our case studies involving amateur radio enthusiasts, separate controlling neighbours tried to achieve gratification by asserting control over another.  To achieve this they raised a bogus objection to the unusual antenna structures they created in their gardens.

In each case the behaviour started with a warning “are you allowed to put that pole up?” (Or “ditto that wire there?”).    Or more directly “you can’t do that, you haven’t got planning permission”.  There then follows a visit from the local council planning department.

In one case the planning department saw through the controlling behaviour and refused to escalate for the controller, denying him the gratification.  This led to the planning department  themselves being abused by the controller.  The controller went to extreme measures in his attempt to gratify himself.  This included stigmatising the victim accosting him and his wife , hysterically screaming at the victim and his wife, eventually culminating in several assaults.

In two others cases, the planning department met the aims of the controller(s) to their complete satisfaction.  As far as the local authorities were concerned the victim was to blame and was subjected to indiscriminate enforcement orders by unauthorised council workers and  excessive bureaucracy – forcing the victim into the planning process when it wasn’t appropriate.  At no time were any measurements taken or tolerances applied.

When tracing back why this had been so effective, the Armando Martins campaign concluded that the personnel dealing with the “complaints” of the controller knew nothing about controlling behaviour and were completely taken in.  The controller coerced them into complying.  They didn’t have the authority to enforce change, but it was easier to do so or face being bullied by the controller(s).  The staff involved had scant knowledge about amateur radio and where it fits within planning law.  The same staff authorise planning applications or provide reports for councillors expected to make planning decisions.  According to social media, these factors lead to radio amateurs living in fear, resorting to avoidance and limiting their activities while being forced to comply with a very complicated rule set.  Attacks by the controllers have caused people to give up their hobby in order to avoid the unwanted attention.

The one way that this can be avoided is nationally by a joint legal action by radio amateurs against controlling neighbours and planning rules.  Another possible action is to train the local council or to ensure radio amateurs are included in local plans.  The latter must happen.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.