Hidden in plain view - some thoughts

 

Opinion:

 

Many organisations deal with open hostage-taking but few with covert maybe, but this is getting more attention such as warnings to look out for those who are forced into slavery around the world.  The following is a contribution - and it is opinion only - on ways an organisation or anyone else might be able to determine if a person is a 'hostage' -  but a hostage in plain view. 

It's written as opinion and makes no claim to objectivity. The writer is a writer and not any member or representative of any organisation, not 'an expert' and speaks for no group, or organisation. Purely subjective opinion. But maybe it has a few ideas on how to determine if a person is in fact, a covert hostage - a person hidden in plain view.

 

Ways, possibly, to determine a hidden hostage:

1. Is the person said to be shy, retiring, paranoid and yet when you talk to them, they don't seem so?
Consider: you may be being lied to.

 

2. Has the person voluntarily given up freedoms they used to have for reasons due to own choices they say, yet they seem very unhappy about it?
Consider: you many be being lied to.

 

3. Does the person stay inside their house a lot of the time and talk to no one when they go out? 

Consider: they may be isolated not by their own choice

 

4. Has the person expressed a wish to meet others and yet is never seen talking to anyone in cafes or pubs, sits alone, and has joined no social groups?
Consider: they may have unacknowledged restrictions on their freedom

 

The contradictions in what they appear to be and what is said about them by others may be a clue the person is in fact being kept in a kind of captivity, or a hostage, or in a situation similar to it.

 

Written by Katrina Wood

Feb 2019

 

other thoughts:

 

Money:

1. Does the person show a pattern of regular large or even small payments to others for 'damages' to property or objects that they say they did not make, but pay 'to avoid making a fuss?'
Consider: a hidden ransom demand

 

2. Is the reputation of the person damaged in such a way that they have to pay extra money as a 'condition' of certain services, as a result of 'damages' in the past they say they did not create, but did not challenge 'in order to avoid creating a fuss?'
Consider: covert ransom or procedures maybe of 'money laundering', somehow, being involved. Small untraced payments or money going to others for reasons that are not stated, over and above agreed contracts.

 

3. Does the bank account of the person show no income, yet they describe themselves as 'self-employed' or 'freelancer' yet earn no money from these activites?
Consider: they may be using this description to avoid social humiliation or to appease so it 'looks better' for others, who are restricting their freedom. 

 

4. They travel yet appear to have no real means of income or job and write things like 'freelancer' on their travel forms.
Consider: they are trying to flee from a hidden situation which could be social or political.

 

5. They cannot conduct ordinary business matters. They fail to represent others in disputes, or fail to pursue obvious small legal complaints which to any observer they would have every right to pursue.
Consider: they are not allowed a lawyer, or legal procedures against them are discriminatory such that no lawyer will agree to represent them. They may also be avoiding employment due to inability to obtain legal representation in case of dispute, as a means of protecting their finances.

 

6. Their financial status is very unusual for their qualifications and background and there is a pattern of financial dependance and state 'care' that is noticeably inconsistent with their qualifications, education or experience. They are unemployed for no obvious reason and dependant on the state or others, have no real problem with ability to work, and have expressed a wish for employment while correspondingly having taken no or limited action to apply for it.

Consider: Forced slavery or servitude in some form, which could be social or political.

 

7. They travel to other countries, spending far more than their bank balance would suggest is reasonable, while failing to redress their financial problems in their own country dealing with inability to earn money. They do not sue, they do not contest small claims, they do not apply for jobs in their home country, they do not apply for state support or apply inconsistently, frequently quitting it without having found any work, and leaving, and travelling again. An increasing cycle of poverty as a result of this in which their money is spent on this process. 

Consider: Some form of human trafficking may be occuring. 

 

 

 

Neueste Kommentare

18.10 | 05:28

Das ist einfach cool

...
08.12 | 21:40
Links erhielt 1
18.10 | 05:27
Photos erhielt 1