Gaslight. Gatekeep… Govboss?

By Kieron JH | Published August 7, 2025

In the 24-hour period leading up to August 6, 2025 (was getting inundated with utter nonsense from bad actors for much longer than that, but just for the sake of establishing the facts of the matter, we’ll use 24 hours), my website The Reasonable Adjustment was hit with a sharp surge in traffic. Not the good kind – I’m talking bot events, web exploit attempts, and highly targeted perimeter probing. It all took place while I was awaiting a response from the Probation Service regarding serious concerns about safeguarding, discrimination, and data protection.

I was assured a response by August 4. It did not arrive. Instead, what arrived was a wave of attempted surveillance activity against my website. That was followed, very conveniently, by an email (August 5th) from Ms Allen – landing shortly after Cloudflare successfully mitigated hundreds to thousands of suspicious access attempts.

Now, I am not making accusations without evidence. I am presenting the timeline – and inviting readers to decide whether this is coincidence or the clearest sign yet of how institutions react when their image feels threatened.

Vanishing Acts and Digital Footprints

The most telling part? Within 24 hours of sending my formal response to Ms Allen on August 6 – where I challenged Probation’s mishandling of my Freedom of Information request, outlined safeguarding failures, and directly flagged the suspicious timing of digital surveillance on my website – traffic to The Reasonable Adjustment dropped sharply. Both total requests and Cloudflare-mitigated activity fell by nearly 40 percent.

Crucially, I made it clear in that email that our web infrastructure included unexpectedly sophisticated surveillance detection – deliberately deployed in anticipation of this kind of potential inappropriate overreach from a public body/private organisation. The sudden drop-off in traffic, especially in mitigated requests, suggests someone got the message loud and clear. This was not a passive fluctuation – it was an active retreat.

Pattern of Paranoia

This is what happens when institutions become more interested in monitoring dissent than resolving legitimate concerns. Instead of engaging with my data rights or taking safeguarding seriously, someone spent the past couple of nights probing a site that exists to expose exactly this kind of behaviour.

They ignored the safeguarding concern, delayed the FOI, then sent the response the morning after attempting to breach my firewall. I cannot prove intent – but I can prove the timeline.

Final Thought

I built The Reasonable Adjustment to document patterns like this. They think they are investigating me. In reality, they are helping me investigate them.

Obviously, I can’t decisively prove who was behind the objectively poor attempts at snooping. But honestly? That kind of correlation doesn’t just happen by accident. If anything, it confirms we’re rattling exactly the right cages – in service of the exact kind of change they like to pretend they support.

To whoever was trying to slip through Mr Snowie’s lair:

Next time, maybe just email me?

Legal Disclaimer

This article is published under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information without interference by public authority.

All statements contained herein are based on personal experience, documented evidence, or lawful public interest inquiry. No part of this publication should be interpreted as harassment, defamation, or misconduct. Reasonable effort has been made to ensure accuracy, and all opinions expressed are those of the author.

Freedom of Information requests are protected under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Subject Access Requests are permitted under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. Requests for reasonable adjustments are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Concerns relating to systemic failure, data misuse, or safeguarding may be raised under public interest disclosure provisions.

If any named party believes information to be inaccurate, they are invited to provide clarification or correction via appropriate channels.