Image Description: Brown & Cream Coloured Image Depicting a Typewriter With Wording "Harassment & The Law". Typed On Paper. Image Credit: PhotoFunia.com Category: Vintage Typewriter.

Corporate Harassment: Definition

Trigger-Aware Disclaimer (No Explicit Terms) Content Warning & Supportive Note:
This article discusses distressing themes linked to institutional harm, loss, and extreme crisis. Some readers may find the topic emotionally triggering. If you feel overwhelmed, please pause, step away, and seek support from someone you trust, a qualified professional, or a local crisis support service. Your well-being matters more than reading an article in one sitting. If you are feeling distressed, you can contact https://www.samaritans.org/

The Law, and the Weaponisation of “Harassment” Against Journalists

Harassment is often spoken about as an issue between individuals, an abusive partner, a stalking ex, or a hostile colleague. But harassment can also occur within institutions and corporate structures, where power is unequal, information is controlled, and criticism is unwelcome.

In these circumstances, harassment can become something more than inappropriate behaviour; it can become a tool of intimidation, used to silence whistleblowers, journalists, advocates, and members of the public simply for asking difficult questions.

This matters because transparency and accountability are not “optional extras” in a healthy democracy. They are pillars of lawful governance.

What Is Harassment in Law? (UK Definition)

1) Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997)

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is the primary UK legislation dealing with harassment.

It generally requires:

  • A course of conduct (usually two or more incidents),
  • Behaviour that a reasonable person would consider to be harassment,
  • Conduct causing alarm or distress, or fear of violence (in more serious cases).

Harassment under this Act can be:

  • Criminal, and/or
  • Pursued via civil remedies (including damages and injunctions).

This is not limited to domestic settings; it can apply to workplace, corporate, or institutional contexts too.

2) Equality Act 2010 (Harassment as Discrimination)

The Equality Act 2010 defines harassment as:

  • Unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic
  • That has the purpose or effect of:
    • Violating a person’s dignity, or
    • Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.

Protected characteristics include (among others): disability, race, sex, age, religion or belief.

This form of harassment is most often seen in workplaces, universities, and professional environments.

What Is “Corporate Harassment”?

“Corporate harassment” isn’t always a defined legal term on its own, but the concept is increasingly recognised in practice.

It describes patterns of harmful conduct carried out by:

  • Organisations,
  • Corporations,
  • Departments,
  • Public authorities,
  • Management systems,
  • Institutional policies,

which repeatedly target an individual or group.

It may include:

  • Relentless accusations,
  • Intimidation,
  • Professional smearing,
  • Isolating behaviour,
  • Obstructing lawful processes,
  • Using policies selectively,
  • Reputational attacks meant to “freeze” further scrutiny.

This can overlap with:

  • Harassment law (PHA 1997),
  • Discrimination/harassment under the Equality Act 2010,
  • Malicious communications issues,
  • Defamation (if false claims are published),
  • Public law remedies (where a public authority behaves unfairly or unlawfully).

Can an FOI Request Amount to Harassment?

In short: normally, no

A journalist making Freedom of Information (FOI) requests is exercising a lawful right to request information held by public authorities.

In the UK:

  • A public authority must respond within a set time (with lawful exceptions),
  • Refusal should rely on valid exemptions, public interest tests (where relevant), or cost rules.

FOI requests are not “harassment” simply because they are persistent, uncomfortable, or embarrassing.

However…

When Can FOI Be Labelled “Vexatious” or “Harassing”?

Public bodies can rely on section 14 FOIA (vexatious requests) in some cases, but the bar is not trivial.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance acknowledges that harassment/distress to staff can be a relevant factor in extreme circumstances, such as abusive language or behaviour that appears designed to cause distress rather than obtain information.

So the lawful framing is usually:

  • “Vexatious request” (FOIA s14), not
  • Casually calling the journalist “a harasser”.

Important: Even where section 14 is raised, it does not automatically mean the requester is acting unlawfully; it may simply mean the authority is refusing further requests on administrative grounds.

Example Scenario: “You’re Harassing Staff” After an FOI Request

Example:

A journalist requests information under FOI.
The organisation refuses to release information (or delays/refuses repeatedly).
Then the organisation tells the journalist they are “harassing staff”.

Is that lawful?

It depends on what is meant and how it is communicated.

If the journalist is simply persistently requesting lawful information, a blanket accusation of harassment may be:

  • Unfair, and potentially
  • Misleading, and arguably
  • Capable of reputational harm, especially if repeated publicly.

If a public authority makes such a claim without a proper foundation, it can look like:

  • A tactic to discourage lawful scrutiny,
  • An attempt to chill legitimate journalism,
  • Method of framing accountability as misconduct.

Would that constitute harassment by the organisation?

Potentially, if the organisation:

  • Repeatedly targets the journalist,
  • Launches unfounded complaints,
  • Attempts to damage their reputation,
  • Uses institutional power to intimidate.

That is when the idea of corporate harassment becomes relevant.

If the Organisation “Defends Itself,” Does the Journalist Become an Enemy of the State?

No… not in law.

A journalist criticising a government department or public authority is not committing treason or becoming an “enemy of the state” simply for pursuing accountability.

What can happen in real life, though, is institutional hostility:

  • “Circle the wagons” responses,
  • PR defensiveness,
  • Stonewalling,
  • “Character attack” framing,
  • Accusations of motive (“agenda-driven”),
  • The use of policy mechanisms to shut down scrutiny.

This is not a legal label; it’s a power dynamic.

And it is exactly why press freedom and lawful transparency mechanisms exist.

A Real-World Context: John Pring and Disability News Service

John Pring, owner, editor, and journalist of Disability News Service, has for years reported on disability rights and systemic failings.

He authored The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, described as the product of a long investigation into harm experienced by disabled people and families, and the mechanisms used to obscure accountability.

This kind of reporting is NOT harassment.

It is journalism and advocacy, and, where evidence supports it, public interest accountability.

When families have lost loved ones and feel unheard, investigative reporting provides:

  • Visibility,
  • Documentation,
  • Pressure for lawful reform.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) appears to be getting increasingly frustrated with John Pring because he has spent years using lawful Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to investigate safeguarding failings and the link between DWP decisions and large numbers of claimant deaths. In the DNS article, Pring explains that he was seeking an unredacted email sent from the office of the then Work and Pensions Secretary Thérèse Coffey in February 2021. The email was largely blacked out when previously disclosed, yet it reportedly related to a secret “critical friend” report by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which urged the department to reduce claimant deaths linked to its actions, including “very bad cases”. The DWP refused to release the full email and claimed his FOI request was “vexatious”.

What made the situation even more striking is that the DWP went further and reportedly told the Information Commissioner that Pring’s investigations suggested he was a “vengeful requester” and that his actions could cause distress to staff. However, the Information Commissioner dismissed these claims, stating that Pring’s ongoing FOI work was“clearly in the public interest” and that the DWP provided no evidence to justify portraying him as “vengeful” or “vexatious” simply because he publishes critical reporting. In essence, the DWP’s growing hostility seems to stem from the fact that Pring’s persistence has repeatedly led to uncomfortable scrutiny and public accountability, and the watchdog has now criticised the department for attempting to weaponise FOI rules rather than answering legitimate questions. Watchdog dismisses DWP’s description of DNS editor as ‘vengeful’ and ‘vexatious’ for asking to see deaths email – Disability News Service

Psychological Triggers, Coercive Systems, and “Seed Planting”

For people living with trauma, mental health illnesses, anxiety disorders, or disability-related vulnerability, hostile institutional behaviour can be psychologically destabilising.

There is growing public concern that:

  • Coercive benefit systems,
  • Threats of withdrawal,
  • Punishment-driven compliance,
  • Hostile communications

can create extreme distress, especially where a person is already vulnerable.

The issue is not simply money.

It is the mental strain of constant threat, the fear of consequences, and the cumulative impact of being treated as suspicious, undeserving, or disposable.

Some people describe this as a form of “seed planting”, the drip-drip effect of:

  • Implying someone is a burden,
  • Implying they are fraudulent,
  • Implying that survival support can be removed at any moment.

Even if not always recognised formally in court as “harassment”, these dynamics can still be:

  • Ethically harmful,
  • Institutionally abusive,
  • Socially dangerous.

What Laws and Conventions Are Relevant? (Key List)

Stand Up For Human Rights Logo

www.OHCHR.org

Here are the main frameworks that intersect with corporate/institutional harassment:

UK Acts and legal frameworks

Conventions and principles

Practical Guidance: What Journalists and Advocates Can Do

If accused of “harassment” for pursuing FOI/public interest scrutiny:

  1. Insist on precision
    • Ask: Do you mean FOIA section 14 (vexatious), or are you alleging unlawful harassment?
  2. Keep communications professional
    • Short, factual, calm, and evidence-based.
  3. Document everything
    • Dates, emails, call notes, and responses.
  4. Use the ICO process
    • Internal review → ICO complaint (if FOI refusals appear misused).
  5. If reputation is harmed,
    • Consider legal advice (defamation / malicious falsehood/harassment).

Conclusion

Harassment laws exist to protect people from harmful conduct, not to shield organisations from scrutiny.

When journalists use lawful routes like FOI to pursue accountability, accusations of “harassment” should be treated with caution, because they can:

  • Chill Press Freedom,
  • Stigmatise Legitimate Investigation,
  • Deter Advocacy for Vulnerable Communities.

Ultimately, public bodies should respond to criticism with transparency, lawful reasoning, and evidence, not institutional intimidation.

Samaritans Logo

www.SAMARITANS.org

If you found this article useful and would like further advice or guidance on any aspect of law, benefits, or disability rights, and sanctions, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. Disabled Entrepreneur UK can help by signposting support and sharing practical information around PIP, Universal Credit, Reasonable Adjustments, and Disability Discrimination, and where appropriate, we can put you in touch with our Affiliate Partner Law Firm for specialist legal advice. If you would like us to write content on a particular topic or publish an awareness piece, simply drop us a message, and we may be able to help. Most importantly, please remember: you are not alone, and support is available.

Further Reading & Resources

www.First4Lawyers.com Logo Affiliate Partner

www.First4Lawyers.com

Renata MB Selfie
Editor - Founder |  + posts

Renata The Editor of DisabledEntrepreneur.uk - DisabilityUK.co.uk - DisabilityUK.org - CMJUK.com Online Journals, suffers From OCD, Cerebellar Atrophy & Rheumatoid Arthritis. She is an Entrepreneur & Published Author, she writes content on a range of topics, including politics, current affairs, health and business. She is an advocate for Mental Health, Human Rights & Disability Discrimination.

She has embarked on studying a Bachelor of Law Degree with the goal of being a human rights lawyer.

Whilst her disabilities can be challenging she has adapted her life around her health and documents her journey online.

Disabled Entrepreneur - Disability UK Online Journal Working in Conjunction With CMJUK.com Offers Digital Marketing, Content Writing, Website Creation, SEO, and Domain Brokering.

Disabled Entrepreneur - Disability UK is an open platform that invites contributors to write articles and serves as a dynamic marketplace where a diverse range of talents and offerings can converge. This platform acts as a collaborative space where individuals or businesses can share their expertise, creativity, and products with a broader audience.

Spread the love

Related Post