The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictors of varying levels of risks posed by fixated individuals to British public figures
Abstract
Concerning approaches and communications to the Royal Family and other British public figures are relatively numerous. This paper examines over 2000 such cases logged over a three‐year period in the United Kingdom. Using police and health data, the paper conducts a series of bivariate and multivariate analyses to demonstrate the predictors of what types of risk are posed by an individual case (e.g., communicate only, approach, security breach). The results showed that (a) the rates of serious mental disorders are higher among this sample than the general population base rate, (b) approachers were significantly more likely than communicators to suffer from serious mental disorders, (c) approachers were significantly more likely than communicators to have a history of substance use and abuse problems, (d) approachers were significantly more likely than communicators to have a history of violent behavior against property and persons, and (e) the motivations of approachers and communicators significantly differ. The paper concludes with a consideration of the implications for threat assessment and management.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Beside serious mental illness, approach is related to: help-seeking or personal rather than policy grievance-based motivations; a lack of direct threats or hateful, abusive, or angry language; a criminal record and/or history of violence; higher frequency or intensity of communications; multiple methods of communication; and target dispersion”
From Unmet needs: analysing the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre’s fulfilment of the public health approach, and its value for violence prevention (2025) · cites this paper as Gill et al., 2021
In the citing paper
“While few studies examine breaching of security barriers, among those that do, the factors found more than once to distinguish between attempted, failed, and successful breaches are: delusions of royal identity; hostile, aggressive, or abusive language; previous hospital admission for mental health; delusions and grandiosity; feelings of persecution; querulant motivations; chaotic motivations; and”
From Unmet needs: analysing the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre’s fulfilment of the public health approach, and its value for violence prevention (2025) · cites this paper as Gill et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A false dichotomy? Mental illness and lone-actor terrorism.
Corner, E., & Gill, P. (2015) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000102 · Cited by 362
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- 10.1016/j.avb.2008.10.003 · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.13330 · DOI
- 10.4324/9781315766348 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS14457J · DOI
- Darnley BJ, 2010, Abnormal attentions towards the British Royal Family. Factors associated with approach and escalation, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law., 38, 329
- McCauley C, 2013, Characteristics of lone‐wolf violent offenders: a comparison of assassins and school attackers, Perspect Ter., 7, 4
- 10.1177/1088767912462033 · DOI
- 10.1080/14789949.2012.727453 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/tam0000016 · DOI
- 10.1300/J177v02n02_03 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS15575J · DOI
- 10.1002/bsl.977 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1745-9133.12016 · DOI
- 10.1080/14789940903174063 · DOI
- 10.1002/bsl.525 · DOI
- 10.1002/bsl.986 · DOI
- Vossekuil B, 2002, The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative
- 10.1097/00004583-200106000-00018 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS13019J · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS13165J · DOI
- 10.1017/S0033291709005443 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1120099 · DOI
- 10.1080/14789949.2015.1124908 · DOI
- 10.1002/bsl.974 · DOI
- 10.1017/S003329170700181X · DOI
- 10.1080/13218719.2012.674716 · DOI
- Bennett T, 1984, Burglars on burglary: prevention and the offender
- Kang M, 2013, A study on burglars’ target selection: why do burglars take unnecessary risks, Korea., 443, 760
- 10.1006/ijsl.2001.0152 · DOI
- 10.1002/jip.117 · DOI
- 10.1093/bjc/azi059 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-1-4613-8625-4_4 · DOI
- 10.1080/10683160903025810 · DOI
- 10.1080/0735648X.2011.554747 · DOI
- 10.1093/bjc/azl013 · DOI
- 10.1080/0735648X.2015.1078253 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03192748 · DOI
- 10.4324/9781315882246 · DOI
- 10.1037/lhb0000075 · DOI
Cited by
Seaward, A., Marchment, Z., Wilson, S., Elfituri, S., Farnham, F., Plumb, T., Rose, K., Taylor, A., Corner, E., & Gill, P. (2025) · Psychology, Crime & Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2025.2581795 · Cited by 1
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gill, P., Corner, E., Farnham, F., Wilson, S., Marchment, Z., Taylor, A., Taylor, R., & James, D.
- Affiliations
- Department of Security and Crime Science University College London London UK
- Centre for Social Research and Methods Australia National University Canberra Australia
- Fixated Threat Assessment Centre London UK
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-03-21
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1364-1376
- ISSN
- 0022-1198
- 1556-4029
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/N009614/1)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predictors of varying levels of risks posed by fixated individuals to British public figures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1556-4029.14708
- The paper
- Gill, P., Corner, E., Farnham, F., Wilson, S., Marchment, Z., Taylor, A., Taylor, R., & James, D. (2021). Predictors of varying levels of risks posed by fixated individuals to British public figures. Journal of Forensic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14708
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
