Spørsmålet er vel, om fastlegen min, som jeg kontaktet angående problemet med tryne som ble ødelagt, og det mafia-greiene, kontaktet politiet, som spionerte på meg, og som har fått ned de mafiaen i Oslo eller i hvertfall noen av dem da.
Det må være albanske mafiaen det da.
Også brukte politiet eller etterettning, noen sånne metoder, altså sånn at to folk snakket sammen på Ingeniørhøyskolen f.eks., og sa sånn at:
'Har du sett de folka som er etter han eller. Hvis jeg var han, så ville jeg dratt så langt unna som mulig. Kanskje han venter på feriepenga'.
Sånne ting var det jeg overhørte.
Så de var vel kanskje å leita etter meg på HiO Ingeniørshøyskolen da.
Eller at det var bare noe sivil politi/etteretning sa for å få meg til å dra fra Oslo.
Noe jeg egentlig hadde bestemt meg for i desember 03, pga. av det som skjedde med trynet, og det at jeg hørte på Bjørndal at jeg var forfulgt av mafian (som jeg hørte var sånn dem sa det der) _også_.
Så det var vel noe mer enn mafiaen da.
Som jeg hørte hu dama i butikken på Rimi Bjørndal prata om med ei nabo eller venninne.
Det kan ha vært tryne hu mente med også kanskje da.
Men samme det.
Albanske mafiaen og 'mafian', er vel ikke det så samme, såvidt jeg kan skjønne vel.
Men det er mulig at albanske mafian er del av et større mafia/illuminati-aktig nettverk som vel må være mer eller mindre i de fleste landene i Europa i hvertfall og sikkert USA osv. og vel.
Så det virker som om det er et stort kriminelt nettverk som blir kalt 'mafian', som har avdelinger eller karteller eller hvilket ord man skal bruke igjen.
Karteller var det ja, det står i den linken her:
http://forum.tv2.no/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=12&threadid=38119
Og det virker som om dette illuminati/mafia-nettverket ikke er så glad i blonde, eller untatt damene da, ettersom jeg tror det kan være litt med at hvis man har f.eks. mørkt blondt hår som meg, så er ikke disse illuminati-folka så vennlige, men de jager det rundt osv.
Og dette illuminati-greiene, det har jeg ikke lest så mye om, men i tillegg til mafia, altså som er kjent fra filmer osv, som driver med kriminalitet ala Sopranos osv., så er det vel også snakk om politi, politikere, næringslivsledere, offentlig embedsfolk osv.
Dem har veldig bra kontakter rundt omkring.
Så hvis ikke de kriminelle mafiafolka klarer å få tatt deg, så se ikke bort fra muligheten at politet eller etteretning kan ha en overaskelse eller to på lur.
Fra de siste to møtene med Sgt. Smythe hos the Merseyside Police, så virker det som, i brevet han skrev etter siste møte, samt at han virket som om han gjorde et poeng av utryket nå på det siste møte for et par uker siden, så virker det for meg, som om han vil ha det til, at det finnes en 'Norwegian Mafia'.
Altså norsk mafia.
I tillegg, så lurte han på, i møte i Juni, om Bertelsmann, moderselskapet til Arvato, var svensk.
Sgt. Smythe er brite, og Bertelsmann er et tysk selskap.
Og Sgt. Smyth, etterforsket, og hadde satt seg inn i saken, før han på møte lurte på om Bertesmann var svensk.
For det var et møte satt istand etter en klage sendt av meg til ipcc (tilsvarende Spesialenheten i Norge).
Så Sgt. Smyth var forberedt til møte.
Likevel lurte han på om det tyske konsernet Bertelsmann var svenskt, og spurte meg om det.
Jeg svarte som vel er ganske åpenbart, at konsernet er tysk.
Og jeg tror at Sgt. Smyth egentlig viste at konsernet var tysk, men at han av en eller annen grunn, ville gjøre et poeng av å spørre meg om det var svenskt.
Dette, fordi politifolk burde vel vite hva dem prater om, og å forbrede seg til møter, og få seg selv til å virke 'dumme', ved å spørre spørsmål som virker som om man ikke er helt informert, eller opplyst, eller hva man skal kalle det.
Så jeg synes ikke Sgt. Smyth egentlig virker som en kar, som ville vanligvis stilt seg i en situasjon hvor han virket litt dum, på en sånn som å spørre et slikt spørsmål, så jeg tror det må vært noe bak.
Også fordi, jeg har jo selv vært i England under fotball VM 1990 osv, når Tyskland møtte England i VM osv, i semi-finalen eller kvartfinalen var det vel kanskje.
Og Tyskland vant.
Da ble det jo opptøyer i Brighton, og de tyske språkstudentene som holdt til der vi norske var, dem kunne jo ikke gå ut på gata omtrent.
I hvertfall ikke nede i byen.
Og i dagene rundt denne kampen, så var det jo fokus på Tyskland hele tiden da.
Tyskland er vel arvefienden til Storbritannia, kanskje ved siden av Frankrike da.
Så at en brite skal ta feil av om noe er tysk eller svensk.
Det blir nesten som en nordmann, eller en norsk politioffiser da, skal ta feil av, og f.eks. spørre en brite om Volvo er svensk eller polsk.
Selv om kanskje Volvo er mer kjent enn Bertelsmann, så blir det noe lignende da, mener jeg da.
På samme måte som at nordmenn vet veldig godt om f.eks. GB is og Vovlo er svensk eller latvisk, så vet en brite også godt om et firma er tysk eller ikke.
Det er i hvertfall mitt inntrykk da.
At briter er oppmerksomme på om noe er tysk eller ikke, på samme måte som nordmenn er oppmerksom på om noe er svenskt eller ikke.
Så dette synes jeg var rart allerede på møte i juni, men jeg skjønte ikke helt hvorfor han gjorde et poeng av å spørre meg om Bertelsmann var svenskt.
Men nå i de siste ukene, og vel månedene da, så har jeg tenkt mer på om Merseyside politiet kan ha gjort noe tull med hun svenske Emelie, som jobbet på Arvato, og som ikke var der de siste to månendene jeg jobbet der.
Jeg er i hvertfall bekymret, fordi dess mer jeg har tenkt på det, dess mere virker det som om noe må ha vært galt ja.
Og hun Emelie sa at begge foreldrene hennes var politi, (senere sa hun at faren var politi da).
Så jeg trodde ikke at politet og evt. etterettning ville la noe skje henne osv. da.
Men nå begynner jeg å lure litt, om politet kan ha gjort noe tull med henne.
Jeg trodde egentlig ikke at politiet dreiv å tulla med folk, men at jobben dems var 'to protect and serve' osv.
Og det britiske politiet representerer jo også Dronning Elisabeth, det står jo ERII på bilene og brevene dems.
Så jeg forestilte meg egentlig ikke at dem kunne gjøre noe tull med en svensk jente.
Men nå begynner jeg å bli litt bekymret for hva som kan ha skjedd.
Siden Merseyside politiet virker som om lyver og trakasserer og spionerer på meg, eller overvåket heter det kanskje.
Og setter opp episoder med sivile jenter/damer når man skal ting som å gå i butikken osv.
Det virker som om noen gjør det i hvertfall, og jeg så jo 5-6 sivile plutselig gå inn å sette seg inn i en politivan like ved Holdiay In der, for en del måneder siden.
Så det er nok tydelig at politiet her, har en operasjon på gang.
Og at de også hadde den operasjonen på Arvato.
Og det politiet her, de lyver og trakasserer og gjør uprofessionelle feil i nokså store mengder vel, men jeg å ha dokumentasjon for da.
Som skal ligge på bloggen fra før.
Og det virket klart for meg at noe var galt med hun Emelie når hun jobbet på Arvato.
Så om hun ble tullet med av politi, eller noen gjenger som hadde noen ansatte der f.eks. der da.
Eller noe mob eller noe.
Også har det fortsatt også etter at jeg begynte å kontakte aviser i Norge og Storbritannia, og ambassaden i London og konsulatet her i byen, og Kripos igjen da, og CAB, RPS, Law Society osv. osv.
Sånn virker det for meg i hvertfall.
Og det virker ikke som om ambasaden har gjort noe, selv om jeg sa til dem flere ganger at jeg var bekymret for de Skandinaviske jentene på Arvato.
Selv om det kan jo være at ambassaden har gjort noe dem ikke har sagt.
Men Norge, som ambassaden er en del av, er jo et åpent samfunn, så da burde dem vel ha sagt fra om dette når jeg ringte og ba om råd osv. i forbindelse med dette, og sa igjen at jeg var bekymret for de skandinaviske jentene der.
Og Sgt. Smyth, var også inne på det, når jeg begynte å snakke om at det virket som om det var organisert kriminell aktivitet på Arvato.
Og at de virket som om en del av jentene der ble brukt/utnyttet.
Jeg tenkte på noen av de finske jentene osv, det virket for meg som om noen av de nok ble brukt av og/eller var forbundet med kriminelle nettverk osv.
Og jeg nevnte dette på møtet, for et par uker siden, og da brukte Sgt. Smythe ordet 'trafficing'.
Og det kan virke sannsynlig for meg at det var snakk om, fordi mange av jentene, både norske, svenkse og finske, skulle til Spania, etter å ha vært noen måneder i Liverpool.
Mens de jobbet på Arvato, og vel også en finsk jente som studerte språk.
Så at dette kan ha vært noe slags skalkeskjul da, mens jentene egentlig var under kontroll av kriminelle nettverk, og ble trafficet fra Skandinavia til England/Liverpool også til Spania da.
Så at det kan være at det er en del rart som foregår i Spania og.
Jeg husker søsteren min dro dit på slutten av 80-tallet, og skulle hun plutselig ha fattern til å sende mer penger, og jeg måtte på posten å sende penger en sommer, når det var lang kø der husker jeg.
Og hu var så sur når hu kom hjem, fordi fattern ville bare sende 300, og jeg betalte gebyret, som vel var 150 eller noe, men jeg la ikke på noe penger.
Det er vel ikke så dyrt for mat osv. der kanskje, og biletten til bussen hadde hun vel.
Men fattern ville ikke sende noe mer, og det var jo han som søstra mi hadde avtalt med, så det var jo ikke min business.
Og 300 rekker jo lenge til mat osv, det merker jeg jo fra her i England, det kan man leve på i måneds tid vel, eller i hvertfall en del uker, hvis man sparer osv.
Men jeg lurer på hva som kan ha skjedd, om hu ble holdt noe gissel eller noe, og de pengene var noe slags løsepenger.
Jeg har ikke vært i Spania selv.
Søstra mi og Cecilie Hyde, dem viste bilder av alle disse spanjolske guttene dem hadde møtt der, eller så fortalte dem om dem, dem nenvte disse navna hele tida.
Så jeg har aldri vært så frista av å dra til Spania.
Men jeg synes dem også nevnte noen som ikke var så snille, som kjente de som var litt yngre og kule.
Men dette er snart 20 år siden, så jeg husker det ikke så nøye.
Men jeg tror jeg ville vært skeptisk med å sende unge skandinaviske jenter aleine til Spania og/eller Storbritannia da, hvis det er sånn som det kanskje kan virke.
Og når jeg var i Brighton i 85, så ble jeg plassert hos samme vertsfamilie, (etter at kursleder hadde bytta familie for meg og en trønder på min alder, som jeg ikke husker navnet på).
Og han svensken het Fredrik Axelsson, mener jeg, og var på min alder, og var fra Gøteborg vel.
Og han sa noe om at det var 4-5 eller 5-6 store karteller eller konserner eller hva han mente i Sverige.
Og sa at faren hans var sjefen for et av disse store kartellene eller hva han sa.
Jeg lurer på om det kan ha vært et kartell/konsern som det i denne posten jeg:
''Hvitvasking vs. mafiapenger Jonny 24/03 12:46 Denne karen får sikkert med stor sannsynlighet sine penger fra "mafiaen". De har sine karteller rundt omkring i dette landet. Når en person kan få oppimot 120 millioner kroner på grunn av ett ekteskap, kan man spørre seg selv hvor mektige de egentlig er!'.'.
http://forum.tv2.no/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=12&threadid=38119
Jeg lurer på om det han her Jonny referer til, er det samme som Sgt. Smyth skrev i brevet i samme link, og han nikka vel mot et skriv og likesom hintet til det begrepet 'Norwegian Mafia', i forrige ippc-klage møte der, på torsdag 8/11 var det.
Og også om hun dama som jeg hørte prate om 'mafian' på Rimi Bjørndal i desember 03.
Og som en kamerat av meg Magne også sa en gang, da vi prata om noen kollegaer i Rimi, at dem var, (eller del av), mafian.
At det er en internasjonal mafia, som har avdelinger/karteller i de forskjellige landene.
Og kan finne deg uansett hvilket land du drar til omtrent, siden dem har karteller/avdelinger der og, og/eller samarbeider med andre lokale mafia-nettverk.
Sånn at det vel kanskje nesten kan sies å være et europa-, eller vest-europa-, eller kanskje, selv om jeg ikke kan si dette helt sikker, verdens-omspennede mafia-nettverk.
Siden jeg har dratt til mange land, uten å unngå å plutselig bli gjenkjent osv. vel omtrent uansett hvor i Europa osv. jeg har dratt.
Så jeg synes nesten jeg må være såpass ansvalig at jeg må gi et lite varsko om at det nok er sånn.
Selv om vel veldig mange antagelig vet om dette fra før.
De er vel da den såkalte underverdenen da kanskje.
Eller om vanlige folk vet det og, det er vanskelig for meg å si.
Men hvis ikke vanlige folk vet om dette, så må denne underverdenen være ganske stor.
For det virker ganske åpenbart for meg, at det er ganske mange som vet om dette, siden jeg hele tiden overhører folk prate om ting i forbindelse med dette, og kjenne meg igjen, og åpenbart vite hva som foregår, rundt dette osv.
Men jeg har ikke pratet med så mange om dette, men det er i hvertfall sånn det virker for meg.
Så jeg prøver vel mer eller minde å skrive et slags varsko om at det er noe sånt som foregår, i tilfelle det er noen som leser det her, og som ikke vet fra før, at det er noe lignende av det har skrevet om her, som foregår.
Så er det mulig jeg er dum, og alle vet det her fra før, det virker i allefall for meg, som om det er en del som nok vet en del om dette fra tidligere osv. ja.
Som jeg har overhørt referere til ting rundt dette osv., når jeg har reist rundt til de forskjellige landene, for å prøve å finne et sted hvor det er mulig å få litt fred fra det her osv.
Men det er også mulig at det politi og sivilt politi osv. jeg har overhørt.
For det er vel en del sivil politi rundt omkring, f.eks. som uro-patruljer eller noen lignende sånne ting da.
Og hvis de har hatt en operasjon, rundt meg av en eller annen anledning, så kan det jo nok være det som eveltuelt er grunnen til at jeg har plukket opp, en del jeg har overhørt rundt dette.
Men at det er noe ganske 'heavy' mafia-greier, i de vest-europeiske landene, som foregår eller har nettopp foregått, (for alt hva jeg vet), det vil jeg nok mene er ganske sikkert ja.
Så jeg før jeg prøve å skrive litt 'varsko' om det da, mens jeg holder på å skrive fra før osv.
Selv om det nok er mange som vet mer om dette her enn meg osv., så det er mulig jeg bare er dum og skriver om ting omtrent alle vet fra folk før uansett.
Det er vanskelig å si, men jeg får skrive om dette uansett, i tilfelle det ikke er sånn.
onsdag 21. november 2007
From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: emb.london@mfa.no
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:19:18 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Øvermo/Problemer Arvato Services, Liverpool
Hei,
jeg kan ikke se at jeg har mottatt noe svar på denne e-posten ennå, så jeg
prøver å sende den igjen.
Håper dette er i orden!
Mvh.
Erik Ribsskog
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Ribsskog
Date: Nov 9, 2007 3:08 PM
Subject: Øvermo/Problemer Arvato Services, Liverpool
To: emb.london@mfa.no
Hei,
jeg viser til telefonsamtaler i mars, angående problemer med organisert
kriminell aktivitet,
med mistanke om at det foregår traficing og annen utnyttelse av
skandinaviske jenter der,
pluss ulovlige ledelsesmetoder, som går på straff/negativ forsterking på den
skandinaviske
Microsoft kampanjen. Og også trakassering, som forekommer så ofte, at jeg
vil kalle den
organisert.
Jeg ble bedt om å kontakte britisk politi og den veldedige organsiasjonen
CAB (Citizens
Advice Bureau), angående dette.
Men jeg har bare hatt problemer med løgn og trakassering, og annen
uprofesjonell opptreden,
både fra The Merseyside Police, og fra Liverpool Central CAB.
Det virker ikke som om noen av disse organisasjonene klarer å håndtere denne
saken på
en ansvarlig måte.
Så jeg har mistet såpass mye tilitt til disse organisasjonene, på grunn av
de nevnte problemene,
så jeg lurte på om det hadde vært mulig å få noe råd av dere angående
hvordan man burde gå
fram i forbindelse med dette.
Jeg husker jo at jeg når jeg ringte i mars, forklarte at jeg var bekymret
for de skandinaviske jentene
som jobbet på Microsoft kampanjen.
Altså fordi, som jeg har forklart dere tidligere, at det virker som om disse
blir utnyttet, av et kriminelt
nettverk.
Så da svarte dere at 'dere ikke hjelper folk som samarbeider med
kriminelle'.
Og da svarte jeg at dette var snakk om norske og skandinaviske studenter,
som studerer ved et
av universitetene i byen, og som vil jobbe en eller to dager i uke, for
Microsoft, ved siden av studiene.
Og Arvato holder også til i en kjent bygning, Cunard Building, og det er en
del av et stort internasjonalt
konsern, Bertelsmann.
Og det er streng britisk 'office wear' dress-code. osv.
Så alt virker ok på overflaten, så det er ikke egentlig noen måte at norske
studenter, som er i storbritannia
på 'study abroad program' o.l., kan vite at firma er under kontroll av et
kriminelt nettverk, og når de først
har havnet i den jobben, så er det nok ikke lange veien, før jentene særlig,
havner under kontroll av det
samme nettverket.
Og dette firmaet, søker etter ansatte, både gjennom den norske og britiske
arbeidsformidlingen, og også
gjennom å sette opp plakater på universitetene osv.
Dere sa til meg over telefon, at hvis det var noen venner jeg hadde som jeg
ville advare, så skulle jeg bare
si fra til dem.
Men når man er i utlandet, som norsk statsborger, så vil man jo ikke at
andre nordmenn og skandinaver
skal havne i problemer med kriminelle nettverk osv.
Men det er såpass mange nordmenn og skandinaver i Liverpool, og firmaet
søker jo også etter ansatte,
gjennom den norske og britiske arbeidsformidlingen.
Så jeg synes at dette er en helt uansvarlig holdning fra ambassaden.
Og jeg har forsøkt å få hjelp gjennom pressen osv., å advare om dette, men
jeg har ikke noen erfaring
med kontakt med presse osv., så dette må være en oppgave for myndighetene og
ikke en enkeltperson.
Så jeg håper dere har mulighet til å komme med noe råd eller hjelp her, og
håndtere situasjonen litt
mer ansvarlig, enn jeg har inntrykk av at dere har gjort foreløbig.
Nå kan jo ikke jeg vite om hva dere har gjort angående dette.
Det er jo mulig at dere har gjort mer enn dere har sagt til meg.
Men jeg må jo ta utgangspunkt i hva dere sier til meg, og det er på bakgrunn
av dette, at jeg synes dere
kanskje har litt å gå på, når det gjelder å håndtere dette på en ansvarlig
måte.
Så får dere heller ha meg unnskyldt, hvis dere har gjort mye i forbindelse
med dette.
Men Norge skal jo være et åpent samfunn, så da burde dere vel si fra om
dette, i såfall.
Men jeg regner med at poenget mitt har kommet fram.
Så jeg håper dere har mulighet til å gi litt mer råd/hjelp angående dette.
Mvh.
Erik Ribsskog
To: emb.london@mfa.no
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:19:18 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Øvermo/Problemer Arvato Services, Liverpool
Hei,
jeg kan ikke se at jeg har mottatt noe svar på denne e-posten ennå, så jeg
prøver å sende den igjen.
Håper dette er i orden!
Mvh.
Erik Ribsskog
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Ribsskog
Date: Nov 9, 2007 3:08 PM
Subject: Øvermo/Problemer Arvato Services, Liverpool
To: emb.london@mfa.no
Hei,
jeg viser til telefonsamtaler i mars, angående problemer med organisert
kriminell aktivitet,
med mistanke om at det foregår traficing og annen utnyttelse av
skandinaviske jenter der,
pluss ulovlige ledelsesmetoder, som går på straff/negativ forsterking på den
skandinaviske
Microsoft kampanjen. Og også trakassering, som forekommer så ofte, at jeg
vil kalle den
organisert.
Jeg ble bedt om å kontakte britisk politi og den veldedige organsiasjonen
CAB (Citizens
Advice Bureau), angående dette.
Men jeg har bare hatt problemer med løgn og trakassering, og annen
uprofesjonell opptreden,
både fra The Merseyside Police, og fra Liverpool Central CAB.
Det virker ikke som om noen av disse organisasjonene klarer å håndtere denne
saken på
en ansvarlig måte.
Så jeg har mistet såpass mye tilitt til disse organisasjonene, på grunn av
de nevnte problemene,
så jeg lurte på om det hadde vært mulig å få noe råd av dere angående
hvordan man burde gå
fram i forbindelse med dette.
Jeg husker jo at jeg når jeg ringte i mars, forklarte at jeg var bekymret
for de skandinaviske jentene
som jobbet på Microsoft kampanjen.
Altså fordi, som jeg har forklart dere tidligere, at det virker som om disse
blir utnyttet, av et kriminelt
nettverk.
Så da svarte dere at 'dere ikke hjelper folk som samarbeider med
kriminelle'.
Og da svarte jeg at dette var snakk om norske og skandinaviske studenter,
som studerer ved et
av universitetene i byen, og som vil jobbe en eller to dager i uke, for
Microsoft, ved siden av studiene.
Og Arvato holder også til i en kjent bygning, Cunard Building, og det er en
del av et stort internasjonalt
konsern, Bertelsmann.
Og det er streng britisk 'office wear' dress-code. osv.
Så alt virker ok på overflaten, så det er ikke egentlig noen måte at norske
studenter, som er i storbritannia
på 'study abroad program' o.l., kan vite at firma er under kontroll av et
kriminelt nettverk, og når de først
har havnet i den jobben, så er det nok ikke lange veien, før jentene særlig,
havner under kontroll av det
samme nettverket.
Og dette firmaet, søker etter ansatte, både gjennom den norske og britiske
arbeidsformidlingen, og også
gjennom å sette opp plakater på universitetene osv.
Dere sa til meg over telefon, at hvis det var noen venner jeg hadde som jeg
ville advare, så skulle jeg bare
si fra til dem.
Men når man er i utlandet, som norsk statsborger, så vil man jo ikke at
andre nordmenn og skandinaver
skal havne i problemer med kriminelle nettverk osv.
Men det er såpass mange nordmenn og skandinaver i Liverpool, og firmaet
søker jo også etter ansatte,
gjennom den norske og britiske arbeidsformidlingen.
Så jeg synes at dette er en helt uansvarlig holdning fra ambassaden.
Og jeg har forsøkt å få hjelp gjennom pressen osv., å advare om dette, men
jeg har ikke noen erfaring
med kontakt med presse osv., så dette må være en oppgave for myndighetene og
ikke en enkeltperson.
Så jeg håper dere har mulighet til å komme med noe råd eller hjelp her, og
håndtere situasjonen litt
mer ansvarlig, enn jeg har inntrykk av at dere har gjort foreløbig.
Nå kan jo ikke jeg vite om hva dere har gjort angående dette.
Det er jo mulig at dere har gjort mer enn dere har sagt til meg.
Men jeg må jo ta utgangspunkt i hva dere sier til meg, og det er på bakgrunn
av dette, at jeg synes dere
kanskje har litt å gå på, når det gjelder å håndtere dette på en ansvarlig
måte.
Så får dere heller ha meg unnskyldt, hvis dere har gjort mye i forbindelse
med dette.
Men Norge skal jo være et åpent samfunn, så da burde dere vel si fra om
dette, i såfall.
Men jeg regner med at poenget mitt har kommet fram.
Så jeg håper dere har mulighet til å gi litt mer råd/hjelp angående dette.
Mvh.
Erik Ribsskog
From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: lynne.overend@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:53:29 +0000
Subject: Enclosures
These are the notes I wrote when I came back home from the meeting with Sgt.
Smite on Walton Lane
Police-station on 22/6.
They are mostly in Norwegian btw.
Also, I have got about 250 un-indexed documents from when I was working at
arvato.
These are scanned copies, and the orginals are the Norwegian Embassy.
But just contact me if you want me to send the 250 un-indexed documents from
arvato as well.
Most these documents were in 'pile' of documents I handed to Constable
Holmes in January.
So just tell me if you want me to send you those documents as well, then I
could just e-mail then,
or try to put them in a zip-file or something like that.
So just e-mail me back if you want me to do that one of the next days.
And also tell me if there are any other things should have remembered.
Hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
To: lynne.overend@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:53:29 +0000
Subject: Enclosures
These are the notes I wrote when I came back home from the meeting with Sgt.
Smite on Walton Lane
Police-station on 22/6.
They are mostly in Norwegian btw.
Also, I have got about 250 un-indexed documents from when I was working at
arvato.
These are scanned copies, and the orginals are the Norwegian Embassy.
But just contact me if you want me to send the 250 un-indexed documents from
arvato as well.
Most these documents were in 'pile' of documents I handed to Constable
Holmes in January.
So just tell me if you want me to send you those documents as well, then I
could just e-mail then,
or try to put them in a zip-file or something like that.
So just e-mail me back if you want me to do that one of the next days.
And also tell me if there are any other things should have remembered.
Hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: lynne.overend@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:34:38 +0000
Subject: Enclosures
This is from my notebook, it has some of the notes from the meeting with
Sgt. Camel, and
the other officer/constable on 16/1.
I think there should be some more notes from this meeting, but I couldn't
manage to find them
now.
I think it's possible that they could have ended up at the Norwegian
Embassy, since I brought
almost the originals for the documents there. Because I thought the Embassy
should be
a bit informed, since there were many Norwegian and Scandinavian citizens
working there,
and I didn't want to have all the documents laying in my flat all the time,
I thought it was
better if they were at the embassy, in case it was some information in them
that could
be used in eg. a court-case etc.
From that meeting, I remember I asked Sgt. Camel if the CAB was
'government'.
And he said yes.
But later I've seen that CAB is a charity.
The reason I'm sure about this, is that in a later conversation with
constable Holmes, (which
there should be notes from), there Holmes asked me to call Crime Stoppers
about this case,
(Enclosure VIII).
And I hadn't heard of Crime Stoppers from before, so then I asked him if
they were government,
and he said yes.
But it was the same with the CAB. I hadn't heard of them before eighter.
But this was brought up in the meeting with Sgt. Camel on 16/1, where I
asked him in the same
way if the CAB was government.
So I'm sure about this, even if I can't find any more notes about this
meeting at the moment. But
if I find more notes, then I'll send them later. (And they could possibly be
at the Embassy).
To: lynne.overend@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:34:38 +0000
Subject: Enclosures
This is from my notebook, it has some of the notes from the meeting with
Sgt. Camel, and
the other officer/constable on 16/1.
I think there should be some more notes from this meeting, but I couldn't
manage to find them
now.
I think it's possible that they could have ended up at the Norwegian
Embassy, since I brought
almost the originals for the documents there. Because I thought the Embassy
should be
a bit informed, since there were many Norwegian and Scandinavian citizens
working there,
and I didn't want to have all the documents laying in my flat all the time,
I thought it was
better if they were at the embassy, in case it was some information in them
that could
be used in eg. a court-case etc.
From that meeting, I remember I asked Sgt. Camel if the CAB was
'government'.
And he said yes.
But later I've seen that CAB is a charity.
The reason I'm sure about this, is that in a later conversation with
constable Holmes, (which
there should be notes from), there Holmes asked me to call Crime Stoppers
about this case,
(Enclosure VIII).
And I hadn't heard of Crime Stoppers from before, so then I asked him if
they were government,
and he said yes.
But it was the same with the CAB. I hadn't heard of them before eighter.
But this was brought up in the meeting with Sgt. Camel on 16/1, where I
asked him in the same
way if the CAB was government.
So I'm sure about this, even if I can't find any more notes about this
meeting at the moment. But
if I find more notes, then I'll send them later. (And they could possibly be
at the Embassy).
From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: lynne.overend@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:19:27 +0000
Subject: Enclousures
This is the notes from the meeting on with Liz Hurley from the Norwegian
Consulate on 19/3.
It's in this meeting that she calls Sgt. O'Brian, and then Hurley tells me
that O'Brian has said
to her that he 'remembers the case'.
To: lynne.overend@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:19:27 +0000
Subject: Enclousures
This is the notes from the meeting on with Liz Hurley from the Norwegian
Consulate on 19/3.
It's in this meeting that she calls Sgt. O'Brian, and then Hurley tells me
that O'Brian has said
to her that he 'remembers the case'.
From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: lynne.overend@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 23:37:16 +0000
Subject: 2007/006341
Hi,
I'm refering to you letter from 28/8, where you ask me to send you
documentation I may
have regarding the appeal from 26/8.
I sent a lot of documentation with the original complaint, but I'll sent the
documentation
again now, just in case you haven't got it.
There are quite a few documents, so I'm going to send them in several
e-mails. (To avoid
problems with e-mail sizes etc.)
Also, I'm going to send some documents which are of newer dates, and also
some 'old'
documents, which I found now today, which weren't sent the first time.
I'll explain more about these, the 'new' documents in the e-mails I enclose
them with.
With this e-mail, I'll send the explanation file, and in the next e-mails,
I'll send the
enclosures, which are refered to in the explanation file.
Hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
To: lynne.overend@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 23:37:16 +0000
Subject: 2007/006341
Hi,
I'm refering to you letter from 28/8, where you ask me to send you
documentation I may
have regarding the appeal from 26/8.
I sent a lot of documentation with the original complaint, but I'll sent the
documentation
again now, just in case you haven't got it.
There are quite a few documents, so I'm going to send them in several
e-mails. (To avoid
problems with e-mail sizes etc.)
Also, I'm going to send some documents which are of newer dates, and also
some 'old'
documents, which I found now today, which weren't sent the first time.
I'll explain more about these, the 'new' documents in the e-mails I enclose
them with.
With this e-mail, I'll send the explanation file, and in the next e-mails,
I'll send the
enclosures, which are refered to in the explanation file.
Hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk Joanne Fitzgerald
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:22:32 +0000
Subject: Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
Hi,
here is the appeal against the decision not to formally record my complaint:
Please give the name of the police force your complaint was about:
Merseyside Police
If you recieved a letter from the police telling you that they will not be
recording your complaint,
please give the date of that letter:
10/7/07
Mr. Erik Ribsskog
Flat 3
5 Leather Lane
L2 2AE
Liverpool
01512363298/07758349954
eribsskog@gmail.com
Date you made your complaint:
3/5/07
Who did you make your complaint to:
To the IPCC.
How did you make your complaint:
By e-mail.
Please provide brief details about the complaint that you made:
I had been reporting about some problems that seems clear to me to involve
organised
crime at the place which I worked to the police on several occations from
November
last year.
I had been having some problems with the police being supposed to call me
back regarding
this, but they didn't call back, even if contacted the police-station to
inform them about this.
So, when I was at the CAB regarding advice on when one needed a criminal
solicitors.
(Since the solicitor that I had met in a duty solicitors meeting at the CAB
had informed me
that Morecrofts couldn't help me if I needed a criminal solicitor. But it
wasn't clear to me
when one would need a criminal solicitor, so I contacted the CAB again, and
was told that
this was if one were being accused of doing something wrong.
The Morecrofts solicitor had said that the case was both an employment-case,
and a
criminal-case, so I asked the advisor at the CAB, on how I should go forward
with the
criminal part of the case.
And I was ansered that I should bring this up in liasons with the police.
I had been trying to do this from before, but I had been having some
problems involving the
police not calling me back when they said they would.
So I asked the advisor what I should do if I had problems with the liasons
with the police.
And the advisor said that I should bring it up with the CPS or the
Law-society.
I asked about this as a precaution, so that I knew what to do if the police
still didn't contact
me after the new meeting there.
So, some weeks later, when they still hadn't contacted me, then I contacted
the CPS about
the problems with the liasons with the police.
The CPS answered that they didn't have the powers to investiagte a case, and
told me to
contact the IPCC.
Which I did on 3/5, I sent the IPCC a complaint regarding the problems I've
been having with the
liasons with the police. (Or 'the contact with the police', like I wrote in
the e-mail I sent you on 3/5).
In the complaint, I had listed up 18 individual complaints about thing I
though were dealt with wrongly
by the police in relation to my contact with them.
I'll try to specify how I thought the police conducted wrongly:
1. The police-constable wouldn't let me report a crime.
2. The police adviced me to go back to work, even if I had told them that
the company was
infiltradet/taken over by a criminal organisation. I think that this was
irresponsible by the police.
3. On 16/1/07 Sergant Camel told me to take the case to the CAB, even if he
knew I was
unemployed, and couldn't afford to pay a solicitor £140/hour to deal with
the case.
I though that this was irresponsible by the Sergant. (The police should have
investigated the
case themselves).
(Also, I remember from the meeting on 16/1, that Sgt. Camel wanted me to
take the case to
the CAB, and then to a solicitor and the Crowns Court.
I haven't been living in Britain that long, so I wasn't sure what the CAB
was. But I remember
I asked the Sergant if the CAB were government. And the sergant said 'yes'.
Later (maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago), I have been browsing the CAB website looking
for some
information there, and I've seen on the CAB website, that CAB is actually a
charity.
So, it's now clear to me that Sgt. Camel actually lied to me about this in
the meeting
at the policestation on 16/1.
If he had told me that the CAB was a charity, then I would
have objected much stronger
on brining the case to them, I would have insisting stronger on the
right department of
the police to deal with it.
But that the Sergant told me that the CAB were government, and that the
solicitor I would
get to speak with there, would send the case back to the police if they
thought it was
a matter for the police, confused me, and since I hadn't been living that
long in Britain,
and I'm not so used to dealing with the police, and I wasn't sure if I as a
Norwegian,
could demand what the police should do, so thats why I after contacting the
police
a number of more times trying to get them to deal with the case, (but they
still
insited on me going to the CAB with it), thats why I ended up at the CAB
with it,
beliving the CAB was a government organisation.
4. The police didn't want to investigate the case, even if I told them I had
documents
that would show that it was a crime-case.
(And I also told the police on 16/1, that I was worried about my collegues
that were
still working in the complany, that they were under control by the
criminals).
5. The police didn't want to look at the evidence/documents on my laptop on
22/1,
saying it was a breach of the data protection act. Even if I think it must
be obvious that
since I myself let them look at the documents, then this couldn't have been
a data
protection issue.
6. That constable Keith Holmes didn't call me back, even if
constable Victoria Steele
told me on 22/1 that she would ask Holmes to call me back.
This happened a lot of times, that the police said they would call me back,
but they
didn't. It's difficult for me to say what happened in this situation. If
Holmes got the
message or not. There could be some problems with the routines at the
police-station,
or it could have been a mistake from eighter Steele or Holmes.
7. The constable who was in the 'reception' on 24/1 and 25/1 didn't wear
collar-number-
tags. I think police should be expected to wear their tag-numbers, because I
know
there are rules about things like this, even eg. shop-assistants are
instructed to
wear their name-tags, so I think the police, having an important funciton in
society,
also should wear some kind of indification, so that it's possible for
members of the
public to identify the serviceman/woman they have been talking with. (In
case
something wrong is being said or done by the constable/officer).
8. The constable that didn't wear number-tags on 24/1 and 25/1, promised me
that
she would get Victoria Steele to call me back regarding the case.
But Steele didn't call. This is a similar problem I think to complaint 6,
and this happened
a lot of times, I was promised maybe 10 times by different
officers/constables that the
police would call me back, but I wasn't called back by the police a single
time in 2007.
I was only called back once in November 2006.
(And I was promised to be called back about ten times or more in 2007, and
they didn't
call a single time).
9. I went to the police in January, and gave them copies of the documents in
which I
thought that it would be possible to find evidence about the problem with a
criminal
organisation of some kind having infiltrated/taking over the company I had
worked in.
I gave the documents (many hundred sheets) to Steele, who gave it to Holmes.
When I spoke with Holmes two or three weeks later, he said he had only read
a bit
on the top of the pile, a bit in the middle, and a bit on the bottom of the
pile.
And he still said it was an employment-case, and that I should go to the
CAB.
By then I had 'argued' so much with the police about this, that I didn't
know if it
would be right for me as a Norwegian to continue arguing with the British
police about
this.
But, I remebered Sgt. Camel had said earlier that the CAB would send it back
to the
police if they thought it was right.
And thought that maybe it was because I was from another country that they
wouldn't
listen to me at the police-station, and maybe they weren't used to dealing
that much
with documents for all that I knew.
So I thought that it would maybe be just as smart to have a lawyer at the
CAB have a
look at it, and send it back, maybe this would convince the police to have a
look at, and
investigate the case.
(It could be of couse, that the police investigated it, but didn't tell me
about this. I had
been at the police-station several times in November and later explaining
about the case.
I'm not an expert in police-methods, but I guessed that it could be that the
police investigated
without telling me, for some reason, I wasn't sure, but I reackoned that
this could be the case,
since I would have thought that the British Police would deal with a matter
like this in a
responsible way.)
But in the complaint about the liasons with the police, I could only relate
to what I knew for
sure, and I knew for sure that Constable Holmes didn't look properly through
the documents
I delivered to the police-station for him to give to an investigator.
So I thought that it was irresponsible by constable Holmes to not read
throught the documents
proberly, and to not give them to an investigator.
10. The police sent me a letter on 16/2, where they called me 'Miss Erik
Ribsskog'. I think, like
the British representative on the Norwegian Consulate in the India Building
said, that it should
be obvious to Brits that Erik and Eric is the same name, and it therefore
must be someone
making jokes and not taking their job serious.
Like I had explained in meetings at the police-station, it seemed to me that
some of my collegues
in the complany, probably must have been under control by criminals. So I
thought this was an important
case, and then to start making jokes like this in an important case. I think
thats irresponsible and
it seems like a joke that small kids could have made. So this makes me
worried that things could be
out of control at the police-station.
11. In the meeting on 1/2, Sergant O'Brian told me to move from the chair I
sat down with at the
table, (even if I sat in the same chair in the meeting there with Sgt. Camel
and the constable on
16/1).
So I had to move to another chair, at the other side of the table, I think
that Sgt. O'Brian was acting
patronising towards me when he 'ordered' me to sit in the other chair.
12. In the meeting at the St. Ann's police-station on 1/3, the 'ginger'
police-constable, wouldn't let
me present the issues about which I had contacted the police-station to the
Sergant O'Brian, but
insisted on presenting the things I wanted to bring up in the meeting to the
Sergant himself.
So this made me lose a bit control on how the issues were presented, and it
seemed to me that
I was being patronised by the police-constable.
And this made it diffucult for me to present the things I wanted to bring
up, in the way I intended
to present it, and also it made me more of a spectator than a participant in
the meeting.
I guess it could be that it was O'Brian who should have told the constable
to let me explain myself,
because I think they should have let me explain my concerns myself.
13. So in the meeting on 1/3, I was a bit confused if I was supposed to
exlain about my concerns
to Sgt. O'Brian myself, or if this was the job of the constable.
So this made me a bit confused about how they meant the meeting to be
conducted, and what they
wanted my role in the meeting to be.
14. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian said that he thought the problem
with the case not having any
progress with being dealt with by the police, was due to the case having
being dealt with by a large
number of police servicemen.
So, he suggested, that to find out exactly what had been going on, they
would ask constable Steele
to call me, and tell me what she had been doing with the documents after I
gave them to her.
I think this was irresponsible by the Sergant. He must have understood that
to find out what the police
had been doing, would be a job for the police.
So I think that he should have taken the job of finding out what the police
had been doing, that he should
have taken the responsibility of finding this out himself.
And of course, investigate the case himself, instead of not doing anything,
other that saying I had to find
out what the police had been doing so far.
So I thought this was very irresponsible by Sgt. O'Brian.
15. This is connected with point 14. That I think Sgt. O'Brian should have
investigated himself:
1. What the police had done regarding the case so far. (And not telling me
to find out about this.)
2. Investigate the case further.
Sgt. O'Brian didn't do eighter of these actions, and I think that this was
very irresponsible.
16. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian was very un-calm, and this together
with the patronising
I was subjected to (which is explained in point 11 and 12), made it
difficult for me to bring up
the issues I wanted to bring up in the way I had intended.
So I think that (especially since I haven't been living in Britain that
long, and had to 'compete'
with to British police-servicemen who were patronising me in the meeting),
because of this,
I think that the Sergant should have tryed to remain calm in the meeting,
since I think when
one have a job as a public serviceman, then it's important that one are
capable of comunicating
with the public.
And then to be so un-calm in the meeting, can make it difficult for the
meeting and the comunication
to be conducted in a meaningful way, since the things the Sergant said had
marks of not being
very thorowly considered. (Like he told me that I had to make sure that my
former employer and
the job-agency got in touch about the letter I had brought there, even if it
was obvious from that
letter that they already were in touch, and the Sergant was reading the
letter explaining about
this).
So I think the Sergant must have been so un-calm that he didn't get the
meaning of the letter.
And I didn't want to aggrivate or make the Sergant even more un-calm, so I
just had to pretend
to agree with him.
I though that I would rather call the Sergant later, and explain about this
later, when he was in
a calmer state.
An I think that when one as a member of the public, contacts the police,
about important things
like this, then one should expect to be treated in professional way by the
police.
So when the police are patronising you, and like I mention in this
individual complaint, the police
Sergant in charge of the meeting, isn't capable to keep control of himself
and remain calm, in
a way that the meeting could be conducted in a professional and meaningful
way.
I think that if the Sergant in charge of the meeting isn't capable of doing
this, then this is a reason
to complain. (Because I don't think members of the public should be treated
in an unprofessional
and unpolite way when they are contacting the police).
17. Sgt. O'Brian said in the meeting on 1/3, that they would get constable
Steele to call me back
about what the police had been doing with the case so far.
Victoria Steele didn't call, and I called back to the police-station several
times, and was told that
she was on holiday.
I also called back several times after she should have been back, but she
was never present.
The people I talked with at the police-station, told me several times that
they would get Steele
to call, yet she never called.
This problem happened very often. (That I was promised someone from the
police would call
me back, but that they didn't call at all in 2007).
18. The same in this individual complaint.
When I tryed calling Steele, but didn't suceed in getting in contact with
her at all.
Then I tried to call Sgt. O'Brian on several phone-numbers I was given by
the central, and
by St. Ann's police-station.
I didn't manage to get hold of Sgt. O'Brian eighter, and after trying to get
in contact with
Constable Steele and Sergant O'Brian for weeks, without getting hold of
them, and without
any of them returning my calls.
Then I went to the Norwegian Consulat in the India Building, asking The
Consulate if they
had any advice for me, on how to get in contact with Constable Steele or
Sgt. Obrian.
The Consulate-representative, Liz Hurley, went and called Sgt. O'Brian,
while I was at
the Consulate on 19/3.
Liz Hurley said, that she had been talking with O'Brian, and that O'Brian
had told her that
'he remembered the case'.
Yet, Sgt. O'Brian still didn't call me back, even after recieving this
reminder by the Norwegian
Consulate representative.
Sgt. O'Brian still hadn't called me back when I sent you the complaint on
3/5, and he still
haven't called me back when I'm writing this appeal now on 26/8.
I think this is very unprofessional of the Sergant. On the meeting on 1/3, I
showed the
constable and Sergant O'Brian the explanation I had written were I explain
about
my concern about what was going on in the company, and I remember the
Sergant
was reading the explanation, he got it from the constable.
And I had written that it was clear to me that some of my collages in the
company was
under control by criminals.
(I had written it in capital letters, because I was a bit tired of the
police not taking any
actions after I had gone to the police-station reporting about this several
times in
November, then in the meeting with Sgt. Cambel in January, and then in the
talks
with Constable Holmes also in January.
I wasn't sure if the police was taking this as serious as they should, so I
tryed to
write it in a document, why I think they should act. I even wrote some of it
in capital
letters, so to show that I meant this seriously, and to maybe get them to
wake up).
And it was this document that I remember O'Brian read, and still they didn't
even return
my calls, even after reading that document, and having seen how important I
thought
the case was.
And in the meeting on 1/3, I also showed the Constable and the Sergant the
letter from
the Solicitor from 27/2, where the Solicitor writes that:
'As I explained, Morecrofts do not deal with criminal law and would not be
able to advise you
on this aspect although some further perusal of your papers may reveal some
information that
will assist the police.'
Even if I showed the Sergant this letter from the Solicitor, still the
Sergant didn't want to investigate/
look at the papers/documents I had. And even if he had read this letter and
the the letter where
I explain that I'm worried about some of my collueges being under control by
criminals in the
company I used to work, and also even if he got a call about this from the
Norwegian Consulate,
still he didn't even return my calls.
I think this was very irresponsible and unprofessional by the Sergant. And
it was this behaviour from
the Sergant that I thought was the 'final drop', so to speak, and lead me to
complain about the
police to the CPS.
And then, after recieving my complaint, the CPS adviced me to contact you,
so thats why
I sent you the e-mail with the complaint on 3/5.
Please tell us why you would like to appeal about the way your complaint was
handled:
The police force didn't record my complaint.
Please explain why you want to appeal:
Well, like I exlained above, I think that the police force should deal with
members of the
public in a professional and aproriate way.
All of the 18 individual complaint I have mentioned, are situations, where I
think the police
have acted in a way which I think is below the standard you could expect
from a responsible
police force.
And when I complain about the police not letting me report a crime (like in
complaint 1), and
the police acting irresponsible with sending me back to work even if the
complany was
controled by criminals (complaint 2), lying to me about the CAB being a
government
organisation (even if I discovered the lying later, complaint 3), the police
refusing to
investgate a serious criminal case, involiving people being held under
control, seemingly
like slaves, by criminals (complaint 4), the police lying to me again,
saying that
it would be a breach on the data protection act if they looked at some
documents
on my laptop. (complaint 5), that the police acted irresponsible, on
numerous occations,
when I was promised the police would call me back, but they didn't. I would
think that
this happened to many times to it being coincidental, I would think that
some type of
misconduct is the reason for this way of treatment by the police (numerous
complaints, eg.
complaint 6, 8, 17 and 18).
That the police constable didn't give the documents I gave him regarding a
serious crime-
case to an investigator (complaint 9), that the police insulted me, calling
me 'Miss Erik
Ribsskog', in their letter from 16/2, when it should be obvious, as I have
got confirmed by
a British representative working for the Norwegian Consulate, that it should
be obvious
for Brits that Erik and Eric is the same name, and due to this, the police
were inpolite
towards me, since they called me 'Miss', even if they should know that my
name isn't
a girls name.
That Sgt. O'Brian was, I would go as far as to say he was harassing me, and
were
patronising towards me in the meeting on the police-station on 1/3,
described in
complaint 11-18.
That Sgt. O'Brian was acting irresponsible in not investigating a serious
crime-case,
even if the Solicitor had written in the letter that she thought this could
be a matter
for the police, and even if he was called by the Norwegian Consulate, and
still didn't
return my calls.
And also that he left it to me, a member of the public, to find out how the
police had
been dealing with the case, instead of dealing with it himself.
And also that he was 'in a state' in the meeting, not giving me a chance to
explain
about the issues in the way I had intended, due to having to focus on not
trying
to aggrivate the Sergant any more, that is to try to get him calm down,
taking
the focus away from presenting the actual issues I had gone there to
present.
I think the harassment, patronisment, unprofesionalism from the Sergant in
the
meeting on 1/3 certainly qualifyes to problems with the liasons with the
police, like
I initialy complained about, but also to beind misconduct like I see now
that it has
to be, for the police to deal with the complaint.
Also the other issues I've mentioned under this section 'Why you want to
appeal',
I think they also must be misconduct, like when the Constable didn't want to
let
me report a crime in complaint 1, and the refusal to investigate a serious
crime-case
in complaint 2, the later discovered lying in complain 3 etc. (see section
above).
So when I read in your e-mail from 14/8, that 'I was informed by
Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be concerned
with allegations of misconduct against individual police officers and
therefore decided not to formally record your complaint under the Police
Reform Act 2002.', then I can't agree with the Merseyside Police that my
complaint isn't being deemed as being concerd with allegations of
misconduct against individual police officers.
I can't see that the lying, the harrasment, the insults, the not alowing a
member
of the public to report a crime case, the refusal to investigate a serious
crime-case,
and the other mentioned issues (see above).
I cant see that these things shouldn't be considered as misconduct.
Thats my view, I'm not sure how police are expected to conduct themselves in
this
country, but if I use my head and think by myself how I would have thought
that
the police were meant to conduct themselves, and then think about the way
the
police-officers have conducted themselves, which I have described in this
complaint,
then I'd say that the police-officers have misconducted.
Also, while I'm dealing with this, I thought I'd mention some points from
the complaint-
procedure:
The police called me a week before the meeting at Walton Lane police station
on 22/6.
The police-woman that called on 15/6, didn't tell me her name, even if I
asked who I should
say that I had spoken with.
She just instructed me to report at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6 at a
certain time,
and ask to speak with Sgt. Smithe.
I thought that they would probably ask me who had called me and told me to
meet there,
so I asked her who I should tell them that I had been speaking with.
But she didn't say her name, she just said that I should say that I had been
called by
the police.
And she didn't tell me at all what the meeting was about.
I used to live in Walton about a year ago, and I'd also been in contact with
the police in
Walton (and also the St. Ann's police-station), about some problems I had
been having
org. criminals in Oslo and Liverpool.
And also when I lived in Walton, I rented a room in a shared house, and
there were also
problems going on in the house which I have reported to the Walton Lane
police.
And also when I was living in the shared house, due to reasons unknown to
me, and I
hadn't been living in Britain long enough then to understand about all the
things
surounding Council-tax.
But for some reason, I don't think any of the tenants revieved council-tax
bills (or tv-licensing
bills), when they were living in the shared house in Mandeville St. in
Walton.
So I wasn't completly sure about why it was that the police had called me
and instructed
me to meet at the Walton Lane police-station.
I thought, of course, that it could be to do with the complaint. But I
wasn't completly sure,
I thought it also could be with the cases I had reported about earlier
regarding problems with
org. criminials in Oslo and Liverpool.
I also thought there could be a chance it was regarding the problem with the
missing council
tax and tv-licensing bills from the Mandeville shared house. (Problems which
I had intended
to bring up togheter with a lot of other problems, once I'd got set up a
dialog with the police,
once I'd got a contact-person and a dialog at the police, and could start to
focus on trying
to explain all details with the earlier reported problems in Norway and
Liverpool).
And I wanted the police to deal with the things I had brought up seriously.
And I was a bit
afraid to 'make a fool of myself', if I called the Walton Lane
police-station, and asked to
speak with Sgt. Smithe, to ask what the meeting was about.
Because then I reackoned that I had to explain who had called me about the
meeting, and
I couldn't really be sure that the Sergant was working on Walton Lane
police-station
permanently. He could be in a specialised police-department for all that I
know, who dealt
with police complaint cases, and who was stationed somewhere else, maybe
even out of
town, for all that I knew. And only was supposed to be at the Walton Lane
police-station
for the meeting regarding the complaint-case.
So, since I didn't want to make a bad impression, (makine a fool of myself),
since I'm a
bit clumsy sometimes with my manners etc, since I haven't been living in
Britain that
long, due to this, I found it best to just show for the meeting, and not
call to ask any
questions regarding the agenda.
I also guessed that if it was meant for me to contact them back regarding
things surrounding
the meeting, then I would have got a contact-name there, like the
police-woman calling
would have told me her name, and told me that if I had any questions, then I
could contact
this and this person.
But since no such contact-name was given to me, then I guessed that I wasn't
meant to
know what the meeting was about, before the meeting.
So I didn't know exactly how to prepare for the meeting.
And when the meeting started, I had to ask the Sergant if the meeting was
about the complaint,
to be sure.
In the meeting, we didn't discuss the issues regarding problems with the
liasons with the
police at all.
Somehow, we ended up discussing the cases that I had complained about to the
Walton
Lane police-station before. (The problems with org. criminals in Oslo and
Liverpool).
I wrote some notes down when I got home from the meeting, here are some of
the points.
- Core of case: Followed by mafia in Norway, and this has continued in
England (Ppl. from
work etc).
(This is about some problems I had in Norway, and which I have reported
about to the police
in Norway and England.
It was on my workplace in Oslo. I was working as an assistant shop-manager,
while I was studying.
And then I got some problems with the my face being more or less distroyed
(its a long story), and
I still went to work a few days (I didn't think it was so serious, so I
thought the problems with the
face-skin would pass), and then I overheard a couple of conversations about
me behind my back so to
speak, eg. one conversation I overheard I heard it being said (they were
talking about my face which
was more or less distroyed), and I head them say: 'I've heard that he's also
followed by the mafia'.
And also I heard other customers say, about me, 'he isn't afraid (eg. he
goes to work as normal
I think they must have meant) even if he's being followed by the mafia'.
This was just some of what happened, I've tryed to explain about these
things to the police in
Norway and Britain, but I haven't been able to find someone who want's to
deal with and investigate
this, and let me explain all I know about this.
But I mentioned it to the Sergant in the meeting on 22/6.
But he writes in the answer-letter that 'I have since had the oppertunity to
examine the issues you
raised in terms of organised criminality and the Norwegian Mafia.'.
Well, I haven't actually menioned anything about a 'Norwegian Mafia'. I have
never heard of, or
menioned a 'Norwegian mafia'.
I always thought that the people I overheard at my old workplace in Oslo,
was refering to the
Albanian mafia, since this was the only mafia I had heard that were being
present in Oslo.
So, when the Sergant is writing about 'the Norwegian Mafia' in his letter,
then I get a bit
concerned that maybe there have been some misunderstanings in the
comunications,
since I've never used the term 'Norwegian mafia', and I've never heard of or
refered to
any Norwegian Mafia, so I think we must have been speaking past eachother a
bit
in the meeting.
We were also taling a bit of the Arvato company which I had reported the
problems
with being infiltrated by org. criminals.
(I said I thought the problems with org. criminals in Liverpool probably had
to be connected
with the problems in Oslo, since I found it unlikly that the lightening
would strike at the
same place twice so to speak).
I can see in my notes that the Sergant thought that Arvato had a Swedish
parent-company,
but I told him that it wasn't Swedish, but German. (Bertelsman).
I also told him that I thought it would be very fine to have a contact
person at the police,
since the police didn't return my calls, and also since I had a lot of
information regarding
the different cases which I still hadn't got an oppertunity to report to the
police, yet this
haven't been addressed in the answering-letter.
Like I've explained above, the police have been suposed to call me on more
than ten occations,
but they haven't called me in 2007 at all.
So I think they should take this problem a bit more serious. They are
ignoring this problem
in their answering-letter, and I can't really say that I'm sure what to do
if some incidents
happens now, for which I would have needed the assitance of the police. I'm
not sure what
I should do if this happens, I don't really want to call the police, just to
be ignored even
more.
So I think they should have brought up this issue in their answering-letter.
In the meeting, the Sergant asked me what I wanted the police to do, and I
answered that I
wanted the police to investigate the case with the problems with the
Arvato-company
having problems with infiltration by org. criminals.
I explained to the Sergant that I had a lot of documents that helped showing
this, and that
I think he should maybe have a look at these documents, in concetion with
his investigation.
Yet, I wasn't contacted back by the Sergant at all, before I got the letter
that he couldn't
find any evidence to substantiatie my claims.
So, I think that the Sergant should maybe have had a look at the documents
then, like I
suggested to him in the meeting. Maybe this could have helped him. He says
he haven't
found any evidence to substantiate my claims. But when he didn't even have a
look at
the documents, which I explained about to him that I had in the meeting,
then it's seems
a bit to me that he didn't really try that hard to find any evidence.
Because in the meeting I told him that he could just contact me if he wanted
to have at
the documents I had from working in the company, but the Sergant didn't
contact me
back about this.
I've also been in contact with the Norwegian Embassy in London, regarding
the problems
with org. crime in Oslo and in Arvato-company and elsewhere in Liverpool.
The Embassy, told me that if I wanted the British and Norwegian police to
cooperate
on these issues, then I had to tell the Brisish and Norwegian police myself
that I
wanted them to cooperate about this.
So, I aslo see this in my notes, I made sure to tell the Sergant that I
wanted the British
police to cooperate with the Norwegian police about these issues. (I've also
earlier told
the Norwegian police the same, that I want them, like the Embassy adviced,
to cooperate
with the British police on this.)
I also gave the Sergant the name of the Norwegian police-officer who knew
most about
the case in Norway. (Who was working in a similar Norwegian Department, that
is the
department that investigates the regular police). This because Sgt. Smithe
asked who
in Norway he could contact about this, and I didn't really know who else
that knew
enough about this.
Yet, in the answering letter, there is no mention about this, if the British
police have
been in contact with the Norwegian police or not, so I would have to asume
that
they haven't been in contact then, even if I asked them to do this, on
advice from
the Embassy, in the meeting.
I told the Sergant that I had even contacted the Norwegian Consulate, and
that the
Consulate-representative contacted Sgt. O'Brian, reminding him that I had
tryed to
get in contact with him regarding the case, but still, Sgt. O'Brian didn't
call me back.
And this is neigther addressed in the answering-letter.
I gave Sgt. Smithe some copies of explanations about the further problems
with
criminals in Norway, that they tried to kill me on the farm belonging to the
woman
my uncle lived with there, in the summer of 2005, and thats why I went away
from
Norway again and settled in Liverpool.
And I gave the Sergant the log-number from when I reported about the
problems
with criminals in Oslo and Liverpool to the Walton Lane police-station in
the
Automn of 2005.
(I've also been in contact with the Merseyside police regarding these
problems
several times before this, and also after this, in the spring and summer of
2006.
And then also again with the frequent contact about the problems in the
Arvato
company from November 2006).
I told the Sergant that it seemed to me, and that this was supported by the
documents I had, that all the different departments on Arvato was involved
in
this problem, with being taken over/infiltraded by org. criminals.
But the Sergant still didn't contact me back to have a look at the
documents.
I see from my notes that I told Sgt. Smithe that I had been in contact with
a Norwegian Police-officer, in the special department that investigates the
regular police, earlier the same week, about that had been surrounding this
in Oslo.e problems in Oslo.
Further from my notes, I see that I told the Sergant that it seemed to me
that
the police were worried, when they called me in the night, around midnight,
in late Novemeber 2006, and asked me to contact higher management
at Arvato, regarding the problems I had been having with certain persons
working there. (It seemed to me that she was worried do to who these
people I had been having problems with were).
-
I'll try to summarise the problems surrounding the complaint-process and the
meeting on 22/6:
- The police didn't tell me was calling when they called me on 15/6
instructing me
to met at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6.
- The police didn't tell me the agenda for the meeting on 22/6, before the
meeting.
- The police didn't address the individual complaints from the complaint
from 3/5, neighter
in the meeting on 22/6, or in their letter from 10/7.
- The police didn't investigate the documents I told them I had, which I
told them in the
meetin on 22/6, could help explain what went on at Arvato while I was
working there.
- The police says in their letter from 10/7, that I have been raising issues
in terms of
'The Norwegian Mafia'. But I have never heard about or refered to the term
'the Norwegian
mafia', so the police must have been misunderstanding what I said in the
meeting on 10/7.
- In their answering-letter, the police haven't addressed the issue I
brought up in the
meeting on 10/7, that I had been adviced by the Embassy to tell the British
and Norwegian
police to cooperate on the case. But in the letter from 10/7, it isn't
mentioned at all,
if there has been any contact at all with the Norwegian police regarding
this.
- In the meeting on 22/6, I mentioned to Sgt. Smite, that I had been having
problems
with the Merseyside Police, on repeted occations, having promised to call me
back,
but then not having called. I explained that this procedure made it
difficult to me,
to report about what I knew about the cases, and to get any meaningful
dialog.
I threfore expressed in the meeting, a request, if I please could get a
contact-person,
in the Merseyside Police, which I could contact, and get a dialog with, and
tell about
the things I knew regarding the different crime-cases that had been going
on.
Yet, in the letter from the police from 10/7, this isn't brought up at all,
and I have
so far in 2007, not recieved a single call from the Merseyside Police about
this, or
about anything else.
So these problems from the meeting/complaint process, together with the 18
individual complaints
from the complaint from 3/5, which I have exlained about above, and which
haven't been dealt
with at all in the Merseyside Police letter from 10/7, are the reasons for
which I am appealing.
Also, my complaint from 3/5, is like I have explained above, regarding
problems with the
liasons, or contact, with the police.
Like I've also explained earlier, I'm not an expert on police methods, and
I've been a bit
confused about why the police seemingly don't want to cooperate with me.
I've looked at it as certain, that maybe even if the Merseyside police
haven't seemed to want
to cooperate with me about the problems at Arvato etc., I've taken it as
certain, that the
Merseyside police, like any responsilbe Police-unit, would investigate the
things that have
been going on at Arvato, when I've been telling them when I've met up at the
police-station
in Novemeber last year, on several occations telling them about my concerns
about org. criminal
activity in the company.
When I've in the meetings with Sgt. Camel on 16/1, in the several talks with
Constable Holmes,
and in the meeting with Sgt. O'Brian on 1/3.
When I've in these expressed my concern about what has been going on in the
Arvato company, and
also explained to them that I'm worried about my former collegues that were
still working there,
because it seemed to me that some of them must have been under control by
criminals.
And when I also mention to the Merseyside Police that I have been in contact
with the Embassy,
and later also the Consulate, and I give a larger number, several hundred,
documents, that
helps show that there has been something goving on there.
And when I've also sent e-mails, on my last day working at Arvato, to a
number of British and
Norwegian newspapers and tv-stations, and also to the parent-company, that
it's clear to me
that there is a problem with organised criminal activity in the company.
If the fact, that the police are still ignoring my plea to get a
contact-person and a dialog
with the police, to get a chance to tell them everything I know about the
problems at Arvato,
(and also about the other problems from Liverpool and Norway).
If the fact that they are still ignoring this request, means that they
haven't been investigating
the problems at Arvato at all, then I off course think that this is serious.
And I guess, since
I haven't been reading about the problems at Arvato in the newspapers or
otherwere, and since
I see from the letter the Merseyside police sent me on 10/7, that the police
doesn't seem to be
interested in letting me tell them what I know about (since they haven't
commented on the problems
I have been having with the contact with the police at all).
Due to this I have to presume that nothing has been done about the problems
at Arvato then.
Problems which to me seems like they are serious, and it seems to me that
some of the people
that were working there, at the same time I was working there, was under
control by criminals.
(This got clear to me at the end of the time I worked there, thats why I
sent the e-mails to
the newspapers etc., and this is also why I went to the police and told them
about this all
those times from November 2006.).
I've also explained about what it seems to me must have been going on at
Arvato, to the Norwegian
Embassy, and the Norwegian Police, since there were many Norwegians and
Scandinavians working
at the Arvato campaign which I was working on.
But if it even, after I've tryed to tell all of these about the problems, if
there still hasn't
been investigating what has been going on at Arvato (Which I find highly
unlikly, since I think
any responsible police-force of course would have investigated serious cases
like this. But
I mention this anyway, due to the ignorance from the police regarding my
plea to tell the police
what I know about what has been going on).
Because then, since it also hasn't been about this in the news, then I have
to presume that the
problems at Arvato haven't been investigated by the Merseyiside Police at
all, or by anyone
else, so then I think the only responsible think would be to try get advice
on how this problem,
with the semingly organised crime activity at the Arvato company, should
addressed, when the
police are igonring the problem.
So if you at the IPCC have any idea on how to go forward then. I guess thats
a complaint about
the Merseyside Police as a police-force, as well as a complaint against
individual police-
officers, like it is in the complaints you are dealing with.
But I reackoned that I might as well ask you now then, how I should go
forward, to get the police
to investigate the problems with the organised criminal activity at Arvato,
which seeems clear
to me from working there, and which I also have documents that supports the
occurance of.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself a bit at the end here, but I think that these
problems should
be dealt with in a responsilbe way.
And it doesn't seem to me that the complaint with the problems with the
liasons is being dealt
with in a responsible way from the Merseyside Police.
And this makes a bit worried about if the problems with my former collegues
from Arvoto which
it seemed to me must have been under control by criminal, also is being
dealt with in an
irresponsible way.
Thats why I'm bringing this up now, even if I'm not sure if it's the right
time and place, but
I hope that maybe you could maybe give some advice on how to go forward with
this problem as
well, with the org. criminal activity at Arvato, and the problems with the
people working
there seeming to be under control by criminals.
Even if this complaint originaly only was regarding the problems with the
contact with the
police, because I was sure that the police would deal with a case like that
responsible,
no matter what they inform me about what they are doing.
But I must admit that the way the police have been dealing with my complaint
from 3/5, with the
problems surrounding the meeting on 22/6, and the answering-letter from
10/7.
I think issues have been dealt with a bit unprofessional by the police, so
the unprofessionalism
from them surrounding these issues, has made me a bit uncertain as to if
they are dealing with
the problems at Arvato in a responsible way at all.
So thats why I thought I'd bring this up now, while I was dealing with the
relating issues
in the appeal.
So I hope that this is alright, and that it's possible for you have a look
at the issues I've
brought up in this appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 8/15/07, Joanne Fitzgerald wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog,
>
> Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission
> (IPCC).
>
> The information we require, should you wish to appeal the police's
> decision to not formally record your complaint, is set out in the Appeal
> Form that I have posted to you. I have also now attached the relevant
> appeal form with this email for your consideration - this electronic version
> can be printed out, completed and returned by post. You may complete an
> Appeal Form or provide the same required information in an email.
>
> Please be aware that if you wish to submit an appeal we must receive your
> appeal within 28 days of the date of me informing you of your right to
> appeal.
>
> I hope this information has assisted you.
>
> Please contact me if you have any further questions,
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Joanne
>
> *Joanne Fitzgerald*
> Casework Manager
> Independent Police Complaints Commission
> 90 High Holborn
> London
> WC1V 6BH
> Tel: 020 7166 3182
> Fax: 020 7166 3642
> Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 15 August 2007 00:24
> *To:* Joanne Fitzgerald
> *Subject:* Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
>
>
> Hi,
>
> thank you very much for your e-mail!
>
> I will definatly appeal against the decision not to investigate the
> complaint.
>
> I'm just a bit busy with work and other issues at the moment, but I'm
> going
> to look up in the letter about how one should appeal formally, one of the
> next
> days, and then I'll send a more formal appeal if thats needed.
>
> Or else, please tell me if you think this e-mail can be considered as a
> formal
> appeal, if not, then I'll send a new e-mail one of the next days.
>
> Hope that this is alright!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
> On 8/14/07, Joanne Fitzgerald wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribsskog,
> >
> > Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission
> > (IPCC).
> >
> > I have contacted Merseyside Professional Standards Department to
> > establish the current status of your complaint. I was informed by
> > Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be concerned
> > with allegations of misconduct against individual police officers and
> > therefore decided not to formally record your complaint under the Police
> > Reform Act 2002.
> >
> > If you disagree with the decision by Merseyside Police to not formally
> > record your complaint, then you have a right to appeal to the IPCC to
> > independently review the police's decision. I have sent you the relevant
> > appeal form today in the post (Appealing Against a Complaint Not Being
> > Recorded) and this form is also available online at our website
> > (www.ipcc.gov.uk), should this assist you further. Please note, should
> > you wish to appeal, we must receive your appeal form within 28 days.
> >
> > If you have any further questions then please do not hesitate to contact
> >
> > me.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Joanne
> >
> > Joanne Fitzgerald
> > Casework Manager
> > Independent Police Complaints Commission
> > 90 High Holborn
> > London
> > WC1V 6BH
> > Tel: 020 7166 3182
> > Fax: 020 7166 3642
> > Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ******************************************************************************
> > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> > privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
> > recipient
> > please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying
> > or
> > distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The
> > content of
> > this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily
> > those
> > of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
> > accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
> > computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of
> > your
> > receipt of this email.
> >
> > Independent Police Complaints Commission
> > 90 High Holborn
> > London,
> > WC1V 6BH.
> > ******************************************************************************
> >
> >
> > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> > Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership
> > with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi
> > this email was certified virus free.
> > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> > recorded for legal purposes.
> >
>
>
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government
> Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership
> with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of
> problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>
>
>
>
> ******************************************************************************
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
> recipient
> please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
>
> distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content
> of
> this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily
> those
> of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
> accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
> computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
>
> receipt of this email.
>
> Independent Police Complaints Commission
> 90 High Holborn
> London,
> WC1V 6BH.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership
> with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi
> this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>
>
To: Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk Joanne Fitzgerald
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:22:32 +0000
Subject: Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
Hi,
here is the appeal against the decision not to formally record my complaint:
Please give the name of the police force your complaint was about:
Merseyside Police
If you recieved a letter from the police telling you that they will not be
recording your complaint,
please give the date of that letter:
10/7/07
Mr. Erik Ribsskog
Flat 3
5 Leather Lane
L2 2AE
Liverpool
01512363298/07758349954
eribsskog@gmail.com
Date you made your complaint:
3/5/07
Who did you make your complaint to:
To the IPCC.
How did you make your complaint:
By e-mail.
Please provide brief details about the complaint that you made:
I had been reporting about some problems that seems clear to me to involve
organised
crime at the place which I worked to the police on several occations from
November
last year.
I had been having some problems with the police being supposed to call me
back regarding
this, but they didn't call back, even if contacted the police-station to
inform them about this.
So, when I was at the CAB regarding advice on when one needed a criminal
solicitors.
(Since the solicitor that I had met in a duty solicitors meeting at the CAB
had informed me
that Morecrofts couldn't help me if I needed a criminal solicitor. But it
wasn't clear to me
when one would need a criminal solicitor, so I contacted the CAB again, and
was told that
this was if one were being accused of doing something wrong.
The Morecrofts solicitor had said that the case was both an employment-case,
and a
criminal-case, so I asked the advisor at the CAB, on how I should go forward
with the
criminal part of the case.
And I was ansered that I should bring this up in liasons with the police.
I had been trying to do this from before, but I had been having some
problems involving the
police not calling me back when they said they would.
So I asked the advisor what I should do if I had problems with the liasons
with the police.
And the advisor said that I should bring it up with the CPS or the
Law-society.
I asked about this as a precaution, so that I knew what to do if the police
still didn't contact
me after the new meeting there.
So, some weeks later, when they still hadn't contacted me, then I contacted
the CPS about
the problems with the liasons with the police.
The CPS answered that they didn't have the powers to investiagte a case, and
told me to
contact the IPCC.
Which I did on 3/5, I sent the IPCC a complaint regarding the problems I've
been having with the
liasons with the police. (Or 'the contact with the police', like I wrote in
the e-mail I sent you on 3/5).
In the complaint, I had listed up 18 individual complaints about thing I
though were dealt with wrongly
by the police in relation to my contact with them.
I'll try to specify how I thought the police conducted wrongly:
1. The police-constable wouldn't let me report a crime.
2. The police adviced me to go back to work, even if I had told them that
the company was
infiltradet/taken over by a criminal organisation. I think that this was
irresponsible by the police.
3. On 16/1/07 Sergant Camel told me to take the case to the CAB, even if he
knew I was
unemployed, and couldn't afford to pay a solicitor £140/hour to deal with
the case.
I though that this was irresponsible by the Sergant. (The police should have
investigated the
case themselves).
(Also, I remember from the meeting on 16/1, that Sgt. Camel wanted me to
take the case to
the CAB, and then to a solicitor and the Crowns Court.
I haven't been living in Britain that long, so I wasn't sure what the CAB
was. But I remember
I asked the Sergant if the CAB were government. And the sergant said 'yes'.
Later (maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago), I have been browsing the CAB website looking
for some
information there, and I've seen on the CAB website, that CAB is actually a
charity.
So, it's now clear to me that Sgt. Camel actually lied to me about this in
the meeting
at the policestation on 16/1.
If he had told me that the CAB was a charity, then I would
have objected much stronger
on brining the case to them, I would have insisting stronger on the
right department of
the police to deal with it.
But that the Sergant told me that the CAB were government, and that the
solicitor I would
get to speak with there, would send the case back to the police if they
thought it was
a matter for the police, confused me, and since I hadn't been living that
long in Britain,
and I'm not so used to dealing with the police, and I wasn't sure if I as a
Norwegian,
could demand what the police should do, so thats why I after contacting the
police
a number of more times trying to get them to deal with the case, (but they
still
insited on me going to the CAB with it), thats why I ended up at the CAB
with it,
beliving the CAB was a government organisation.
4. The police didn't want to investigate the case, even if I told them I had
documents
that would show that it was a crime-case.
(And I also told the police on 16/1, that I was worried about my collegues
that were
still working in the complany, that they were under control by the
criminals).
5. The police didn't want to look at the evidence/documents on my laptop on
22/1,
saying it was a breach of the data protection act. Even if I think it must
be obvious that
since I myself let them look at the documents, then this couldn't have been
a data
protection issue.
6. That constable Keith Holmes didn't call me back, even if
constable Victoria Steele
told me on 22/1 that she would ask Holmes to call me back.
This happened a lot of times, that the police said they would call me back,
but they
didn't. It's difficult for me to say what happened in this situation. If
Holmes got the
message or not. There could be some problems with the routines at the
police-station,
or it could have been a mistake from eighter Steele or Holmes.
7. The constable who was in the 'reception' on 24/1 and 25/1 didn't wear
collar-number-
tags. I think police should be expected to wear their tag-numbers, because I
know
there are rules about things like this, even eg. shop-assistants are
instructed to
wear their name-tags, so I think the police, having an important funciton in
society,
also should wear some kind of indification, so that it's possible for
members of the
public to identify the serviceman/woman they have been talking with. (In
case
something wrong is being said or done by the constable/officer).
8. The constable that didn't wear number-tags on 24/1 and 25/1, promised me
that
she would get Victoria Steele to call me back regarding the case.
But Steele didn't call. This is a similar problem I think to complaint 6,
and this happened
a lot of times, I was promised maybe 10 times by different
officers/constables that the
police would call me back, but I wasn't called back by the police a single
time in 2007.
I was only called back once in November 2006.
(And I was promised to be called back about ten times or more in 2007, and
they didn't
call a single time).
9. I went to the police in January, and gave them copies of the documents in
which I
thought that it would be possible to find evidence about the problem with a
criminal
organisation of some kind having infiltrated/taking over the company I had
worked in.
I gave the documents (many hundred sheets) to Steele, who gave it to Holmes.
When I spoke with Holmes two or three weeks later, he said he had only read
a bit
on the top of the pile, a bit in the middle, and a bit on the bottom of the
pile.
And he still said it was an employment-case, and that I should go to the
CAB.
By then I had 'argued' so much with the police about this, that I didn't
know if it
would be right for me as a Norwegian to continue arguing with the British
police about
this.
But, I remebered Sgt. Camel had said earlier that the CAB would send it back
to the
police if they thought it was right.
And thought that maybe it was because I was from another country that they
wouldn't
listen to me at the police-station, and maybe they weren't used to dealing
that much
with documents for all that I knew.
So I thought that it would maybe be just as smart to have a lawyer at the
CAB have a
look at it, and send it back, maybe this would convince the police to have a
look at, and
investigate the case.
(It could be of couse, that the police investigated it, but didn't tell me
about this. I had
been at the police-station several times in November and later explaining
about the case.
I'm not an expert in police-methods, but I guessed that it could be that the
police investigated
without telling me, for some reason, I wasn't sure, but I reackoned that
this could be the case,
since I would have thought that the British Police would deal with a matter
like this in a
responsible way.)
But in the complaint about the liasons with the police, I could only relate
to what I knew for
sure, and I knew for sure that Constable Holmes didn't look properly through
the documents
I delivered to the police-station for him to give to an investigator.
So I thought that it was irresponsible by constable Holmes to not read
throught the documents
proberly, and to not give them to an investigator.
10. The police sent me a letter on 16/2, where they called me 'Miss Erik
Ribsskog'. I think, like
the British representative on the Norwegian Consulate in the India Building
said, that it should
be obvious to Brits that Erik and Eric is the same name, and it therefore
must be someone
making jokes and not taking their job serious.
Like I had explained in meetings at the police-station, it seemed to me that
some of my collegues
in the complany, probably must have been under control by criminals. So I
thought this was an important
case, and then to start making jokes like this in an important case. I think
thats irresponsible and
it seems like a joke that small kids could have made. So this makes me
worried that things could be
out of control at the police-station.
11. In the meeting on 1/2, Sergant O'Brian told me to move from the chair I
sat down with at the
table, (even if I sat in the same chair in the meeting there with Sgt. Camel
and the constable on
16/1).
So I had to move to another chair, at the other side of the table, I think
that Sgt. O'Brian was acting
patronising towards me when he 'ordered' me to sit in the other chair.
12. In the meeting at the St. Ann's police-station on 1/3, the 'ginger'
police-constable, wouldn't let
me present the issues about which I had contacted the police-station to the
Sergant O'Brian, but
insisted on presenting the things I wanted to bring up in the meeting to the
Sergant himself.
So this made me lose a bit control on how the issues were presented, and it
seemed to me that
I was being patronised by the police-constable.
And this made it diffucult for me to present the things I wanted to bring
up, in the way I intended
to present it, and also it made me more of a spectator than a participant in
the meeting.
I guess it could be that it was O'Brian who should have told the constable
to let me explain myself,
because I think they should have let me explain my concerns myself.
13. So in the meeting on 1/3, I was a bit confused if I was supposed to
exlain about my concerns
to Sgt. O'Brian myself, or if this was the job of the constable.
So this made me a bit confused about how they meant the meeting to be
conducted, and what they
wanted my role in the meeting to be.
14. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian said that he thought the problem
with the case not having any
progress with being dealt with by the police, was due to the case having
being dealt with by a large
number of police servicemen.
So, he suggested, that to find out exactly what had been going on, they
would ask constable Steele
to call me, and tell me what she had been doing with the documents after I
gave them to her.
I think this was irresponsible by the Sergant. He must have understood that
to find out what the police
had been doing, would be a job for the police.
So I think that he should have taken the job of finding out what the police
had been doing, that he should
have taken the responsibility of finding this out himself.
And of course, investigate the case himself, instead of not doing anything,
other that saying I had to find
out what the police had been doing so far.
So I thought this was very irresponsible by Sgt. O'Brian.
15. This is connected with point 14. That I think Sgt. O'Brian should have
investigated himself:
1. What the police had done regarding the case so far. (And not telling me
to find out about this.)
2. Investigate the case further.
Sgt. O'Brian didn't do eighter of these actions, and I think that this was
very irresponsible.
16. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian was very un-calm, and this together
with the patronising
I was subjected to (which is explained in point 11 and 12), made it
difficult for me to bring up
the issues I wanted to bring up in the way I had intended.
So I think that (especially since I haven't been living in Britain that
long, and had to 'compete'
with to British police-servicemen who were patronising me in the meeting),
because of this,
I think that the Sergant should have tryed to remain calm in the meeting,
since I think when
one have a job as a public serviceman, then it's important that one are
capable of comunicating
with the public.
And then to be so un-calm in the meeting, can make it difficult for the
meeting and the comunication
to be conducted in a meaningful way, since the things the Sergant said had
marks of not being
very thorowly considered. (Like he told me that I had to make sure that my
former employer and
the job-agency got in touch about the letter I had brought there, even if it
was obvious from that
letter that they already were in touch, and the Sergant was reading the
letter explaining about
this).
So I think the Sergant must have been so un-calm that he didn't get the
meaning of the letter.
And I didn't want to aggrivate or make the Sergant even more un-calm, so I
just had to pretend
to agree with him.
I though that I would rather call the Sergant later, and explain about this
later, when he was in
a calmer state.
An I think that when one as a member of the public, contacts the police,
about important things
like this, then one should expect to be treated in professional way by the
police.
So when the police are patronising you, and like I mention in this
individual complaint, the police
Sergant in charge of the meeting, isn't capable to keep control of himself
and remain calm, in
a way that the meeting could be conducted in a professional and meaningful
way.
I think that if the Sergant in charge of the meeting isn't capable of doing
this, then this is a reason
to complain. (Because I don't think members of the public should be treated
in an unprofessional
and unpolite way when they are contacting the police).
17. Sgt. O'Brian said in the meeting on 1/3, that they would get constable
Steele to call me back
about what the police had been doing with the case so far.
Victoria Steele didn't call, and I called back to the police-station several
times, and was told that
she was on holiday.
I also called back several times after she should have been back, but she
was never present.
The people I talked with at the police-station, told me several times that
they would get Steele
to call, yet she never called.
This problem happened very often. (That I was promised someone from the
police would call
me back, but that they didn't call at all in 2007).
18. The same in this individual complaint.
When I tryed calling Steele, but didn't suceed in getting in contact with
her at all.
Then I tried to call Sgt. O'Brian on several phone-numbers I was given by
the central, and
by St. Ann's police-station.
I didn't manage to get hold of Sgt. O'Brian eighter, and after trying to get
in contact with
Constable Steele and Sergant O'Brian for weeks, without getting hold of
them, and without
any of them returning my calls.
Then I went to the Norwegian Consulat in the India Building, asking The
Consulate if they
had any advice for me, on how to get in contact with Constable Steele or
Sgt. Obrian.
The Consulate-representative, Liz Hurley, went and called Sgt. O'Brian,
while I was at
the Consulate on 19/3.
Liz Hurley said, that she had been talking with O'Brian, and that O'Brian
had told her that
'he remembered the case'.
Yet, Sgt. O'Brian still didn't call me back, even after recieving this
reminder by the Norwegian
Consulate representative.
Sgt. O'Brian still hadn't called me back when I sent you the complaint on
3/5, and he still
haven't called me back when I'm writing this appeal now on 26/8.
I think this is very unprofessional of the Sergant. On the meeting on 1/3, I
showed the
constable and Sergant O'Brian the explanation I had written were I explain
about
my concern about what was going on in the company, and I remember the
Sergant
was reading the explanation, he got it from the constable.
And I had written that it was clear to me that some of my collages in the
company was
under control by criminals.
(I had written it in capital letters, because I was a bit tired of the
police not taking any
actions after I had gone to the police-station reporting about this several
times in
November, then in the meeting with Sgt. Cambel in January, and then in the
talks
with Constable Holmes also in January.
I wasn't sure if the police was taking this as serious as they should, so I
tryed to
write it in a document, why I think they should act. I even wrote some of it
in capital
letters, so to show that I meant this seriously, and to maybe get them to
wake up).
And it was this document that I remember O'Brian read, and still they didn't
even return
my calls, even after reading that document, and having seen how important I
thought
the case was.
And in the meeting on 1/3, I also showed the Constable and the Sergant the
letter from
the Solicitor from 27/2, where the Solicitor writes that:
'As I explained, Morecrofts do not deal with criminal law and would not be
able to advise you
on this aspect although some further perusal of your papers may reveal some
information that
will assist the police.'
Even if I showed the Sergant this letter from the Solicitor, still the
Sergant didn't want to investigate/
look at the papers/documents I had. And even if he had read this letter and
the the letter where
I explain that I'm worried about some of my collueges being under control by
criminals in the
company I used to work, and also even if he got a call about this from the
Norwegian Consulate,
still he didn't even return my calls.
I think this was very irresponsible and unprofessional by the Sergant. And
it was this behaviour from
the Sergant that I thought was the 'final drop', so to speak, and lead me to
complain about the
police to the CPS.
And then, after recieving my complaint, the CPS adviced me to contact you,
so thats why
I sent you the e-mail with the complaint on 3/5.
Please tell us why you would like to appeal about the way your complaint was
handled:
The police force didn't record my complaint.
Please explain why you want to appeal:
Well, like I exlained above, I think that the police force should deal with
members of the
public in a professional and aproriate way.
All of the 18 individual complaint I have mentioned, are situations, where I
think the police
have acted in a way which I think is below the standard you could expect
from a responsible
police force.
And when I complain about the police not letting me report a crime (like in
complaint 1), and
the police acting irresponsible with sending me back to work even if the
complany was
controled by criminals (complaint 2), lying to me about the CAB being a
government
organisation (even if I discovered the lying later, complaint 3), the police
refusing to
investgate a serious criminal case, involiving people being held under
control, seemingly
like slaves, by criminals (complaint 4), the police lying to me again,
saying that
it would be a breach on the data protection act if they looked at some
documents
on my laptop. (complaint 5), that the police acted irresponsible, on
numerous occations,
when I was promised the police would call me back, but they didn't. I would
think that
this happened to many times to it being coincidental, I would think that
some type of
misconduct is the reason for this way of treatment by the police (numerous
complaints, eg.
complaint 6, 8, 17 and 18).
That the police constable didn't give the documents I gave him regarding a
serious crime-
case to an investigator (complaint 9), that the police insulted me, calling
me 'Miss Erik
Ribsskog', in their letter from 16/2, when it should be obvious, as I have
got confirmed by
a British representative working for the Norwegian Consulate, that it should
be obvious
for Brits that Erik and Eric is the same name, and due to this, the police
were inpolite
towards me, since they called me 'Miss', even if they should know that my
name isn't
a girls name.
That Sgt. O'Brian was, I would go as far as to say he was harassing me, and
were
patronising towards me in the meeting on the police-station on 1/3,
described in
complaint 11-18.
That Sgt. O'Brian was acting irresponsible in not investigating a serious
crime-case,
even if the Solicitor had written in the letter that she thought this could
be a matter
for the police, and even if he was called by the Norwegian Consulate, and
still didn't
return my calls.
And also that he left it to me, a member of the public, to find out how the
police had
been dealing with the case, instead of dealing with it himself.
And also that he was 'in a state' in the meeting, not giving me a chance to
explain
about the issues in the way I had intended, due to having to focus on not
trying
to aggrivate the Sergant any more, that is to try to get him calm down,
taking
the focus away from presenting the actual issues I had gone there to
present.
I think the harassment, patronisment, unprofesionalism from the Sergant in
the
meeting on 1/3 certainly qualifyes to problems with the liasons with the
police, like
I initialy complained about, but also to beind misconduct like I see now
that it has
to be, for the police to deal with the complaint.
Also the other issues I've mentioned under this section 'Why you want to
appeal',
I think they also must be misconduct, like when the Constable didn't want to
let
me report a crime in complaint 1, and the refusal to investigate a serious
crime-case
in complaint 2, the later discovered lying in complain 3 etc. (see section
above).
So when I read in your e-mail from 14/8, that 'I was informed by
Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be concerned
with allegations of misconduct against individual police officers and
therefore decided not to formally record your complaint under the Police
Reform Act 2002.', then I can't agree with the Merseyside Police that my
complaint isn't being deemed as being concerd with allegations of
misconduct against individual police officers.
I can't see that the lying, the harrasment, the insults, the not alowing a
member
of the public to report a crime case, the refusal to investigate a serious
crime-case,
and the other mentioned issues (see above).
I cant see that these things shouldn't be considered as misconduct.
Thats my view, I'm not sure how police are expected to conduct themselves in
this
country, but if I use my head and think by myself how I would have thought
that
the police were meant to conduct themselves, and then think about the way
the
police-officers have conducted themselves, which I have described in this
complaint,
then I'd say that the police-officers have misconducted.
Also, while I'm dealing with this, I thought I'd mention some points from
the complaint-
procedure:
The police called me a week before the meeting at Walton Lane police station
on 22/6.
The police-woman that called on 15/6, didn't tell me her name, even if I
asked who I should
say that I had spoken with.
She just instructed me to report at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6 at a
certain time,
and ask to speak with Sgt. Smithe.
I thought that they would probably ask me who had called me and told me to
meet there,
so I asked her who I should tell them that I had been speaking with.
But she didn't say her name, she just said that I should say that I had been
called by
the police.
And she didn't tell me at all what the meeting was about.
I used to live in Walton about a year ago, and I'd also been in contact with
the police in
Walton (and also the St. Ann's police-station), about some problems I had
been having
org. criminals in Oslo and Liverpool.
And also when I lived in Walton, I rented a room in a shared house, and
there were also
problems going on in the house which I have reported to the Walton Lane
police.
And also when I was living in the shared house, due to reasons unknown to
me, and I
hadn't been living in Britain long enough then to understand about all the
things
surounding Council-tax.
But for some reason, I don't think any of the tenants revieved council-tax
bills (or tv-licensing
bills), when they were living in the shared house in Mandeville St. in
Walton.
So I wasn't completly sure about why it was that the police had called me
and instructed
me to meet at the Walton Lane police-station.
I thought, of course, that it could be to do with the complaint. But I
wasn't completly sure,
I thought it also could be with the cases I had reported about earlier
regarding problems with
org. criminials in Oslo and Liverpool.
I also thought there could be a chance it was regarding the problem with the
missing council
tax and tv-licensing bills from the Mandeville shared house. (Problems which
I had intended
to bring up togheter with a lot of other problems, once I'd got set up a
dialog with the police,
once I'd got a contact-person and a dialog at the police, and could start to
focus on trying
to explain all details with the earlier reported problems in Norway and
Liverpool).
And I wanted the police to deal with the things I had brought up seriously.
And I was a bit
afraid to 'make a fool of myself', if I called the Walton Lane
police-station, and asked to
speak with Sgt. Smithe, to ask what the meeting was about.
Because then I reackoned that I had to explain who had called me about the
meeting, and
I couldn't really be sure that the Sergant was working on Walton Lane
police-station
permanently. He could be in a specialised police-department for all that I
know, who dealt
with police complaint cases, and who was stationed somewhere else, maybe
even out of
town, for all that I knew. And only was supposed to be at the Walton Lane
police-station
for the meeting regarding the complaint-case.
So, since I didn't want to make a bad impression, (makine a fool of myself),
since I'm a
bit clumsy sometimes with my manners etc, since I haven't been living in
Britain that
long, due to this, I found it best to just show for the meeting, and not
call to ask any
questions regarding the agenda.
I also guessed that if it was meant for me to contact them back regarding
things surrounding
the meeting, then I would have got a contact-name there, like the
police-woman calling
would have told me her name, and told me that if I had any questions, then I
could contact
this and this person.
But since no such contact-name was given to me, then I guessed that I wasn't
meant to
know what the meeting was about, before the meeting.
So I didn't know exactly how to prepare for the meeting.
And when the meeting started, I had to ask the Sergant if the meeting was
about the complaint,
to be sure.
In the meeting, we didn't discuss the issues regarding problems with the
liasons with the
police at all.
Somehow, we ended up discussing the cases that I had complained about to the
Walton
Lane police-station before. (The problems with org. criminals in Oslo and
Liverpool).
I wrote some notes down when I got home from the meeting, here are some of
the points.
- Core of case: Followed by mafia in Norway, and this has continued in
England (Ppl. from
work etc).
(This is about some problems I had in Norway, and which I have reported
about to the police
in Norway and England.
It was on my workplace in Oslo. I was working as an assistant shop-manager,
while I was studying.
And then I got some problems with the my face being more or less distroyed
(its a long story), and
I still went to work a few days (I didn't think it was so serious, so I
thought the problems with the
face-skin would pass), and then I overheard a couple of conversations about
me behind my back so to
speak, eg. one conversation I overheard I heard it being said (they were
talking about my face which
was more or less distroyed), and I head them say: 'I've heard that he's also
followed by the mafia'.
And also I heard other customers say, about me, 'he isn't afraid (eg. he
goes to work as normal
I think they must have meant) even if he's being followed by the mafia'.
This was just some of what happened, I've tryed to explain about these
things to the police in
Norway and Britain, but I haven't been able to find someone who want's to
deal with and investigate
this, and let me explain all I know about this.
But I mentioned it to the Sergant in the meeting on 22/6.
But he writes in the answer-letter that 'I have since had the oppertunity to
examine the issues you
raised in terms of organised criminality and the Norwegian Mafia.'.
Well, I haven't actually menioned anything about a 'Norwegian Mafia'. I have
never heard of, or
menioned a 'Norwegian mafia'.
I always thought that the people I overheard at my old workplace in Oslo,
was refering to the
Albanian mafia, since this was the only mafia I had heard that were being
present in Oslo.
So, when the Sergant is writing about 'the Norwegian Mafia' in his letter,
then I get a bit
concerned that maybe there have been some misunderstanings in the
comunications,
since I've never used the term 'Norwegian mafia', and I've never heard of or
refered to
any Norwegian Mafia, so I think we must have been speaking past eachother a
bit
in the meeting.
We were also taling a bit of the Arvato company which I had reported the
problems
with being infiltrated by org. criminals.
(I said I thought the problems with org. criminals in Liverpool probably had
to be connected
with the problems in Oslo, since I found it unlikly that the lightening
would strike at the
same place twice so to speak).
I can see in my notes that the Sergant thought that Arvato had a Swedish
parent-company,
but I told him that it wasn't Swedish, but German. (Bertelsman).
I also told him that I thought it would be very fine to have a contact
person at the police,
since the police didn't return my calls, and also since I had a lot of
information regarding
the different cases which I still hadn't got an oppertunity to report to the
police, yet this
haven't been addressed in the answering-letter.
Like I've explained above, the police have been suposed to call me on more
than ten occations,
but they haven't called me in 2007 at all.
So I think they should take this problem a bit more serious. They are
ignoring this problem
in their answering-letter, and I can't really say that I'm sure what to do
if some incidents
happens now, for which I would have needed the assitance of the police. I'm
not sure what
I should do if this happens, I don't really want to call the police, just to
be ignored even
more.
So I think they should have brought up this issue in their answering-letter.
In the meeting, the Sergant asked me what I wanted the police to do, and I
answered that I
wanted the police to investigate the case with the problems with the
Arvato-company
having problems with infiltration by org. criminals.
I explained to the Sergant that I had a lot of documents that helped showing
this, and that
I think he should maybe have a look at these documents, in concetion with
his investigation.
Yet, I wasn't contacted back by the Sergant at all, before I got the letter
that he couldn't
find any evidence to substantiatie my claims.
So, I think that the Sergant should maybe have had a look at the documents
then, like I
suggested to him in the meeting. Maybe this could have helped him. He says
he haven't
found any evidence to substantiate my claims. But when he didn't even have a
look at
the documents, which I explained about to him that I had in the meeting,
then it's seems
a bit to me that he didn't really try that hard to find any evidence.
Because in the meeting I told him that he could just contact me if he wanted
to have at
the documents I had from working in the company, but the Sergant didn't
contact me
back about this.
I've also been in contact with the Norwegian Embassy in London, regarding
the problems
with org. crime in Oslo and in Arvato-company and elsewhere in Liverpool.
The Embassy, told me that if I wanted the British and Norwegian police to
cooperate
on these issues, then I had to tell the Brisish and Norwegian police myself
that I
wanted them to cooperate about this.
So, I aslo see this in my notes, I made sure to tell the Sergant that I
wanted the British
police to cooperate with the Norwegian police about these issues. (I've also
earlier told
the Norwegian police the same, that I want them, like the Embassy adviced,
to cooperate
with the British police on this.)
I also gave the Sergant the name of the Norwegian police-officer who knew
most about
the case in Norway. (Who was working in a similar Norwegian Department, that
is the
department that investigates the regular police). This because Sgt. Smithe
asked who
in Norway he could contact about this, and I didn't really know who else
that knew
enough about this.
Yet, in the answering letter, there is no mention about this, if the British
police have
been in contact with the Norwegian police or not, so I would have to asume
that
they haven't been in contact then, even if I asked them to do this, on
advice from
the Embassy, in the meeting.
I told the Sergant that I had even contacted the Norwegian Consulate, and
that the
Consulate-representative contacted Sgt. O'Brian, reminding him that I had
tryed to
get in contact with him regarding the case, but still, Sgt. O'Brian didn't
call me back.
And this is neigther addressed in the answering-letter.
I gave Sgt. Smithe some copies of explanations about the further problems
with
criminals in Norway, that they tried to kill me on the farm belonging to the
woman
my uncle lived with there, in the summer of 2005, and thats why I went away
from
Norway again and settled in Liverpool.
And I gave the Sergant the log-number from when I reported about the
problems
with criminals in Oslo and Liverpool to the Walton Lane police-station in
the
Automn of 2005.
(I've also been in contact with the Merseyside police regarding these
problems
several times before this, and also after this, in the spring and summer of
2006.
And then also again with the frequent contact about the problems in the
Arvato
company from November 2006).
I told the Sergant that it seemed to me, and that this was supported by the
documents I had, that all the different departments on Arvato was involved
in
this problem, with being taken over/infiltraded by org. criminals.
But the Sergant still didn't contact me back to have a look at the
documents.
I see from my notes that I told Sgt. Smithe that I had been in contact with
a Norwegian Police-officer, in the special department that investigates the
regular police, earlier the same week, about that had been surrounding this
in Oslo.e problems in Oslo.
Further from my notes, I see that I told the Sergant that it seemed to me
that
the police were worried, when they called me in the night, around midnight,
in late Novemeber 2006, and asked me to contact higher management
at Arvato, regarding the problems I had been having with certain persons
working there. (It seemed to me that she was worried do to who these
people I had been having problems with were).
-
I'll try to summarise the problems surrounding the complaint-process and the
meeting on 22/6:
- The police didn't tell me was calling when they called me on 15/6
instructing me
to met at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6.
- The police didn't tell me the agenda for the meeting on 22/6, before the
meeting.
- The police didn't address the individual complaints from the complaint
from 3/5, neighter
in the meeting on 22/6, or in their letter from 10/7.
- The police didn't investigate the documents I told them I had, which I
told them in the
meetin on 22/6, could help explain what went on at Arvato while I was
working there.
- The police says in their letter from 10/7, that I have been raising issues
in terms of
'The Norwegian Mafia'. But I have never heard about or refered to the term
'the Norwegian
mafia', so the police must have been misunderstanding what I said in the
meeting on 10/7.
- In their answering-letter, the police haven't addressed the issue I
brought up in the
meeting on 10/7, that I had been adviced by the Embassy to tell the British
and Norwegian
police to cooperate on the case. But in the letter from 10/7, it isn't
mentioned at all,
if there has been any contact at all with the Norwegian police regarding
this.
- In the meeting on 22/6, I mentioned to Sgt. Smite, that I had been having
problems
with the Merseyside Police, on repeted occations, having promised to call me
back,
but then not having called. I explained that this procedure made it
difficult to me,
to report about what I knew about the cases, and to get any meaningful
dialog.
I threfore expressed in the meeting, a request, if I please could get a
contact-person,
in the Merseyside Police, which I could contact, and get a dialog with, and
tell about
the things I knew regarding the different crime-cases that had been going
on.
Yet, in the letter from the police from 10/7, this isn't brought up at all,
and I have
so far in 2007, not recieved a single call from the Merseyside Police about
this, or
about anything else.
So these problems from the meeting/complaint process, together with the 18
individual complaints
from the complaint from 3/5, which I have exlained about above, and which
haven't been dealt
with at all in the Merseyside Police letter from 10/7, are the reasons for
which I am appealing.
Also, my complaint from 3/5, is like I have explained above, regarding
problems with the
liasons, or contact, with the police.
Like I've also explained earlier, I'm not an expert on police methods, and
I've been a bit
confused about why the police seemingly don't want to cooperate with me.
I've looked at it as certain, that maybe even if the Merseyside police
haven't seemed to want
to cooperate with me about the problems at Arvato etc., I've taken it as
certain, that the
Merseyside police, like any responsilbe Police-unit, would investigate the
things that have
been going on at Arvato, when I've been telling them when I've met up at the
police-station
in Novemeber last year, on several occations telling them about my concerns
about org. criminal
activity in the company.
When I've in the meetings with Sgt. Camel on 16/1, in the several talks with
Constable Holmes,
and in the meeting with Sgt. O'Brian on 1/3.
When I've in these expressed my concern about what has been going on in the
Arvato company, and
also explained to them that I'm worried about my former collegues that were
still working there,
because it seemed to me that some of them must have been under control by
criminals.
And when I also mention to the Merseyside Police that I have been in contact
with the Embassy,
and later also the Consulate, and I give a larger number, several hundred,
documents, that
helps show that there has been something goving on there.
And when I've also sent e-mails, on my last day working at Arvato, to a
number of British and
Norwegian newspapers and tv-stations, and also to the parent-company, that
it's clear to me
that there is a problem with organised criminal activity in the company.
If the fact, that the police are still ignoring my plea to get a
contact-person and a dialog
with the police, to get a chance to tell them everything I know about the
problems at Arvato,
(and also about the other problems from Liverpool and Norway).
If the fact that they are still ignoring this request, means that they
haven't been investigating
the problems at Arvato at all, then I off course think that this is serious.
And I guess, since
I haven't been reading about the problems at Arvato in the newspapers or
otherwere, and since
I see from the letter the Merseyside police sent me on 10/7, that the police
doesn't seem to be
interested in letting me tell them what I know about (since they haven't
commented on the problems
I have been having with the contact with the police at all).
Due to this I have to presume that nothing has been done about the problems
at Arvato then.
Problems which to me seems like they are serious, and it seems to me that
some of the people
that were working there, at the same time I was working there, was under
control by criminals.
(This got clear to me at the end of the time I worked there, thats why I
sent the e-mails to
the newspapers etc., and this is also why I went to the police and told them
about this all
those times from November 2006.).
I've also explained about what it seems to me must have been going on at
Arvato, to the Norwegian
Embassy, and the Norwegian Police, since there were many Norwegians and
Scandinavians working
at the Arvato campaign which I was working on.
But if it even, after I've tryed to tell all of these about the problems, if
there still hasn't
been investigating what has been going on at Arvato (Which I find highly
unlikly, since I think
any responsible police-force of course would have investigated serious cases
like this. But
I mention this anyway, due to the ignorance from the police regarding my
plea to tell the police
what I know about what has been going on).
Because then, since it also hasn't been about this in the news, then I have
to presume that the
problems at Arvato haven't been investigated by the Merseyiside Police at
all, or by anyone
else, so then I think the only responsible think would be to try get advice
on how this problem,
with the semingly organised crime activity at the Arvato company, should
addressed, when the
police are igonring the problem.
So if you at the IPCC have any idea on how to go forward then. I guess thats
a complaint about
the Merseyside Police as a police-force, as well as a complaint against
individual police-
officers, like it is in the complaints you are dealing with.
But I reackoned that I might as well ask you now then, how I should go
forward, to get the police
to investigate the problems with the organised criminal activity at Arvato,
which seeems clear
to me from working there, and which I also have documents that supports the
occurance of.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself a bit at the end here, but I think that these
problems should
be dealt with in a responsilbe way.
And it doesn't seem to me that the complaint with the problems with the
liasons is being dealt
with in a responsible way from the Merseyside Police.
And this makes a bit worried about if the problems with my former collegues
from Arvoto which
it seemed to me must have been under control by criminal, also is being
dealt with in an
irresponsible way.
Thats why I'm bringing this up now, even if I'm not sure if it's the right
time and place, but
I hope that maybe you could maybe give some advice on how to go forward with
this problem as
well, with the org. criminal activity at Arvato, and the problems with the
people working
there seeming to be under control by criminals.
Even if this complaint originaly only was regarding the problems with the
contact with the
police, because I was sure that the police would deal with a case like that
responsible,
no matter what they inform me about what they are doing.
But I must admit that the way the police have been dealing with my complaint
from 3/5, with the
problems surrounding the meeting on 22/6, and the answering-letter from
10/7.
I think issues have been dealt with a bit unprofessional by the police, so
the unprofessionalism
from them surrounding these issues, has made me a bit uncertain as to if
they are dealing with
the problems at Arvato in a responsible way at all.
So thats why I thought I'd bring this up now, while I was dealing with the
relating issues
in the appeal.
So I hope that this is alright, and that it's possible for you have a look
at the issues I've
brought up in this appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 8/15/07, Joanne Fitzgerald
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog,
>
> Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission
> (IPCC).
>
> The information we require, should you wish to appeal the police's
> decision to not formally record your complaint, is set out in the Appeal
> Form that I have posted to you. I have also now attached the relevant
> appeal form with this email for your consideration - this electronic version
> can be printed out, completed and returned by post. You may complete an
> Appeal Form or provide the same required information in an email.
>
> Please be aware that if you wish to submit an appeal we must receive your
> appeal within 28 days of the date of me informing you of your right to
> appeal.
>
> I hope this information has assisted you.
>
> Please contact me if you have any further questions,
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Joanne
>
> *Joanne Fitzgerald*
> Casework Manager
> Independent Police Complaints Commission
> 90 High Holborn
> London
> WC1V 6BH
> Tel: 020 7166 3182
> Fax: 020 7166 3642
> Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 15 August 2007 00:24
> *To:* Joanne Fitzgerald
> *Subject:* Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
>
>
> Hi,
>
> thank you very much for your e-mail!
>
> I will definatly appeal against the decision not to investigate the
> complaint.
>
> I'm just a bit busy with work and other issues at the moment, but I'm
> going
> to look up in the letter about how one should appeal formally, one of the
> next
> days, and then I'll send a more formal appeal if thats needed.
>
> Or else, please tell me if you think this e-mail can be considered as a
> formal
> appeal, if not, then I'll send a new e-mail one of the next days.
>
> Hope that this is alright!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
> On 8/14/07, Joanne Fitzgerald
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribsskog,
> >
> > Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission
> > (IPCC).
> >
> > I have contacted Merseyside Professional Standards Department to
> > establish the current status of your complaint. I was informed by
> > Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be concerned
> > with allegations of misconduct against individual police officers and
> > therefore decided not to formally record your complaint under the Police
> > Reform Act 2002.
> >
> > If you disagree with the decision by Merseyside Police to not formally
> > record your complaint, then you have a right to appeal to the IPCC to
> > independently review the police's decision. I have sent you the relevant
> > appeal form today in the post (Appealing Against a Complaint Not Being
> > Recorded) and this form is also available online at our website
> > (www.ipcc.gov.uk), should this assist you further. Please note, should
> > you wish to appeal, we must receive your appeal form within 28 days.
> >
> > If you have any further questions then please do not hesitate to contact
> >
> > me.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Joanne
> >
> > Joanne Fitzgerald
> > Casework Manager
> > Independent Police Complaints Commission
> > 90 High Holborn
> > London
> > WC1V 6BH
> > Tel: 020 7166 3182
> > Fax: 020 7166 3642
> > Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ******************************************************************************
> > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> > privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
> > recipient
> > please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying
> > or
> > distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The
> > content of
> > this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily
> > those
> > of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
> > accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
> > computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of
> > your
> > receipt of this email.
> >
> > Independent Police Complaints Commission
> > 90 High Holborn
> > London,
> > WC1V 6BH.
> > ******************************************************************************
> >
> >
> > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> > Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership
> > with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi
> > this email was certified virus free.
> > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> > recorded for legal purposes.
> >
>
>
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government
> Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership
> with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of
> problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>
>
>
>
> ******************************************************************************
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
> recipient
> please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
>
> distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content
> of
> this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily
> those
> of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
> accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
> computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
>
> receipt of this email.
>
> Independent Police Complaints Commission
> 90 High Holborn
> London,
> WC1V 6BH.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership
> with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi
> this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>
>
Fwd: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
21 November 2007
03:18
Subject Fwd: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
From Erik Ribsskog
To Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Sent 21 November 2007 03:07
Attachments
Hi,
I can't see that I have recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, that's why I'm sending it again.
Hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Ribsskog
Date: Nov 10, 2007 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
To: Joanne Fitzgerald
Hi,
I'm writing to you, to inform you, (like I've already informed the Norwegian Embassy), that I haven't
got that much confidence left regarding how the Merseyside Police, are dealing with the complaint/appeal.
I was at Walton Lane Police Station, regarding a meeting with Sgt. Smythe, the day before yesterday.
I was harassed in the reception there.
Yesterday, I sent an e-mail to Sgt. Smythe and his assistant Rachel, about some enclosures, that
we had agreed on the meeting Thursday, that I would e-mail them.
I was also asking them, how I should go forward with reporting the harassment, but when they answered
to my e-mail, they didn't tell me how I should go forward regarding this.
In the meeting on Thursday, Rachel, Sgt. Smyth's assistant, told me that the e-mail address to the
Liverpool North Standards Unit, was civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk. (She wrote it on a note).
While I was sending the files, as agreed yesterday, I had a look at the lastest letter I had recieved, from
the Liverpool North Standards Unit, and there it says that their e-mail address is: civil.litigation.e.@merseyside.police.uk .
(So on their letters, the email address, has got an extra '.').
When I wrote the last e-mail to Sgt. Smyth/Rachel yesterday, after finishing e-mailing all the files, I
asked them to please confirm that they had recieved the documents, due to this problem with the
e-mail address.
Then Rachel, Mr. Smyth's assistant, informed me that it was the e-mail address that she wrote on
the note, that was the right address, and not the e-mail address on their letters.
I think that this means that eighter Mr. Smyths assistant isn't telling the thruth, or that the Liverpool
North Standards Unit are so unproffesional, that they are writing letters, to members of the public,
with the wrong e-mail addresses on the letters.
And also, since I think I was harrassed, at the Police Station on Thursday, and also since the
Liverpool North Standards Unit, weren't answering me about my questions surrounding the harassment
incident, even if I the e-mail containing these questions, also was forwarded with the e-mail they
sent me an answer to yesterday.
(So they had two oppertunities, to get to read my quesions regarding how to go forward with reporting
the harassment incident, and still they didn't answer me on this).
And I also think that regarding the problem with the e-mail address, that eighter the PC must have
been lying, or the Police Force and the Standards Unit, are run so unproffesional (printing the wrong
e-mail address on their letters, that there has to be something wrong with the Police-force.
I don't think that they can have two different e-mail addresses, and claim both to be the right e-mail
address, that doesn't really make any sense.
So I havent got any confidence left in the Merseyside Police's ability to deal with this case/comlaint and
appeal, so I think I'm going to have to withdraw from the complaint-process, if not a thustworhty autorothy
from outside of the Merseyside Police, are drawn directly into this.
(I'm enclosing a copy of the mentioned note, and letter, and I'm also going to forward you three e-mails
containing the e-mail correspondence I was refering to from yesterday).
I hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 8/26/07, Erik Ribsskog wrote:
Hi,
here is the appeal against the decision not to formally record my complaint:
Please give the name of the police force your complaint was about:
Merseyside Police
If you recieved a letter from the police telling you that they will not be recording your complaint,
please give the date of that letter:
10/7/07
Mr. Erik Ribsskog
Flat 3
5 Leather Lane
L2 2AE
Liverpool
01512363298/07758349954
eribsskog@gmail.com
Date you made your complaint:
3/5/07
Who did you make your complaint to:
To the IPCC.
How did you make your complaint:
By e-mail.
Please provide brief details about the complaint that you made:
I had been reporting about some problems that seems clear to me to involve organised
crime at the place which I worked to the police on several occations from November
last year.
I had been having some problems with the police being supposed to call me back regarding
this, but they didn't call back, even if contacted the police-station to inform them about this.
So, when I was at the CAB regarding advice on when one needed a criminal solicitors.
(Since the solicitor that I had met in a duty solicitors meeting at the CAB had informed me
that Morecrofts couldn't help me if I needed a criminal solicitor. But it wasn't clear to me
when one would need a criminal solicitor, so I contacted the CAB again, and was told that
this was if one were being accused of doing something wrong.
The Morecrofts solicitor had said that the case was both an employment-case, and a
criminal-case, so I asked the advisor at the CAB, on how I should go forward with the
criminal part of the case.
And I was ansered that I should bring this up in liasons with the police.
I had been trying to do this from before, but I had been having some problems involving the
police not calling me back when they said they would.
So I asked the advisor what I should do if I had problems with the liasons with the police.
And the advisor said that I should bring it up with the CPS or the Law-society.
I asked about this as a precaution, so that I knew what to do if the police still didn't contact
me after the new meeting there.
So, some weeks later, when they still hadn't contacted me, then I contacted the CPS about
the problems with the liasons with the police.
The CPS answered that they didn't have the powers to investiagte a case, and told me to
contact the IPCC.
Which I did on 3/5, I sent the IPCC a complaint regarding the problems I've been having with the
liasons with the police. (Or 'the contact with the police', like I wrote in the e-mail I sent you on 3/5).
In the complaint, I had listed up 18 individual complaints about thing I though were dealt with wrongly
by the police in relation to my contact with them.
I'll try to specify how I thought the police conducted wrongly:
1. The police-constable wouldn't let me report a crime.
2. The police adviced me to go back to work, even if I had told them that the company was
infiltradet/taken over by a criminal organisation. I think that this was irresponsible by the police.
3. On 16/1/07 Sergant Camel told me to take the case to the CAB, even if he knew I was
unemployed, and couldn't afford to pay a solicitor £140/hour to deal with the case.
I though that this was irresponsible by the Sergant. (The police should have investigated the
case themselves).
(Also, I remember from the meeting on 16/1, that Sgt. Camel wanted me to take the case to
the CAB, and then to a solicitor and the Crowns Court.
I haven't been living in Britain that long, so I wasn't sure what the CAB was. But I remember
I asked the Sergant if the CAB were government. And the sergant said 'yes'.
Later (maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago), I have been browsing the CAB website looking for some
information there, and I've seen on the CAB website, that CAB is actually a charity.
So, it's now clear to me that Sgt. Camel actually lied to me about this in the meeting
at the policestation on 16/1.
If he had told me that the CAB was a charity, then I would have objected much stronger
on brining the case to them, I would have insisting stronger on the right department of
the police to deal with it.
But that the Sergant told me that the CAB were government, and that the solicitor I would
get to speak with there, would send the case back to the police if they thought it was
a matter for the police, confused me, and since I hadn't been living that long in Britain,
and I'm not so used to dealing with the police, and I wasn't sure if I as a Norwegian,
could demand what the police should do, so thats why I after contacting the police
a number of more times trying to get them to deal with the case, (but they still
insited on me going to the CAB with it), thats why I ended up at the CAB with it,
beliving the CAB was a government organisation.
4. The police didn't want to investigate the case, even if I told them I had documents
that would show that it was a crime-case.
(And I also told the police on 16/1, that I was worried about my collegues that were
still working in the complany, that they were under control by the criminals).
5. The police didn't want to look at the evidence/documents on my laptop on 22/1,
saying it was a breach of the data protection act. Even if I think it must be obvious that
since I myself let them look at the documents, then this couldn't have been a data
protection issue.
6. That constable Keith Holmes didn't call me back, even if constable Victoria Steele
told me on 22/1 that she would ask Holmes to call me back.
This happened a lot of times, that the police said they would call me back, but they
didn't. It's difficult for me to say what happened in this situation. If Holmes got the
message or not. There could be some problems with the routines at the police-station,
or it could have been a mistake from eighter Steele or Holmes.
7. The constable who was in the 'reception' on 24/1 and 25/1 didn't wear collar-number-
tags. I think police should be expected to wear their tag-numbers, because I know
there are rules about things like this, even eg. shop-assistants are instructed to
wear their name-tags, so I think the police, having an important funciton in society,
also should wear some kind of indification, so that it's possible for members of the
public to identify the serviceman/woman they have been talking with. (In case
something wrong is being said or done by the constable/officer).
8. The constable that didn't wear number-tags on 24/1 and 25/1, promised me that
she would get Victoria Steele to call me back regarding the case.
But Steele didn't call. This is a similar problem I think to complaint 6, and this happened
a lot of times, I was promised maybe 10 times by different officers/constables that the
police would call me back, but I wasn't called back by the police a single time in 2007.
I was only called back once in November 2006.
(And I was promised to be called back about ten times or more in 2007, and they didn't
call a single time).
9. I went to the police in January, and gave them copies of the documents in which I
thought that it would be possible to find evidence about the problem with a criminal
organisation of some kind having infiltrated/taking over the company I had worked in.
I gave the documents (many hundred sheets) to Steele, who gave it to Holmes.
When I spoke with Holmes two or three weeks later, he said he had only read a bit
on the top of the pile, a bit in the middle, and a bit on the bottom of the pile.
And he still said it was an employment-case, and that I should go to the CAB.
By then I had 'argued' so much with the police about this, that I didn't know if it
would be right for me as a Norwegian to continue arguing with the British police about
this.
But, I remebered Sgt. Camel had said earlier that the CAB would send it back to the
police if they thought it was right.
And thought that maybe it was because I was from another country that they wouldn't
listen to me at the police-station, and maybe they weren't used to dealing that much
with documents for all that I knew.
So I thought that it would maybe be just as smart to have a lawyer at the CAB have a
look at it, and send it back, maybe this would convince the police to have a look at, and
investigate the case.
(It could be of couse, that the police investigated it, but didn't tell me about this. I had
been at the police-station several times in November and later explaining about the case.
I'm not an expert in police-methods, but I guessed that it could be that the police investigated
without telling me, for some reason, I wasn't sure, but I reackoned that this could be the case,
since I would have thought that the British Police would deal with a matter like this in a
responsible way.)
But in the complaint about the liasons with the police, I could only relate to what I knew for
sure, and I knew for sure that Constable Holmes didn't look properly through the documents
I delivered to the police-station for him to give to an investigator.
So I thought that it was irresponsible by constable Holmes to not read throught the documents
proberly, and to not give them to an investigator.
10. The police sent me a letter on 16/2, where they called me 'Miss Erik Ribsskog'. I think, like
the British representative on the Norwegian Consulate in the India Building said, that it should
be obvious to Brits that Erik and Eric is the same name, and it therefore must be someone
making jokes and not taking their job serious.
Like I had explained in meetings at the police-station, it seemed to me that some of my collegues
in the complany, probably must have been under control by criminals. So I thought this was an important
case, and then to start making jokes like this in an important case. I think thats irresponsible and
it seems like a joke that small kids could have made. So this makes me worried that things could be
out of control at the police-station.
11. In the meeting on 1/2, Sergant O'Brian told me to move from the chair I sat down with at the
table, (even if I sat in the same chair in the meeting there with Sgt. Camel and the constable on
16/1).
So I had to move to another chair, at the other side of the table, I think that Sgt. O'Brian was acting
patronising towards me when he 'ordered' me to sit in the other chair.
12. In the meeting at the St. Ann's police-station on 1/3, the 'ginger' police-constable, wouldn't let
me present the issues about which I had contacted the police-station to the Sergant O'Brian, but
insisted on presenting the things I wanted to bring up in the meeting to the Sergant himself.
So this made me lose a bit control on how the issues were presented, and it seemed to me that
I was being patronised by the police-constable.
And this made it diffucult for me to present the things I wanted to bring up, in the way I intended
to present it, and also it made me more of a spectator than a participant in the meeting.
I guess it could be that it was O'Brian who should have told the constable to let me explain myself,
because I think they should have let me explain my concerns myself.
13. So in the meeting on 1/3, I was a bit confused if I was supposed to exlain about my concerns
to Sgt. O'Brian myself, or if this was the job of the constable.
So this made me a bit confused about how they meant the meeting to be conducted, and what they
wanted my role in the meeting to be.
14. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian said that he thought the problem with the case not having any
progress with being dealt with by the police, was due to the case having being dealt with by a large
number of police servicemen.
So, he suggested, that to find out exactly what had been going on, they would ask constable Steele
to call me, and tell me what she had been doing with the documents after I gave them to her.
I think this was irresponsible by the Sergant. He must have understood that to find out what the police
had been doing, would be a job for the police.
So I think that he should have taken the job of finding out what the police had been doing, that he should
have taken the responsibility of finding this out himself.
And of course, investigate the case himself, instead of not doing anything, other that saying I had to find
out what the police had been doing so far.
So I thought this was very irresponsible by Sgt. O'Brian.
15. This is connected with point 14. That I think Sgt. O'Brian should have investigated himself:
1. What the police had done regarding the case so far. (And not telling me to find out about this.)
2. Investigate the case further.
Sgt. O'Brian didn't do eighter of these actions, and I think that this was very irresponsible.
16. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian was very un-calm, and this together with the patronising
I was subjected to (which is explained in point 11 and 12), made it difficult for me to bring up
the issues I wanted to bring up in the way I had intended.
So I think that (especially since I haven't been living in Britain that long, and had to 'compete'
with to British police-servicemen who were patronising me in the meeting), because of this,
I think that the Sergant should have tryed to remain calm in the meeting, since I think when
one have a job as a public serviceman, then it's important that one are capable of comunicating
with the public.
And then to be so un-calm in the meeting, can make it difficult for the meeting and the comunication
to be conducted in a meaningful way, since the things the Sergant said had marks of not being
very thorowly considered. (Like he told me that I had to make sure that my former employer and
the job-agency got in touch about the letter I had brought there, even if it was obvious from that
letter that they already were in touch, and the Sergant was reading the letter explaining about
this).
So I think the Sergant must have been so un-calm that he didn't get the meaning of the letter.
And I didn't want to aggrivate or make the Sergant even more un-calm, so I just had to pretend
to agree with him.
I though that I would rather call the Sergant later, and explain about this later, when he was in
a calmer state.
An I think that when one as a member of the public, contacts the police, about important things
like this, then one should expect to be treated in professional way by the police.
So when the police are patronising you, and like I mention in this individual complaint, the police
Sergant in charge of the meeting, isn't capable to keep control of himself and remain calm, in
a way that the meeting could be conducted in a professional and meaningful way.
I think that if the Sergant in charge of the meeting isn't capable of doing this, then this is a reason
to complain. (Because I don't think members of the public should be treated in an unprofessional
and unpolite way when they are contacting the police).
17. Sgt. O'Brian said in the meeting on 1/3, that they would get constable Steele to call me back
about what the police had been doing with the case so far.
Victoria Steele didn't call, and I called back to the police-station several times, and was told that
she was on holiday.
I also called back several times after she should have been back, but she was never present.
The people I talked with at the police-station, told me several times that they would get Steele
to call, yet she never called.
This problem happened very often. (That I was promised someone from the police would call
me back, but that they didn't call at all in 2007).
18. The same in this individual complaint.
When I tryed calling Steele, but didn't suceed in getting in contact with her at all.
Then I tried to call Sgt. O'Brian on several phone-numbers I was given by the central, and
by St. Ann's police-station.
I didn't manage to get hold of Sgt. O'Brian eighter, and after trying to get in contact with
Constable Steele and Sergant O'Brian for weeks, without getting hold of them, and without
any of them returning my calls.
Then I went to the Norwegian Consulat in the India Building, asking The Consulate if they
had any advice for me, on how to get in contact with Constable Steele or Sgt. Obrian.
The Consulate-representative, Liz Hurley, went and called Sgt. O'Brian, while I was at
the Consulate on 19/3.
Liz Hurley said, that she had been talking with O'Brian, and that O'Brian had told her that
'he remembered the case'.
Yet, Sgt. O'Brian still didn't call me back, even after recieving this reminder by the Norwegian
Consulate representative.
Sgt. O'Brian still hadn't called me back when I sent you the complaint on 3/5, and he still
haven't called me back when I'm writing this appeal now on 26/8.
I think this is very unprofessional of the Sergant. On the meeting on 1/3, I showed the
constable and Sergant O'Brian the explanation I had written were I explain about
my concern about what was going on in the company, and I remember the Sergant
was reading the explanation, he got it from the constable.
And I had written that it was clear to me that some of my collages in the company was
under control by criminals.
(I had written it in capital letters, because I was a bit tired of the police not taking any
actions after I had gone to the police-station reporting about this several times in
November, then in the meeting with Sgt. Cambel in January, and then in the talks
with Constable Holmes also in January.
I wasn't sure if the police was taking this as serious as they should, so I tryed to
write it in a document, why I think they should act. I even wrote some of it in capital
letters, so to show that I meant this seriously, and to maybe get them to wake up).
And it was this document that I remember O'Brian read, and still they didn't even return
my calls, even after reading that document, and having seen how important I thought
the case was.
And in the meeting on 1/3, I also showed the Constable and the Sergant the letter from
the Solicitor from 27/2, where the Solicitor writes that:
'As I explained, Morecrofts do not deal with criminal law and would not be able to advise you
on this aspect although some further perusal of your papers may reveal some information that
will assist the police.'
Even if I showed the Sergant this letter from the Solicitor, still the Sergant didn't want to investigate/
look at the papers/documents I had. And even if he had read this letter and the the letter where
I explain that I'm worried about some of my collueges being under control by criminals in the
company I used to work, and also even if he got a call about this from the Norwegian Consulate,
still he didn't even return my calls.
I think this was very irresponsible and unprofessional by the Sergant. And it was this behaviour from
the Sergant that I thought was the 'final drop', so to speak, and lead me to complain about the
police to the CPS.
And then, after recieving my complaint, the CPS adviced me to contact you, so thats why
I sent you the e-mail with the complaint on 3/5.
Please tell us why you would like to appeal about the way your complaint was handled:
The police force didn't record my complaint.
Please explain why you want to appeal:
Well, like I exlained above, I think that the police force should deal with members of the
public in a professional and aproriate way.
All of the 18 individual complaint I have mentioned, are situations, where I think the police
have acted in a way which I think is below the standard you could expect from a responsible
police force.
And when I complain about the police not letting me report a crime (like in complaint 1), and
the police acting irresponsible with sending me back to work even if the complany was
controled by criminals (complaint 2), lying to me about the CAB being a government
organisation (even if I discovered the lying later, complaint 3), the police refusing to
investgate a serious criminal case, involiving people being held under control, seemingly
like slaves, by criminals (complaint 4), the police lying to me again, saying that
it would be a breach on the data protection act if they looked at some documents
on my laptop. (complaint 5), that the police acted irresponsible, on numerous occations,
when I was promised the police would call me back, but they didn't. I would think that
this happened to many times to it being coincidental, I would think that some type of
misconduct is the reason for this way of treatment by the police (numerous complaints, eg.
complaint 6, 8, 17 and 18).
That the police constable didn't give the documents I gave him regarding a serious crime-
case to an investigator (complaint 9), that the police insulted me, calling me 'Miss Erik
Ribsskog', in their letter from 16/2, when it should be obvious, as I have got confirmed by
a British representative working for the Norwegian Consulate, that it should be obvious
for Brits that Erik and Eric is the same name, and due to this, the police were inpolite
towards me, since they called me 'Miss', even if they should know that my name isn't
a girls name.
That Sgt. O'Brian was, I would go as far as to say he was harassing me, and were
patronising towards me in the meeting on the police-station on 1/3, described in
complaint 11-18.
That Sgt. O'Brian was acting irresponsible in not investigating a serious crime-case,
even if the Solicitor had written in the letter that she thought this could be a matter
for the police, and even if he was called by the Norwegian Consulate, and still didn't
return my calls.
And also that he left it to me, a member of the public, to find out how the police had
been dealing with the case, instead of dealing with it himself.
And also that he was 'in a state' in the meeting, not giving me a chance to explain
about the issues in the way I had intended, due to having to focus on not trying
to aggrivate the Sergant any more, that is to try to get him calm down, taking
the focus away from presenting the actual issues I had gone there to present.
I think the harassment, patronisment, unprofesionalism from the Sergant in the
meeting on 1/3 certainly qualifyes to problems with the liasons with the police, like
I initialy complained about, but also to beind misconduct like I see now that it has
to be, for the police to deal with the complaint.
Also the other issues I've mentioned under this section 'Why you want to appeal',
I think they also must be misconduct, like when the Constable didn't want to let
me report a crime in complaint 1, and the refusal to investigate a serious crime-case
in complaint 2, the later discovered lying in complain 3 etc. (see section above).
So when I read in your e-mail from 14/8, that 'I was informed by
Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be concerned
with allegations of misconduct against individual police officers and
therefore decided not to formally record your complaint under the Police
Reform Act 2002.', then I can't agree with the Merseyside Police that my
complaint isn't being deemed as being concerd with allegations of
misconduct against individual police officers.
I can't see that the lying, the harrasment, the insults, the not alowing a member
of the public to report a crime case, the refusal to investigate a serious crime-case,
and the other mentioned issues (see above).
I cant see that these things shouldn't be considered as misconduct.
Thats my view, I'm not sure how police are expected to conduct themselves in this
country, but if I use my head and think by myself how I would have thought that
the police were meant to conduct themselves, and then think about the way the
police-officers have conducted themselves, which I have described in this complaint,
then I'd say that the police-officers have misconducted.
Also, while I'm dealing with this, I thought I'd mention some points from the complaint-
procedure:
The police called me a week before the meeting at Walton Lane police station on 22/6.
The police-woman that called on 15/6, didn't tell me her name, even if I asked who I should
say that I had spoken with.
She just instructed me to report at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6 at a certain time,
and ask to speak with Sgt. Smithe.
I thought that they would probably ask me who had called me and told me to meet there,
so I asked her who I should tell them that I had been speaking with.
But she didn't say her name, she just said that I should say that I had been called by
the police.
And she didn't tell me at all what the meeting was about.
I used to live in Walton about a year ago, and I'd also been in contact with the police in
Walton (and also the St. Ann's police-station), about some problems I had been having
org. criminals in Oslo and Liverpool.
And also when I lived in Walton, I rented a room in a shared house, and there were also
problems going on in the house which I have reported to the Walton Lane police.
And also when I was living in the shared house, due to reasons unknown to me, and I
hadn't been living in Britain long enough then to understand about all the things
surounding Council-tax.
But for some reason, I don't think any of the tenants revieved council-tax bills (or tv-licensing
bills), when they were living in the shared house in Mandeville St. in Walton.
So I wasn't completly sure about why it was that the police had called me and instructed
me to meet at the Walton Lane police-station.
I thought, of course, that it could be to do with the complaint. But I wasn't completly sure,
I thought it also could be with the cases I had reported about earlier regarding problems with
org. criminials in Oslo and Liverpool.
I also thought there could be a chance it was regarding the problem with the missing council
tax and tv-licensing bills from the Mandeville shared house. (Problems which I had intended
to bring up togheter with a lot of other problems, once I'd got set up a dialog with the police,
once I'd got a contact-person and a dialog at the police, and could start to focus on trying
to explain all details with the earlier reported problems in Norway and Liverpool).
And I wanted the police to deal with the things I had brought up seriously. And I was a bit
afraid to 'make a fool of myself', if I called the Walton Lane police-station, and asked to
speak with Sgt. Smithe, to ask what the meeting was about.
Because then I reackoned that I had to explain who had called me about the meeting, and
I couldn't really be sure that the Sergant was working on Walton Lane police-station
permanently. He could be in a specialised police-department for all that I know, who dealt
with police complaint cases, and who was stationed somewhere else, maybe even out of
town, for all that I knew. And only was supposed to be at the Walton Lane police-station
for the meeting regarding the complaint-case.
So, since I didn't want to make a bad impression, (makine a fool of myself), since I'm a
bit clumsy sometimes with my manners etc, since I haven't been living in Britain that
long, due to this, I found it best to just show for the meeting, and not call to ask any
questions regarding the agenda.
I also guessed that if it was meant for me to contact them back regarding things surrounding
the meeting, then I would have got a contact-name there, like the police-woman calling
would have told me her name, and told me that if I had any questions, then I could contact
this and this person.
But since no such contact-name was given to me, then I guessed that I wasn't meant to
know what the meeting was about, before the meeting.
So I didn't know exactly how to prepare for the meeting.
And when the meeting started, I had to ask the Sergant if the meeting was about the complaint,
to be sure.
In the meeting, we didn't discuss the issues regarding problems with the liasons with the
police at all.
Somehow, we ended up discussing the cases that I had complained about to the Walton
Lane police-station before. (The problems with org. criminals in Oslo and Liverpool).
I wrote some notes down when I got home from the meeting, here are some of the points.
- Core of case: Followed by mafia in Norway, and this has continued in England (Ppl. from
work etc).
(This is about some problems I had in Norway, and which I have reported about to the police
in Norway and England.
It was on my workplace in Oslo. I was working as an assistant shop-manager, while I was studying.
And then I got some problems with the my face being more or less distroyed (its a long story), and
I still went to work a few days (I didn't think it was so serious, so I thought the problems with the
face-skin would pass), and then I overheard a couple of conversations about me behind my back so to
speak, eg. one conversation I overheard I heard it being said (they were talking about my face which
was more or less distroyed), and I head them say: 'I've heard that he's also followed by the mafia'.
And also I heard other customers say, about me, 'he isn't afraid (eg. he goes to work as normal
I think they must have meant) even if he's being followed by the mafia'.
This was just some of what happened, I've tryed to explain about these things to the police in
Norway and Britain, but I haven't been able to find someone who want's to deal with and investigate
this, and let me explain all I know about this.
But I mentioned it to the Sergant in the meeting on 22/6.
But he writes in the answer-letter that 'I have since had the oppertunity to examine the issues you
raised in terms of organised criminality and the Norwegian Mafia.'.
Well, I haven't actually menioned anything about a 'Norwegian Mafia'. I have never heard of, or
menioned a 'Norwegian mafia'.
I always thought that the people I overheard at my old workplace in Oslo, was refering to the
Albanian mafia, since this was the only mafia I had heard that were being present in Oslo.
So, when the Sergant is writing about 'the Norwegian Mafia' in his letter, then I get a bit
concerned that maybe there have been some misunderstanings in the comunications,
since I've never used the term 'Norwegian mafia', and I've never heard of or refered to
any Norwegian Mafia, so I think we must have been speaking past eachother a bit
in the meeting.
We were also taling a bit of the Arvato company which I had reported the problems
with being infiltrated by org. criminals.
(I said I thought the problems with org. criminals in Liverpool probably had to be connected
with the problems in Oslo, since I found it unlikly that the lightening would strike at the
same place twice so to speak).
I can see in my notes that the Sergant thought that Arvato had a Swedish parent-company,
but I told him that it wasn't Swedish, but German. (Bertelsman).
I also told him that I thought it would be very fine to have a contact person at the police,
since the police didn't return my calls, and also since I had a lot of information regarding
the different cases which I still hadn't got an oppertunity to report to the police, yet this
haven't been addressed in the answering-letter.
Like I've explained above, the police have been suposed to call me on more than ten occations,
but they haven't called me in 2007 at all.
So I think they should take this problem a bit more serious. They are ignoring this problem
in their answering-letter, and I can't really say that I'm sure what to do if some incidents
happens now, for which I would have needed the assitance of the police. I'm not sure what
I should do if this happens, I don't really want to call the police, just to be ignored even
more.
So I think they should have brought up this issue in their answering-letter.
In the meeting, the Sergant asked me what I wanted the police to do, and I answered that I
wanted the police to investigate the case with the problems with the Arvato-company
having problems with infiltration by org. criminals.
I explained to the Sergant that I had a lot of documents that helped showing this, and that
I think he should maybe have a look at these documents, in concetion with his investigation.
Yet, I wasn't contacted back by the Sergant at all, before I got the letter that he couldn't
find any evidence to substantiatie my claims.
So, I think that the Sergant should maybe have had a look at the documents then, like I
suggested to him in the meeting. Maybe this could have helped him. He says he haven't
found any evidence to substantiate my claims. But when he didn't even have a look at
the documents, which I explained about to him that I had in the meeting, then it's seems
a bit to me that he didn't really try that hard to find any evidence.
Because in the meeting I told him that he could just contact me if he wanted to have at
the documents I had from working in the company, but the Sergant didn't contact me
back about this.
I've also been in contact with the Norwegian Embassy in London, regarding the problems
with org. crime in Oslo and in Arvato-company and elsewhere in Liverpool.
The Embassy, told me that if I wanted the British and Norwegian police to cooperate
on these issues, then I had to tell the Brisish and Norwegian police myself that I
wanted them to cooperate about this.
So, I aslo see this in my notes, I made sure to tell the Sergant that I wanted the British
police to cooperate with the Norwegian police about these issues. (I've also earlier told
the Norwegian police the same, that I want them, like the Embassy adviced, to cooperate
with the British police on this.)
I also gave the Sergant the name of the Norwegian police-officer who knew most about
the case in Norway. (Who was working in a similar Norwegian Department, that is the
department that investigates the regular police). This because Sgt. Smithe asked who
in Norway he could contact about this, and I didn't really know who else that knew
enough about this.
Yet, in the answering letter, there is no mention about this, if the British police have
been in contact with the Norwegian police or not, so I would have to asume that
they haven't been in contact then, even if I asked them to do this, on advice from
the Embassy, in the meeting.
I told the Sergant that I had even contacted the Norwegian Consulate, and that the
Consulate-representative contacted Sgt. O'Brian, reminding him that I had tryed to
get in contact with him regarding the case, but still, Sgt. O'Brian didn't call me back.
And this is neigther addressed in the answering-letter.
I gave Sgt. Smithe some copies of explanations about the further problems with
criminals in Norway, that they tried to kill me on the farm belonging to the woman
my uncle lived with there, in the summer of 2005, and thats why I went away from
Norway again and settled in Liverpool.
And I gave the Sergant the log-number from when I reported about the problems
with criminals in Oslo and Liverpool to the Walton Lane police-station in the
Automn of 2005.
(I've also been in contact with the Merseyside police regarding these problems
several times before this, and also after this, in the spring and summer of 2006.
And then also again with the frequent contact about the problems in the Arvato
company from November 2006).
I told the Sergant that it seemed to me, and that this was supported by the
documents I had, that all the different departments on Arvato was involved in
this problem, with being taken over/infiltraded by org. criminals.
But the Sergant still didn't contact me back to have a look at the documents.
I see from my notes that I told Sgt. Smithe that I had been in contact with
a Norwegian Police-officer, in the special department that investigates the
regular police, earlier the same week, about that had been surrounding this
in Oslo.e problems in Oslo.
Further from my notes, I see that I told the Sergant that it seemed to me that
the police were worried, when they called me in the night, around midnight,
in late Novemeber 2006, and asked me to contact higher management
at Arvato, regarding the problems I had been having with certain persons
working there. (It seemed to me that she was worried do to who these
people I had been having problems with were).
-
I'll try to summarise the problems surrounding the complaint-process and the meeting on 22/6:
- The police didn't tell me was calling when they called me on 15/6 instructing me
to met at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6.
- The police didn't tell me the agenda for the meeting on 22/6, before the meeting.
- The police didn't address the individual complaints from the complaint from 3/5, neighter
in the meeting on 22/6, or in their letter from 10/7.
- The police didn't investigate the documents I told them I had, which I told them in the
meetin on 22/6, could help explain what went on at Arvato while I was working there.
- The police says in their letter from 10/7, that I have been raising issues in terms of
'The Norwegian Mafia'. But I have never heard about or refered to the term 'the Norwegian
mafia', so the police must have been misunderstanding what I said in the meeting on 10/7.
- In their answering-letter, the police haven't addressed the issue I brought up in the
meeting on 10/7, that I had been adviced by the Embassy to tell the British and Norwegian
police to cooperate on the case. But in the letter from 10/7, it isn't mentioned at all,
if there has been any contact at all with the Norwegian police regarding this.
- In the meeting on 22/6, I mentioned to Sgt. Smite, that I had been having problems
with the Merseyside Police, on repeted occations, having promised to call me back,
but then not having called. I explained that this procedure made it difficult to me,
to report about what I knew about the cases, and to get any meaningful dialog.
I threfore expressed in the meeting, a request, if I please could get a contact-person,
in the Merseyside Police, which I could contact, and get a dialog with, and tell about
the things I knew regarding the different crime-cases that had been going on.
Yet, in the letter from the police from 10/7, this isn't brought up at all, and I have
so far in 2007, not recieved a single call from the Merseyside Police about this, or
about anything else.
So these problems from the meeting/complaint process, together with the 18 individual complaints
from the complaint from 3/5, which I have exlained about above, and which haven't been dealt
with at all in the Merseyside Police letter from 10/7, are the reasons for which I am appealing.
Also, my complaint from 3/5, is like I have explained above, regarding problems with the
liasons, or contact, with the police.
Like I've also explained earlier, I'm not an expert on police methods, and I've been a bit
confused about why the police seemingly don't want to cooperate with me.
I've looked at it as certain, that maybe even if the Merseyside police haven't seemed to want
to cooperate with me about the problems at Arvato etc., I've taken it as certain, that the
Merseyside police, like any responsilbe Police-unit, would investigate the things that have
been going on at Arvato, when I've been telling them when I've met up at the police-station
in Novemeber last year, on several occations telling them about my concerns about org. criminal
activity in the company.
When I've in the meetings with Sgt. Camel on 16/1, in the several talks with Constable Holmes,
and in the meeting with Sgt. O'Brian on 1/3.
When I've in these expressed my concern about what has been going on in the Arvato company, and
also explained to them that I'm worried about my former collegues that were still working there,
because it seemed to me that some of them must have been under control by criminals.
And when I also mention to the Merseyside Police that I have been in contact with the Embassy,
and later also the Consulate, and I give a larger number, several hundred, documents, that
helps show that there has been something goving on there.
And when I've also sent e-mails, on my last day working at Arvato, to a number of British and
Norwegian newspapers and tv-stations, and also to the parent-company, that it's clear to me
that there is a problem with organised criminal activity in the company.
If the fact, that the police are still ignoring my plea to get a contact-person and a dialog
with the police, to get a chance to tell them everything I know about the problems at Arvato,
(and also about the other problems from Liverpool and Norway).
If the fact that they are still ignoring this request, means that they haven't been investigating
the problems at Arvato at all, then I off course think that this is serious. And I guess, since
I haven't been reading about the problems at Arvato in the newspapers or otherwere, and since
I see from the letter the Merseyside police sent me on 10/7, that the police doesn't seem to be
interested in letting me tell them what I know about (since they haven't commented on the problems
I have been having with the contact with the police at all).
Due to this I have to presume that nothing has been done about the problems at Arvato then.
Problems which to me seems like they are serious, and it seems to me that some of the people
that were working there, at the same time I was working there, was under control by criminals.
(This got clear to me at the end of the time I worked there, thats why I sent the e-mails to
the newspapers etc., and this is also why I went to the police and told them about this all
those times from November 2006.).
I've also explained about what it seems to me must have been going on at Arvato, to the Norwegian
Embassy, and the Norwegian Police, since there were many Norwegians and Scandinavians working
at the Arvato campaign which I was working on.
But if it even, after I've tryed to tell all of these about the problems, if there still hasn't
been investigating what has been going on at Arvato (Which I find highly unlikly, since I think
any responsible police-force of course would have investigated serious cases like this. But
I mention this anyway, due to the ignorance from the police regarding my plea to tell the police
what I know about what has been going on).
Because then, since it also hasn't been about this in the news, then I have to presume that the
problems at Arvato haven't been investigated by the Merseyiside Police at all, or by anyone
else, so then I think the only responsible think would be to try get advice on how this problem,
with the semingly organised crime activity at the Arvato company, should addressed, when the
police are igonring the problem.
So if you at the IPCC have any idea on how to go forward then. I guess thats a complaint about
the Merseyside Police as a police-force, as well as a complaint against individual police-
officers, like it is in the complaints you are dealing with.
But I reackoned that I might as well ask you now then, how I should go forward, to get the police
to investigate the problems with the organised criminal activity at Arvato, which seeems clear
to me from working there, and which I also have documents that supports the occurance of.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself a bit at the end here, but I think that these problems should
be dealt with in a responsilbe way.
And it doesn't seem to me that the complaint with the problems with the liasons is being dealt
with in a responsible way from the Merseyside Police.
And this makes a bit worried about if the problems with my former collegues from Arvoto which
it seemed to me must have been under control by criminal, also is being dealt with in an
irresponsible way.
Thats why I'm bringing this up now, even if I'm not sure if it's the right time and place, but
I hope that maybe you could maybe give some advice on how to go forward with this problem as
well, with the org. criminal activity at Arvato, and the problems with the people working
there seeming to be under control by criminals.
Even if this complaint originaly only was regarding the problems with the contact with the
police, because I was sure that the police would deal with a case like that responsible,
no matter what they inform me about what they are doing.
But I must admit that the way the police have been dealing with my complaint from 3/5, with the
problems surrounding the meeting on 22/6, and the answering-letter from 10/7.
I think issues have been dealt with a bit unprofessional by the police, so the unprofessionalism
from them surrounding these issues, has made me a bit uncertain as to if they are dealing with
the problems at Arvato in a responsible way at all.
So thats why I thought I'd bring this up now, while I was dealing with the relating issues
in the appeal.
So I hope that this is alright, and that it's possible for you have a look at the issues I've
brought up in this appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 8/15/07, Joanne Fitzgerald wrote:
Dear Mr Ribsskog,
Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
The information we require, should you wish to appeal the police's decision to not formally record your complaint, is set out in the Appeal Form that I have posted to you. I have also now attached the relevant appeal form with this email for your consideration - this electronic version can be printed out, completed and returned by post. You may complete an Appeal Form or provide the same required information in an email.
Please be aware that if you wish to submit an appeal we must receive your appeal within 28 days of the date of me informing you of your right to appeal.
I hope this information has assisted you.
Please contact me if you have any further questions,
Yours sincerely,
Joanne
Joanne Fitzgerald
Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BH
Tel: 020 7166 3182
Fax: 020 7166 3642
Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 August 2007 00:24
To: Joanne Fitzgerald
Subject: Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
Hi,
thank you very much for your e-mail!
I will definatly appeal against the decision not to investigate the complaint.
I'm just a bit busy with work and other issues at the moment, but I'm going
to look up in the letter about how one should appeal formally, one of the next
days, and then I'll send a more formal appeal if thats needed.
Or else, please tell me if you think this e-mail can be considered as a formal
appeal, if not, then I'll send a new e-mail one of the next days.
Hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 8/14/07, Joanne Fitzgerald wrote:
Dear Mr Ribsskog,
Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC).
I have contacted Merseyside Professional Standards Department to
establish the current status of your complaint. I was informed by
Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be concerned
with allegations of misconduct against individual police officers and
therefore decided not to formally record your complaint under the Police
Reform Act 2002.
If you disagree with the decision by Merseyside Police to not formally
record your complaint, then you have a right to appeal to the IPCC to
independently review the police's decision. I have sent you the relevant
appeal form today in the post (Appealing Against a Complaint Not Being
Recorded) and this form is also available online at our website
(www.ipcc.gov.uk), should this assist you further. Please note, should
you wish to appeal, we must receive your appeal form within 28 days.
If you have any further questions then please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Yours sincerely,
Joanne
Joanne Fitzgerald
Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BH
Tel: 020 7166 3182
Fax: 020 7166 3642
Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
******************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient
please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content of
this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily those
of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
receipt of this email.
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London,
WC1V 6BH.
******************************************************************************
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
******************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient
please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content of
this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily those
of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
receipt of this email.
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London,
WC1V 6BH.
******************************************************************************
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
21 November 2007
03:18
Subject Fwd: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
From Erik Ribsskog
To Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Sent 21 November 2007 03:07
Attachments
Hi,
I can't see that I have recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, that's why I'm sending it again.
Hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Ribsskog
Date: Nov 10, 2007 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
To: Joanne Fitzgerald
Hi,
I'm writing to you, to inform you, (like I've already informed the Norwegian Embassy), that I haven't
got that much confidence left regarding how the Merseyside Police, are dealing with the complaint/appeal.
I was at Walton Lane Police Station, regarding a meeting with Sgt. Smythe, the day before yesterday.
I was harassed in the reception there.
Yesterday, I sent an e-mail to Sgt. Smythe and his assistant Rachel, about some enclosures, that
we had agreed on the meeting Thursday, that I would e-mail them.
I was also asking them, how I should go forward with reporting the harassment, but when they answered
to my e-mail, they didn't tell me how I should go forward regarding this.
In the meeting on Thursday, Rachel, Sgt. Smyth's assistant, told me that the e-mail address to the
Liverpool North Standards Unit, was civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk. (She wrote it on a note).
While I was sending the files, as agreed yesterday, I had a look at the lastest letter I had recieved, from
the Liverpool North Standards Unit, and there it says that their e-mail address is: civil.litigation.e.@merseyside.police.uk .
(So on their letters, the email address, has got an extra '.').
When I wrote the last e-mail to Sgt. Smyth/Rachel yesterday, after finishing e-mailing all the files, I
asked them to please confirm that they had recieved the documents, due to this problem with the
e-mail address.
Then Rachel, Mr. Smyth's assistant, informed me that it was the e-mail address that she wrote on
the note, that was the right address, and not the e-mail address on their letters.
I think that this means that eighter Mr. Smyths assistant isn't telling the thruth, or that the Liverpool
North Standards Unit are so unproffesional, that they are writing letters, to members of the public,
with the wrong e-mail addresses on the letters.
And also, since I think I was harrassed, at the Police Station on Thursday, and also since the
Liverpool North Standards Unit, weren't answering me about my questions surrounding the harassment
incident, even if I the e-mail containing these questions, also was forwarded with the e-mail they
sent me an answer to yesterday.
(So they had two oppertunities, to get to read my quesions regarding how to go forward with reporting
the harassment incident, and still they didn't answer me on this).
And I also think that regarding the problem with the e-mail address, that eighter the PC must have
been lying, or the Police Force and the Standards Unit, are run so unproffesional (printing the wrong
e-mail address on their letters, that there has to be something wrong with the Police-force.
I don't think that they can have two different e-mail addresses, and claim both to be the right e-mail
address, that doesn't really make any sense.
So I havent got any confidence left in the Merseyside Police's ability to deal with this case/comlaint and
appeal, so I think I'm going to have to withdraw from the complaint-process, if not a thustworhty autorothy
from outside of the Merseyside Police, are drawn directly into this.
(I'm enclosing a copy of the mentioned note, and letter, and I'm also going to forward you three e-mails
containing the e-mail correspondence I was refering to from yesterday).
I hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 8/26/07, Erik Ribsskog
Hi,
here is the appeal against the decision not to formally record my complaint:
Please give the name of the police force your complaint was about:
Merseyside Police
If you recieved a letter from the police telling you that they will not be recording your complaint,
please give the date of that letter:
10/7/07
Mr. Erik Ribsskog
Flat 3
5 Leather Lane
L2 2AE
Liverpool
01512363298/07758349954
eribsskog@gmail.com
Date you made your complaint:
3/5/07
Who did you make your complaint to:
To the IPCC.
How did you make your complaint:
By e-mail.
Please provide brief details about the complaint that you made:
I had been reporting about some problems that seems clear to me to involve organised
crime at the place which I worked to the police on several occations from November
last year.
I had been having some problems with the police being supposed to call me back regarding
this, but they didn't call back, even if contacted the police-station to inform them about this.
So, when I was at the CAB regarding advice on when one needed a criminal solicitors.
(Since the solicitor that I had met in a duty solicitors meeting at the CAB had informed me
that Morecrofts couldn't help me if I needed a criminal solicitor. But it wasn't clear to me
when one would need a criminal solicitor, so I contacted the CAB again, and was told that
this was if one were being accused of doing something wrong.
The Morecrofts solicitor had said that the case was both an employment-case, and a
criminal-case, so I asked the advisor at the CAB, on how I should go forward with the
criminal part of the case.
And I was ansered that I should bring this up in liasons with the police.
I had been trying to do this from before, but I had been having some problems involving the
police not calling me back when they said they would.
So I asked the advisor what I should do if I had problems with the liasons with the police.
And the advisor said that I should bring it up with the CPS or the Law-society.
I asked about this as a precaution, so that I knew what to do if the police still didn't contact
me after the new meeting there.
So, some weeks later, when they still hadn't contacted me, then I contacted the CPS about
the problems with the liasons with the police.
The CPS answered that they didn't have the powers to investiagte a case, and told me to
contact the IPCC.
Which I did on 3/5, I sent the IPCC a complaint regarding the problems I've been having with the
liasons with the police. (Or 'the contact with the police', like I wrote in the e-mail I sent you on 3/5).
In the complaint, I had listed up 18 individual complaints about thing I though were dealt with wrongly
by the police in relation to my contact with them.
I'll try to specify how I thought the police conducted wrongly:
1. The police-constable wouldn't let me report a crime.
2. The police adviced me to go back to work, even if I had told them that the company was
infiltradet/taken over by a criminal organisation. I think that this was irresponsible by the police.
3. On 16/1/07 Sergant Camel told me to take the case to the CAB, even if he knew I was
unemployed, and couldn't afford to pay a solicitor £140/hour to deal with the case.
I though that this was irresponsible by the Sergant. (The police should have investigated the
case themselves).
(Also, I remember from the meeting on 16/1, that Sgt. Camel wanted me to take the case to
the CAB, and then to a solicitor and the Crowns Court.
I haven't been living in Britain that long, so I wasn't sure what the CAB was. But I remember
I asked the Sergant if the CAB were government. And the sergant said 'yes'.
Later (maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago), I have been browsing the CAB website looking for some
information there, and I've seen on the CAB website, that CAB is actually a charity.
So, it's now clear to me that Sgt. Camel actually lied to me about this in the meeting
at the policestation on 16/1.
If he had told me that the CAB was a charity, then I would have objected much stronger
on brining the case to them, I would have insisting stronger on the right department of
the police to deal with it.
But that the Sergant told me that the CAB were government, and that the solicitor I would
get to speak with there, would send the case back to the police if they thought it was
a matter for the police, confused me, and since I hadn't been living that long in Britain,
and I'm not so used to dealing with the police, and I wasn't sure if I as a Norwegian,
could demand what the police should do, so thats why I after contacting the police
a number of more times trying to get them to deal with the case, (but they still
insited on me going to the CAB with it), thats why I ended up at the CAB with it,
beliving the CAB was a government organisation.
4. The police didn't want to investigate the case, even if I told them I had documents
that would show that it was a crime-case.
(And I also told the police on 16/1, that I was worried about my collegues that were
still working in the complany, that they were under control by the criminals).
5. The police didn't want to look at the evidence/documents on my laptop on 22/1,
saying it was a breach of the data protection act. Even if I think it must be obvious that
since I myself let them look at the documents, then this couldn't have been a data
protection issue.
6. That constable Keith Holmes didn't call me back, even if constable Victoria Steele
told me on 22/1 that she would ask Holmes to call me back.
This happened a lot of times, that the police said they would call me back, but they
didn't. It's difficult for me to say what happened in this situation. If Holmes got the
message or not. There could be some problems with the routines at the police-station,
or it could have been a mistake from eighter Steele or Holmes.
7. The constable who was in the 'reception' on 24/1 and 25/1 didn't wear collar-number-
tags. I think police should be expected to wear their tag-numbers, because I know
there are rules about things like this, even eg. shop-assistants are instructed to
wear their name-tags, so I think the police, having an important funciton in society,
also should wear some kind of indification, so that it's possible for members of the
public to identify the serviceman/woman they have been talking with. (In case
something wrong is being said or done by the constable/officer).
8. The constable that didn't wear number-tags on 24/1 and 25/1, promised me that
she would get Victoria Steele to call me back regarding the case.
But Steele didn't call. This is a similar problem I think to complaint 6, and this happened
a lot of times, I was promised maybe 10 times by different officers/constables that the
police would call me back, but I wasn't called back by the police a single time in 2007.
I was only called back once in November 2006.
(And I was promised to be called back about ten times or more in 2007, and they didn't
call a single time).
9. I went to the police in January, and gave them copies of the documents in which I
thought that it would be possible to find evidence about the problem with a criminal
organisation of some kind having infiltrated/taking over the company I had worked in.
I gave the documents (many hundred sheets) to Steele, who gave it to Holmes.
When I spoke with Holmes two or three weeks later, he said he had only read a bit
on the top of the pile, a bit in the middle, and a bit on the bottom of the pile.
And he still said it was an employment-case, and that I should go to the CAB.
By then I had 'argued' so much with the police about this, that I didn't know if it
would be right for me as a Norwegian to continue arguing with the British police about
this.
But, I remebered Sgt. Camel had said earlier that the CAB would send it back to the
police if they thought it was right.
And thought that maybe it was because I was from another country that they wouldn't
listen to me at the police-station, and maybe they weren't used to dealing that much
with documents for all that I knew.
So I thought that it would maybe be just as smart to have a lawyer at the CAB have a
look at it, and send it back, maybe this would convince the police to have a look at, and
investigate the case.
(It could be of couse, that the police investigated it, but didn't tell me about this. I had
been at the police-station several times in November and later explaining about the case.
I'm not an expert in police-methods, but I guessed that it could be that the police investigated
without telling me, for some reason, I wasn't sure, but I reackoned that this could be the case,
since I would have thought that the British Police would deal with a matter like this in a
responsible way.)
But in the complaint about the liasons with the police, I could only relate to what I knew for
sure, and I knew for sure that Constable Holmes didn't look properly through the documents
I delivered to the police-station for him to give to an investigator.
So I thought that it was irresponsible by constable Holmes to not read throught the documents
proberly, and to not give them to an investigator.
10. The police sent me a letter on 16/2, where they called me 'Miss Erik Ribsskog'. I think, like
the British representative on the Norwegian Consulate in the India Building said, that it should
be obvious to Brits that Erik and Eric is the same name, and it therefore must be someone
making jokes and not taking their job serious.
Like I had explained in meetings at the police-station, it seemed to me that some of my collegues
in the complany, probably must have been under control by criminals. So I thought this was an important
case, and then to start making jokes like this in an important case. I think thats irresponsible and
it seems like a joke that small kids could have made. So this makes me worried that things could be
out of control at the police-station.
11. In the meeting on 1/2, Sergant O'Brian told me to move from the chair I sat down with at the
table, (even if I sat in the same chair in the meeting there with Sgt. Camel and the constable on
16/1).
So I had to move to another chair, at the other side of the table, I think that Sgt. O'Brian was acting
patronising towards me when he 'ordered' me to sit in the other chair.
12. In the meeting at the St. Ann's police-station on 1/3, the 'ginger' police-constable, wouldn't let
me present the issues about which I had contacted the police-station to the Sergant O'Brian, but
insisted on presenting the things I wanted to bring up in the meeting to the Sergant himself.
So this made me lose a bit control on how the issues were presented, and it seemed to me that
I was being patronised by the police-constable.
And this made it diffucult for me to present the things I wanted to bring up, in the way I intended
to present it, and also it made me more of a spectator than a participant in the meeting.
I guess it could be that it was O'Brian who should have told the constable to let me explain myself,
because I think they should have let me explain my concerns myself.
13. So in the meeting on 1/3, I was a bit confused if I was supposed to exlain about my concerns
to Sgt. O'Brian myself, or if this was the job of the constable.
So this made me a bit confused about how they meant the meeting to be conducted, and what they
wanted my role in the meeting to be.
14. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian said that he thought the problem with the case not having any
progress with being dealt with by the police, was due to the case having being dealt with by a large
number of police servicemen.
So, he suggested, that to find out exactly what had been going on, they would ask constable Steele
to call me, and tell me what she had been doing with the documents after I gave them to her.
I think this was irresponsible by the Sergant. He must have understood that to find out what the police
had been doing, would be a job for the police.
So I think that he should have taken the job of finding out what the police had been doing, that he should
have taken the responsibility of finding this out himself.
And of course, investigate the case himself, instead of not doing anything, other that saying I had to find
out what the police had been doing so far.
So I thought this was very irresponsible by Sgt. O'Brian.
15. This is connected with point 14. That I think Sgt. O'Brian should have investigated himself:
1. What the police had done regarding the case so far. (And not telling me to find out about this.)
2. Investigate the case further.
Sgt. O'Brian didn't do eighter of these actions, and I think that this was very irresponsible.
16. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian was very un-calm, and this together with the patronising
I was subjected to (which is explained in point 11 and 12), made it difficult for me to bring up
the issues I wanted to bring up in the way I had intended.
So I think that (especially since I haven't been living in Britain that long, and had to 'compete'
with to British police-servicemen who were patronising me in the meeting), because of this,
I think that the Sergant should have tryed to remain calm in the meeting, since I think when
one have a job as a public serviceman, then it's important that one are capable of comunicating
with the public.
And then to be so un-calm in the meeting, can make it difficult for the meeting and the comunication
to be conducted in a meaningful way, since the things the Sergant said had marks of not being
very thorowly considered. (Like he told me that I had to make sure that my former employer and
the job-agency got in touch about the letter I had brought there, even if it was obvious from that
letter that they already were in touch, and the Sergant was reading the letter explaining about
this).
So I think the Sergant must have been so un-calm that he didn't get the meaning of the letter.
And I didn't want to aggrivate or make the Sergant even more un-calm, so I just had to pretend
to agree with him.
I though that I would rather call the Sergant later, and explain about this later, when he was in
a calmer state.
An I think that when one as a member of the public, contacts the police, about important things
like this, then one should expect to be treated in professional way by the police.
So when the police are patronising you, and like I mention in this individual complaint, the police
Sergant in charge of the meeting, isn't capable to keep control of himself and remain calm, in
a way that the meeting could be conducted in a professional and meaningful way.
I think that if the Sergant in charge of the meeting isn't capable of doing this, then this is a reason
to complain. (Because I don't think members of the public should be treated in an unprofessional
and unpolite way when they are contacting the police).
17. Sgt. O'Brian said in the meeting on 1/3, that they would get constable Steele to call me back
about what the police had been doing with the case so far.
Victoria Steele didn't call, and I called back to the police-station several times, and was told that
she was on holiday.
I also called back several times after she should have been back, but she was never present.
The people I talked with at the police-station, told me several times that they would get Steele
to call, yet she never called.
This problem happened very often. (That I was promised someone from the police would call
me back, but that they didn't call at all in 2007).
18. The same in this individual complaint.
When I tryed calling Steele, but didn't suceed in getting in contact with her at all.
Then I tried to call Sgt. O'Brian on several phone-numbers I was given by the central, and
by St. Ann's police-station.
I didn't manage to get hold of Sgt. O'Brian eighter, and after trying to get in contact with
Constable Steele and Sergant O'Brian for weeks, without getting hold of them, and without
any of them returning my calls.
Then I went to the Norwegian Consulat in the India Building, asking The Consulate if they
had any advice for me, on how to get in contact with Constable Steele or Sgt. Obrian.
The Consulate-representative, Liz Hurley, went and called Sgt. O'Brian, while I was at
the Consulate on 19/3.
Liz Hurley said, that she had been talking with O'Brian, and that O'Brian had told her that
'he remembered the case'.
Yet, Sgt. O'Brian still didn't call me back, even after recieving this reminder by the Norwegian
Consulate representative.
Sgt. O'Brian still hadn't called me back when I sent you the complaint on 3/5, and he still
haven't called me back when I'm writing this appeal now on 26/8.
I think this is very unprofessional of the Sergant. On the meeting on 1/3, I showed the
constable and Sergant O'Brian the explanation I had written were I explain about
my concern about what was going on in the company, and I remember the Sergant
was reading the explanation, he got it from the constable.
And I had written that it was clear to me that some of my collages in the company was
under control by criminals.
(I had written it in capital letters, because I was a bit tired of the police not taking any
actions after I had gone to the police-station reporting about this several times in
November, then in the meeting with Sgt. Cambel in January, and then in the talks
with Constable Holmes also in January.
I wasn't sure if the police was taking this as serious as they should, so I tryed to
write it in a document, why I think they should act. I even wrote some of it in capital
letters, so to show that I meant this seriously, and to maybe get them to wake up).
And it was this document that I remember O'Brian read, and still they didn't even return
my calls, even after reading that document, and having seen how important I thought
the case was.
And in the meeting on 1/3, I also showed the Constable and the Sergant the letter from
the Solicitor from 27/2, where the Solicitor writes that:
'As I explained, Morecrofts do not deal with criminal law and would not be able to advise you
on this aspect although some further perusal of your papers may reveal some information that
will assist the police.'
Even if I showed the Sergant this letter from the Solicitor, still the Sergant didn't want to investigate/
look at the papers/documents I had. And even if he had read this letter and the the letter where
I explain that I'm worried about some of my collueges being under control by criminals in the
company I used to work, and also even if he got a call about this from the Norwegian Consulate,
still he didn't even return my calls.
I think this was very irresponsible and unprofessional by the Sergant. And it was this behaviour from
the Sergant that I thought was the 'final drop', so to speak, and lead me to complain about the
police to the CPS.
And then, after recieving my complaint, the CPS adviced me to contact you, so thats why
I sent you the e-mail with the complaint on 3/5.
Please tell us why you would like to appeal about the way your complaint was handled:
The police force didn't record my complaint.
Please explain why you want to appeal:
Well, like I exlained above, I think that the police force should deal with members of the
public in a professional and aproriate way.
All of the 18 individual complaint I have mentioned, are situations, where I think the police
have acted in a way which I think is below the standard you could expect from a responsible
police force.
And when I complain about the police not letting me report a crime (like in complaint 1), and
the police acting irresponsible with sending me back to work even if the complany was
controled by criminals (complaint 2), lying to me about the CAB being a government
organisation (even if I discovered the lying later, complaint 3), the police refusing to
investgate a serious criminal case, involiving people being held under control, seemingly
like slaves, by criminals (complaint 4), the police lying to me again, saying that
it would be a breach on the data protection act if they looked at some documents
on my laptop. (complaint 5), that the police acted irresponsible, on numerous occations,
when I was promised the police would call me back, but they didn't. I would think that
this happened to many times to it being coincidental, I would think that some type of
misconduct is the reason for this way of treatment by the police (numerous complaints, eg.
complaint 6, 8, 17 and 18).
That the police constable didn't give the documents I gave him regarding a serious crime-
case to an investigator (complaint 9), that the police insulted me, calling me 'Miss Erik
Ribsskog', in their letter from 16/2, when it should be obvious, as I have got confirmed by
a British representative working for the Norwegian Consulate, that it should be obvious
for Brits that Erik and Eric is the same name, and due to this, the police were inpolite
towards me, since they called me 'Miss', even if they should know that my name isn't
a girls name.
That Sgt. O'Brian was, I would go as far as to say he was harassing me, and were
patronising towards me in the meeting on the police-station on 1/3, described in
complaint 11-18.
That Sgt. O'Brian was acting irresponsible in not investigating a serious crime-case,
even if the Solicitor had written in the letter that she thought this could be a matter
for the police, and even if he was called by the Norwegian Consulate, and still didn't
return my calls.
And also that he left it to me, a member of the public, to find out how the police had
been dealing with the case, instead of dealing with it himself.
And also that he was 'in a state' in the meeting, not giving me a chance to explain
about the issues in the way I had intended, due to having to focus on not trying
to aggrivate the Sergant any more, that is to try to get him calm down, taking
the focus away from presenting the actual issues I had gone there to present.
I think the harassment, patronisment, unprofesionalism from the Sergant in the
meeting on 1/3 certainly qualifyes to problems with the liasons with the police, like
I initialy complained about, but also to beind misconduct like I see now that it has
to be, for the police to deal with the complaint.
Also the other issues I've mentioned under this section 'Why you want to appeal',
I think they also must be misconduct, like when the Constable didn't want to let
me report a crime in complaint 1, and the refusal to investigate a serious crime-case
in complaint 2, the later discovered lying in complain 3 etc. (see section above).
So when I read in your e-mail from 14/8, that 'I was informed by
Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be concerned
with allegations of misconduct against individual police officers and
therefore decided not to formally record your complaint under the Police
Reform Act 2002.', then I can't agree with the Merseyside Police that my
complaint isn't being deemed as being concerd with allegations of
misconduct against individual police officers.
I can't see that the lying, the harrasment, the insults, the not alowing a member
of the public to report a crime case, the refusal to investigate a serious crime-case,
and the other mentioned issues (see above).
I cant see that these things shouldn't be considered as misconduct.
Thats my view, I'm not sure how police are expected to conduct themselves in this
country, but if I use my head and think by myself how I would have thought that
the police were meant to conduct themselves, and then think about the way the
police-officers have conducted themselves, which I have described in this complaint,
then I'd say that the police-officers have misconducted.
Also, while I'm dealing with this, I thought I'd mention some points from the complaint-
procedure:
The police called me a week before the meeting at Walton Lane police station on 22/6.
The police-woman that called on 15/6, didn't tell me her name, even if I asked who I should
say that I had spoken with.
She just instructed me to report at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6 at a certain time,
and ask to speak with Sgt. Smithe.
I thought that they would probably ask me who had called me and told me to meet there,
so I asked her who I should tell them that I had been speaking with.
But she didn't say her name, she just said that I should say that I had been called by
the police.
And she didn't tell me at all what the meeting was about.
I used to live in Walton about a year ago, and I'd also been in contact with the police in
Walton (and also the St. Ann's police-station), about some problems I had been having
org. criminals in Oslo and Liverpool.
And also when I lived in Walton, I rented a room in a shared house, and there were also
problems going on in the house which I have reported to the Walton Lane police.
And also when I was living in the shared house, due to reasons unknown to me, and I
hadn't been living in Britain long enough then to understand about all the things
surounding Council-tax.
But for some reason, I don't think any of the tenants revieved council-tax bills (or tv-licensing
bills), when they were living in the shared house in Mandeville St. in Walton.
So I wasn't completly sure about why it was that the police had called me and instructed
me to meet at the Walton Lane police-station.
I thought, of course, that it could be to do with the complaint. But I wasn't completly sure,
I thought it also could be with the cases I had reported about earlier regarding problems with
org. criminials in Oslo and Liverpool.
I also thought there could be a chance it was regarding the problem with the missing council
tax and tv-licensing bills from the Mandeville shared house. (Problems which I had intended
to bring up togheter with a lot of other problems, once I'd got set up a dialog with the police,
once I'd got a contact-person and a dialog at the police, and could start to focus on trying
to explain all details with the earlier reported problems in Norway and Liverpool).
And I wanted the police to deal with the things I had brought up seriously. And I was a bit
afraid to 'make a fool of myself', if I called the Walton Lane police-station, and asked to
speak with Sgt. Smithe, to ask what the meeting was about.
Because then I reackoned that I had to explain who had called me about the meeting, and
I couldn't really be sure that the Sergant was working on Walton Lane police-station
permanently. He could be in a specialised police-department for all that I know, who dealt
with police complaint cases, and who was stationed somewhere else, maybe even out of
town, for all that I knew. And only was supposed to be at the Walton Lane police-station
for the meeting regarding the complaint-case.
So, since I didn't want to make a bad impression, (makine a fool of myself), since I'm a
bit clumsy sometimes with my manners etc, since I haven't been living in Britain that
long, due to this, I found it best to just show for the meeting, and not call to ask any
questions regarding the agenda.
I also guessed that if it was meant for me to contact them back regarding things surrounding
the meeting, then I would have got a contact-name there, like the police-woman calling
would have told me her name, and told me that if I had any questions, then I could contact
this and this person.
But since no such contact-name was given to me, then I guessed that I wasn't meant to
know what the meeting was about, before the meeting.
So I didn't know exactly how to prepare for the meeting.
And when the meeting started, I had to ask the Sergant if the meeting was about the complaint,
to be sure.
In the meeting, we didn't discuss the issues regarding problems with the liasons with the
police at all.
Somehow, we ended up discussing the cases that I had complained about to the Walton
Lane police-station before. (The problems with org. criminals in Oslo and Liverpool).
I wrote some notes down when I got home from the meeting, here are some of the points.
- Core of case: Followed by mafia in Norway, and this has continued in England (Ppl. from
work etc).
(This is about some problems I had in Norway, and which I have reported about to the police
in Norway and England.
It was on my workplace in Oslo. I was working as an assistant shop-manager, while I was studying.
And then I got some problems with the my face being more or less distroyed (its a long story), and
I still went to work a few days (I didn't think it was so serious, so I thought the problems with the
face-skin would pass), and then I overheard a couple of conversations about me behind my back so to
speak, eg. one conversation I overheard I heard it being said (they were talking about my face which
was more or less distroyed), and I head them say: 'I've heard that he's also followed by the mafia'.
And also I heard other customers say, about me, 'he isn't afraid (eg. he goes to work as normal
I think they must have meant) even if he's being followed by the mafia'.
This was just some of what happened, I've tryed to explain about these things to the police in
Norway and Britain, but I haven't been able to find someone who want's to deal with and investigate
this, and let me explain all I know about this.
But I mentioned it to the Sergant in the meeting on 22/6.
But he writes in the answer-letter that 'I have since had the oppertunity to examine the issues you
raised in terms of organised criminality and the Norwegian Mafia.'.
Well, I haven't actually menioned anything about a 'Norwegian Mafia'. I have never heard of, or
menioned a 'Norwegian mafia'.
I always thought that the people I overheard at my old workplace in Oslo, was refering to the
Albanian mafia, since this was the only mafia I had heard that were being present in Oslo.
So, when the Sergant is writing about 'the Norwegian Mafia' in his letter, then I get a bit
concerned that maybe there have been some misunderstanings in the comunications,
since I've never used the term 'Norwegian mafia', and I've never heard of or refered to
any Norwegian Mafia, so I think we must have been speaking past eachother a bit
in the meeting.
We were also taling a bit of the Arvato company which I had reported the problems
with being infiltrated by org. criminals.
(I said I thought the problems with org. criminals in Liverpool probably had to be connected
with the problems in Oslo, since I found it unlikly that the lightening would strike at the
same place twice so to speak).
I can see in my notes that the Sergant thought that Arvato had a Swedish parent-company,
but I told him that it wasn't Swedish, but German. (Bertelsman).
I also told him that I thought it would be very fine to have a contact person at the police,
since the police didn't return my calls, and also since I had a lot of information regarding
the different cases which I still hadn't got an oppertunity to report to the police, yet this
haven't been addressed in the answering-letter.
Like I've explained above, the police have been suposed to call me on more than ten occations,
but they haven't called me in 2007 at all.
So I think they should take this problem a bit more serious. They are ignoring this problem
in their answering-letter, and I can't really say that I'm sure what to do if some incidents
happens now, for which I would have needed the assitance of the police. I'm not sure what
I should do if this happens, I don't really want to call the police, just to be ignored even
more.
So I think they should have brought up this issue in their answering-letter.
In the meeting, the Sergant asked me what I wanted the police to do, and I answered that I
wanted the police to investigate the case with the problems with the Arvato-company
having problems with infiltration by org. criminals.
I explained to the Sergant that I had a lot of documents that helped showing this, and that
I think he should maybe have a look at these documents, in concetion with his investigation.
Yet, I wasn't contacted back by the Sergant at all, before I got the letter that he couldn't
find any evidence to substantiatie my claims.
So, I think that the Sergant should maybe have had a look at the documents then, like I
suggested to him in the meeting. Maybe this could have helped him. He says he haven't
found any evidence to substantiate my claims. But when he didn't even have a look at
the documents, which I explained about to him that I had in the meeting, then it's seems
a bit to me that he didn't really try that hard to find any evidence.
Because in the meeting I told him that he could just contact me if he wanted to have at
the documents I had from working in the company, but the Sergant didn't contact me
back about this.
I've also been in contact with the Norwegian Embassy in London, regarding the problems
with org. crime in Oslo and in Arvato-company and elsewhere in Liverpool.
The Embassy, told me that if I wanted the British and Norwegian police to cooperate
on these issues, then I had to tell the Brisish and Norwegian police myself that I
wanted them to cooperate about this.
So, I aslo see this in my notes, I made sure to tell the Sergant that I wanted the British
police to cooperate with the Norwegian police about these issues. (I've also earlier told
the Norwegian police the same, that I want them, like the Embassy adviced, to cooperate
with the British police on this.)
I also gave the Sergant the name of the Norwegian police-officer who knew most about
the case in Norway. (Who was working in a similar Norwegian Department, that is the
department that investigates the regular police). This because Sgt. Smithe asked who
in Norway he could contact about this, and I didn't really know who else that knew
enough about this.
Yet, in the answering letter, there is no mention about this, if the British police have
been in contact with the Norwegian police or not, so I would have to asume that
they haven't been in contact then, even if I asked them to do this, on advice from
the Embassy, in the meeting.
I told the Sergant that I had even contacted the Norwegian Consulate, and that the
Consulate-representative contacted Sgt. O'Brian, reminding him that I had tryed to
get in contact with him regarding the case, but still, Sgt. O'Brian didn't call me back.
And this is neigther addressed in the answering-letter.
I gave Sgt. Smithe some copies of explanations about the further problems with
criminals in Norway, that they tried to kill me on the farm belonging to the woman
my uncle lived with there, in the summer of 2005, and thats why I went away from
Norway again and settled in Liverpool.
And I gave the Sergant the log-number from when I reported about the problems
with criminals in Oslo and Liverpool to the Walton Lane police-station in the
Automn of 2005.
(I've also been in contact with the Merseyside police regarding these problems
several times before this, and also after this, in the spring and summer of 2006.
And then also again with the frequent contact about the problems in the Arvato
company from November 2006).
I told the Sergant that it seemed to me, and that this was supported by the
documents I had, that all the different departments on Arvato was involved in
this problem, with being taken over/infiltraded by org. criminals.
But the Sergant still didn't contact me back to have a look at the documents.
I see from my notes that I told Sgt. Smithe that I had been in contact with
a Norwegian Police-officer, in the special department that investigates the
regular police, earlier the same week, about that had been surrounding this
in Oslo.e problems in Oslo.
Further from my notes, I see that I told the Sergant that it seemed to me that
the police were worried, when they called me in the night, around midnight,
in late Novemeber 2006, and asked me to contact higher management
at Arvato, regarding the problems I had been having with certain persons
working there. (It seemed to me that she was worried do to who these
people I had been having problems with were).
-
I'll try to summarise the problems surrounding the complaint-process and the meeting on 22/6:
- The police didn't tell me was calling when they called me on 15/6 instructing me
to met at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6.
- The police didn't tell me the agenda for the meeting on 22/6, before the meeting.
- The police didn't address the individual complaints from the complaint from 3/5, neighter
in the meeting on 22/6, or in their letter from 10/7.
- The police didn't investigate the documents I told them I had, which I told them in the
meetin on 22/6, could help explain what went on at Arvato while I was working there.
- The police says in their letter from 10/7, that I have been raising issues in terms of
'The Norwegian Mafia'. But I have never heard about or refered to the term 'the Norwegian
mafia', so the police must have been misunderstanding what I said in the meeting on 10/7.
- In their answering-letter, the police haven't addressed the issue I brought up in the
meeting on 10/7, that I had been adviced by the Embassy to tell the British and Norwegian
police to cooperate on the case. But in the letter from 10/7, it isn't mentioned at all,
if there has been any contact at all with the Norwegian police regarding this.
- In the meeting on 22/6, I mentioned to Sgt. Smite, that I had been having problems
with the Merseyside Police, on repeted occations, having promised to call me back,
but then not having called. I explained that this procedure made it difficult to me,
to report about what I knew about the cases, and to get any meaningful dialog.
I threfore expressed in the meeting, a request, if I please could get a contact-person,
in the Merseyside Police, which I could contact, and get a dialog with, and tell about
the things I knew regarding the different crime-cases that had been going on.
Yet, in the letter from the police from 10/7, this isn't brought up at all, and I have
so far in 2007, not recieved a single call from the Merseyside Police about this, or
about anything else.
So these problems from the meeting/complaint process, together with the 18 individual complaints
from the complaint from 3/5, which I have exlained about above, and which haven't been dealt
with at all in the Merseyside Police letter from 10/7, are the reasons for which I am appealing.
Also, my complaint from 3/5, is like I have explained above, regarding problems with the
liasons, or contact, with the police.
Like I've also explained earlier, I'm not an expert on police methods, and I've been a bit
confused about why the police seemingly don't want to cooperate with me.
I've looked at it as certain, that maybe even if the Merseyside police haven't seemed to want
to cooperate with me about the problems at Arvato etc., I've taken it as certain, that the
Merseyside police, like any responsilbe Police-unit, would investigate the things that have
been going on at Arvato, when I've been telling them when I've met up at the police-station
in Novemeber last year, on several occations telling them about my concerns about org. criminal
activity in the company.
When I've in the meetings with Sgt. Camel on 16/1, in the several talks with Constable Holmes,
and in the meeting with Sgt. O'Brian on 1/3.
When I've in these expressed my concern about what has been going on in the Arvato company, and
also explained to them that I'm worried about my former collegues that were still working there,
because it seemed to me that some of them must have been under control by criminals.
And when I also mention to the Merseyside Police that I have been in contact with the Embassy,
and later also the Consulate, and I give a larger number, several hundred, documents, that
helps show that there has been something goving on there.
And when I've also sent e-mails, on my last day working at Arvato, to a number of British and
Norwegian newspapers and tv-stations, and also to the parent-company, that it's clear to me
that there is a problem with organised criminal activity in the company.
If the fact, that the police are still ignoring my plea to get a contact-person and a dialog
with the police, to get a chance to tell them everything I know about the problems at Arvato,
(and also about the other problems from Liverpool and Norway).
If the fact that they are still ignoring this request, means that they haven't been investigating
the problems at Arvato at all, then I off course think that this is serious. And I guess, since
I haven't been reading about the problems at Arvato in the newspapers or otherwere, and since
I see from the letter the Merseyside police sent me on 10/7, that the police doesn't seem to be
interested in letting me tell them what I know about (since they haven't commented on the problems
I have been having with the contact with the police at all).
Due to this I have to presume that nothing has been done about the problems at Arvato then.
Problems which to me seems like they are serious, and it seems to me that some of the people
that were working there, at the same time I was working there, was under control by criminals.
(This got clear to me at the end of the time I worked there, thats why I sent the e-mails to
the newspapers etc., and this is also why I went to the police and told them about this all
those times from November 2006.).
I've also explained about what it seems to me must have been going on at Arvato, to the Norwegian
Embassy, and the Norwegian Police, since there were many Norwegians and Scandinavians working
at the Arvato campaign which I was working on.
But if it even, after I've tryed to tell all of these about the problems, if there still hasn't
been investigating what has been going on at Arvato (Which I find highly unlikly, since I think
any responsible police-force of course would have investigated serious cases like this. But
I mention this anyway, due to the ignorance from the police regarding my plea to tell the police
what I know about what has been going on).
Because then, since it also hasn't been about this in the news, then I have to presume that the
problems at Arvato haven't been investigated by the Merseyiside Police at all, or by anyone
else, so then I think the only responsible think would be to try get advice on how this problem,
with the semingly organised crime activity at the Arvato company, should addressed, when the
police are igonring the problem.
So if you at the IPCC have any idea on how to go forward then. I guess thats a complaint about
the Merseyside Police as a police-force, as well as a complaint against individual police-
officers, like it is in the complaints you are dealing with.
But I reackoned that I might as well ask you now then, how I should go forward, to get the police
to investigate the problems with the organised criminal activity at Arvato, which seeems clear
to me from working there, and which I also have documents that supports the occurance of.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself a bit at the end here, but I think that these problems should
be dealt with in a responsilbe way.
And it doesn't seem to me that the complaint with the problems with the liasons is being dealt
with in a responsible way from the Merseyside Police.
And this makes a bit worried about if the problems with my former collegues from Arvoto which
it seemed to me must have been under control by criminal, also is being dealt with in an
irresponsible way.
Thats why I'm bringing this up now, even if I'm not sure if it's the right time and place, but
I hope that maybe you could maybe give some advice on how to go forward with this problem as
well, with the org. criminal activity at Arvato, and the problems with the people working
there seeming to be under control by criminals.
Even if this complaint originaly only was regarding the problems with the contact with the
police, because I was sure that the police would deal with a case like that responsible,
no matter what they inform me about what they are doing.
But I must admit that the way the police have been dealing with my complaint from 3/5, with the
problems surrounding the meeting on 22/6, and the answering-letter from 10/7.
I think issues have been dealt with a bit unprofessional by the police, so the unprofessionalism
from them surrounding these issues, has made me a bit uncertain as to if they are dealing with
the problems at Arvato in a responsible way at all.
So thats why I thought I'd bring this up now, while I was dealing with the relating issues
in the appeal.
So I hope that this is alright, and that it's possible for you have a look at the issues I've
brought up in this appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 8/15/07, Joanne Fitzgerald
Dear Mr Ribsskog,
Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
The information we require, should you wish to appeal the police's decision to not formally record your complaint, is set out in the Appeal Form that I have posted to you. I have also now attached the relevant appeal form with this email for your consideration - this electronic version can be printed out, completed and returned by post. You may complete an Appeal Form or provide the same required information in an email.
Please be aware that if you wish to submit an appeal we must receive your appeal within 28 days of the date of me informing you of your right to appeal.
I hope this information has assisted you.
Please contact me if you have any further questions,
Yours sincerely,
Joanne
Joanne Fitzgerald
Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BH
Tel: 020 7166 3182
Fax: 020 7166 3642
Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 August 2007 00:24
To: Joanne Fitzgerald
Subject: Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341
Hi,
thank you very much for your e-mail!
I will definatly appeal against the decision not to investigate the complaint.
I'm just a bit busy with work and other issues at the moment, but I'm going
to look up in the letter about how one should appeal formally, one of the next
days, and then I'll send a more formal appeal if thats needed.
Or else, please tell me if you think this e-mail can be considered as a formal
appeal, if not, then I'll send a new e-mail one of the next days.
Hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 8/14/07, Joanne Fitzgerald
Dear Mr Ribsskog,
Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC).
I have contacted Merseyside Professional Standards Department to
establish the current status of your complaint. I was informed by
Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be concerned
with allegations of misconduct against individual police officers and
therefore decided not to formally record your complaint under the Police
Reform Act 2002.
If you disagree with the decision by Merseyside Police to not formally
record your complaint, then you have a right to appeal to the IPCC to
independently review the police's decision. I have sent you the relevant
appeal form today in the post (Appealing Against a Complaint Not Being
Recorded) and this form is also available online at our website
(www.ipcc.gov.uk), should this assist you further. Please note, should
you wish to appeal, we must receive your appeal form within 28 days.
If you have any further questions then please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Yours sincerely,
Joanne
Joanne Fitzgerald
Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BH
Tel: 020 7166 3182
Fax: 020 7166 3642
Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
******************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient
please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content of
this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily those
of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
receipt of this email.
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London,
WC1V 6BH.
******************************************************************************
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
******************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient
please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content of
this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily those
of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
receipt of this email.
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London,
WC1V 6BH.
******************************************************************************
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Abonner på:
Innlegg (Atom)
Populære innlegg
-
Google Mail - Spørsmål om Mette-Marit videoen. Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> ...
-
Ingeborg Ribsskog, nærmeste slektning etter både Ove Gjedde og Cort Adeler, og baronesse (Adeler), i Nevlunghavn. Min mo...
-
PS. Her er mer om dette, (fra Wikipedia): Johanitterordenen var en kristen ridderorden med militære funksjoner som ble opprettet under korst...
-
Jeg har fulgt den mord/drap-saken, på Martine Vik Magnussen, ganske nøye, fordi jeg har jo bodd i England i en tre års tid nå, i Sunderland ... -
17 maj – då firar Norge med fryspizza Äter 4,7 kilo per person och år OSLO Torsk och räkor på syttende mai? Nej, nej. Fryspizza är norrmän... -
Gmail - Mette-Marit Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> Mette-Marit Erik Ribsskog &...
-
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000249633996 PS. Jeg sendte en Facebook-melding til Terje Sjølie: ...
-
https://www.linkedin.com/in/erik-ribsskog-45586a6/ PS. Her er mer om dette, (fra Romerikes Blad 15. januar 1992): https://www.nb...
-
Gmail - Exact address in West Derby Road/Fwd: Erik Ribsskog replied to your ad: 1 room in flat in West Derby Road, Tuebrook ...
Om meg
- Erik Ribsskog
- Overhørte på Rimi Bjørndal, (jeg jobbet som butikksjef/leder i ti år, i mange forskjellige butikker), i 2003, at jeg var forfulgt av 'mafian', mm. Har etter dette ikke fått rettighetene mine, i mange saker. Blogger derfor om problemer med å få rettigheter, mm. Mine memoarer, (Min Bok 1-10), kan også finnes på johncons-blogg, (se: 'Etiketter'). Jeg blogger også om slektsforskning, (etter at min danskfødte mormor, som var etter adelige/kongelige, døde i 2009). Har også vært såvidt innom Høyre/Unge Høyre, i sin tid. Har også studert informasjonsbehandling/IT/Computing, (på NHI, HiO IU og University of Sunderland). Har også bakgrunn fra handel og kontor, (grunnkurs, økonomi med markedsføring og data). Er/var også i Heimevernet, (etter at jeg ble overført dit, etter førstegangstjeneste i infanteriet, (og en rep-øvelse i mob-hæren), i forbindelse med omorganiseringer, i Forsvaret, etter den kalde krigen). Blir også utsatt for mye nettmobbing, mm. johncons-blogg, (og mine memoarer og nettbutikk), er kjent fra TV-programmet Tweet4Tweet, i 2012, (selv om jeg måtte klage, for programmet var veldig useriøst/nedlatende, mm.).
Innlegg
Alle kommentarer
