Altså, noen ganger, så hender det jo at man skal beskrive en situasjon.

F.eks. her om dagen, så var jeg på Walton Lane politistasjon i Liverpool.

Og da ble jeg trakassert av en kvinnelig blond politikonstabel.

I England, eller i hvertfall Liverpool, så har de en sånn ringeklokke man skal trykke på, så dukker det etterhvert opp en politibetjent fra bakrommet.

Så det som skjedde, var at den kvinnelige blonde politibetjenten, begynte å spørre meg om hva mitt ærend ditt skyldtes osv.

Så plutselig slutter hun å høre på meg, og begynner å prate med en afrikaner eller neger da, som sitter i ventedelen av politistasjonen.

Så sier han afrikaneren, eller negeren da, at han har ventet i 20 minutter.

Så stikker hun blonde politidama, inn på bakrommet igjen, og blir der et par minutter, snakker mer med afrikaneren/negeren, og så spørr hun meg på nytt hva mitt ærend er.

Jeg mener det var trakassering fra politidama, fordi hun skulle ikke sluttet å høre på meg, (helt uten grunn var det og, det var ingen som sa noe, eller noe annen anledning, som skulle tilsi at hun plutselig skulle slutte å høre på hva jeg sa).

Men akkurat det er egentlig ikke poenget.

Poenget er, når jeg senere, sammen med annen informasjon, skrev en e-post, og beskrev denne episoden, til 'The Standard Unit', altså tilsvarende spesialenheten ved politidistriktet da.

Så måtte jeg jo beskrive situasjonen.

Og da er det jo greit å kunne beskrive f.eks. at politibetjenten var kvinnelig og blond.

Og at personen i venteværelse, var mannlig og neger/afrikaner da.

Fordi da er det lettere, for de som leser rapporten/e-posten, å skjønne hvilke personer det er man referer til.

Så dess mer nøyaktig man referer, dess mer nytte/informasjon, gir det man har skrevet da.

Altså, man bør vel få lov å kalle en spade for en spade.

Man kunne jo laget en ny regel, at man bør kalle en spade for graveredskap.

Men det finnes jo hakker og mye annet, som også kan være graveredskap.

Jeg husker jeg jobba på en gård for et par års tid siden, og gravde noen grøfter osv., så det er jeg helt sikker på.

Og hvis man da får beskjed f.eks: Gå å hent det graveredskapet.

Så henter du hakka da, siden det er et graveredskap.

Nei jeg mente ikke at du skulle hente graveredskapet, graveredskapet var det jeg mente du skulle hente, stikk å hent graveredskapet nå da.

Alle skjønner at dette blir bare tull.

Man må vel ha et ord for å beskrive spaden.

Hvis man ikke får lov å kalle negre for negre, så må man i det minste få et annet ord som betyr det samme da.

Som kan være akseptabelt for negre også da.

Men i mellomtiden, så kan man vel ikke forby ordet som betyr neger?

Det blir mer som i 1984, eller hvor det var 'new-speach' var med, eller ny-tale, at myndighetene, eller hvem det var, forbød de ordene som refererte til det man ikke ville at folk skulle tenke på, eller mene noe om da.

Det blir i hvertfall noe lignende, iom. at man forbyr å referere til et ord med en spesiell mening.

Jeg skjønner ikke at det skal være noe være å si neger enn eksimo.

Men eskimo er vel ikke greit lenger forresten, men da kan man jo si inuit, som betyr det samme vel.

Men hva kan man si som betyr det samme som neger?

Det vet ikke jeg egentlig.

Kanskje man skulle finne på et nytt ord, som betyr det samme da, før man forbyr det gamle.

Dette har jeg også tenkt på, i forbindelse med ordet 'rasisme'.

Så har man utvidet rasisme-begrepet.

Så vel, kun de færreste, egentlig vet hva man mener når man bruker ordet 'rasisme' for tiden.

Det er helt uholdbart synes jeg.

For hvordan skal man referere til rasisme, sånn som det betydde før begrepet ble utvidet da?

Man skulle jo selvfølgelig, latt rasisme bety rasisme, og så laget et nytt ord, som betydde både rasisme og også de ekstra begrepene, som er med i det nye utvidede rasisme begrepet som vel brukes nå.

Nå er det jo total forvirring.

Hvem er det som bestemmer hva ordene skal bety?

Det blir jo politikk i ordene, som som myndighetene eller hvem det er som bestemmer, holder på.

Så jeg synes bør passe litt på når ord pluteslig ikke er lov å brukes lengre, og når ordene over dagen forrandrer mening pga. en slags resulusjon eller noe slikt.

Da tror jeg det kanskje er på tide å stoppe opp litt, og prøve å høre hva det er som foregår.

Er det ikke litt betenkelig, at staten har en dobbeltrolle, både som eier av telenor, og som den som styrer lover og regler i forbindelse med tele og tv-markedet mm.

Hadde det ikke vært mer ryddig, om staten som konsesjonsgiver mm., ikke skulle gi konsesjoner og lage regler og utøve regelverket, for en bedrift som de selv eier?

Er det egentlig statens oppgave å drive teleselskap?

Blir ikke staten litt vel tung, hvis den skal ta på seg masse oppgaver som den egentlig ikke trenger å drive med?

Og hvem vet hva som foregår inne i statsbyråkratiet alltid, det kan vel bli diverse kafka-aktige prosesser ut av det byråkratiet skulle man kanskje tro.

Og det hadde kanskje vært ryddigere, om staten ikke var part på mer enn en side av bordet av gangen?

Og hvis staten, blir for stor, så blir det vel vanskelig for innbyggerne i landet å følge med på hva som skjer i statsmaskineriet, og å komme med tilbakemeldinger og eventuelt prøve å korrigere det som foregår, hvis ikke synes det er bra nok f.eks. det som staten presterer i en av sine roller.

Er det litt sånn at staten er en hellig ku i Norge, som man ikke skal kritisere eller?

Ja nå spør jeg kanskje mer spørsmål enn jeg svarer her, så jeg beklager det, jeg skal se om jeg får skrevet det inn i en ny tråd eventuelt etterhvert.

Ja, nå er det snart et år siden jeg slutta på Arvato, og fortsatt har ikke myndighetene eller noen andre fortalt meg hva som foregår.

Hvis dem vil at det skal klikke for meg, så er nok ikke det umulig nei.

From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk Joanne Fitzgerald
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:38:35 +0000
Subject: Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police - 2007/006341

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.
> >
> >
>