Jeg lurer på om det er Annika fra Bergeråsen, som lager hat-blogg.
Jeg skreiv bare det Christell sa jeg da.
På 80-tallet, en gang.
Hun sa det, at rektor Borgen, gikk inn i garderoben dems, i 6. klasse på barneskolen.
Så hadde Annika løpt fram og tilbake og vifta med fordelene sine, sa Christell.
Utafor huset til Haldis der, i Havnehagen.
Men det er mulig, at det ikke er sant.
Men Annika skreiv jo på Facebook, at hu kunne bekrefte, at rektoren kom inn i garderoben dems, mens dem skifta osv.
Så det er nok sant.
Om hun vifta med fordelene eller ikke, det er vel ikke så viktig, hva hun gjorde, for hun var så ung uansett, så det er hva rektoren gjorde som har noe å si, i såfall.
Og grunnen til at jeg tok opp det.
Det er fordi, at Christell og Pia, dem driver å beskylder fattern først, for å ha misbrukt Pia.
Det sa dem i Kristiansand, i 1989, må det vel ha vært, da vi var der i bryllup.
Christell sa, at fattern hadde fingra Pia.
Det synes jeg hørtes så ille ut, at jeg kutta kontakten, mer eller mindre, med fattern.
Jeg flytta til Oslo, og dro nesten aldri på besøk til Berger eller Drammen eller Sand.
Nå, i 2008, så sier Pia, at fattern var klåfingra.
Det er ikke det samme som Christell sa, i 1989, at fattern hadde fingra Pia.
Så det er tydelig at dem driver med noe lureri, for Pia satt ved siden av Christell, da hu sa det, i 1989.
Jan og Christell og Pia, og meg, var på resturant i Kristiansand.
Som dem dro med meg på, av en eller annen anledning.
Så det mulig det her, var en del av en plan.
For jeg var den eneste som begynte å skjelle ut fattern, og si at jeg ikke ville ha noe mer med han å gjøre da.
Dem andre sa ikke noe sånt.
Jeg synes det vanlige ville vært, å bli enige om hva vi skulle gjøre med det her.
Men jeg var den eneste som sa noe.
Så at de tre andre, Jan, Pia og Christell, hadde planlagt det her, for å få meg til å bryte kontakten med fattern, eller noe.
Sånn at dem fikk arve mer, eller noe, for dem er ganske luringer de her.
Ei dame, som Jan Snoghøj, var sammen med.
Hu har jeg møtt et par ganger seinere.
Hu er en sånn 5 år eldre enn meg kanskje.
Jeg husker ikke hva hu heter nå.
Men hu er skikkelig forbanna på han Jan.
Og hu anbefalte meg, å flytte vekk, og ikke ha noe med dem å gjøre osv.
Så hu hadde vel litt fornuft i hue.
Men jeg husker ikke hva hu heter nå.
Men at Jan kanksje driver å manipulerer og sånn.
Det er mulig.
Uten at jeg vet det sikkert.
En 17. mai, i Oslo, mens jeg jobbet som butikksjef.
Det må ha vært i år 2000 eller 2001, vil jeg tippe.
Da tro vi tre, jeg og Christell og Pia, på tre brødre, i Karl Johan, for å drikke øl.
Jeg har ikke sett så mye til Christell, siden jeg flytta fra Bergeråsen, i 1989.
Jeg har kanskje sett henne en gang annehvert år, eller noe sånt, i gjennomsnitt, siden da.
Og hu er litt sånn vanskelig å komme innpå, litt aggresiv noen ganger vel, i hvertfall ikke så enkel å kommunisere med da.
Ikke så lett å komme inn på.
Synes jeg i hvertfall da.
Og hu er vel heller ikke, den skarpeste kniven i skuffen, som de sier.
Hun er vel mer sånn, den siste i klassen, som lærte å lese undertekstene på TV-en, før de ble borte fra skjermen.
Det er mitt inntrykk, i hvertfall.
En rar ting, kom jeg på nå.
Det var, i bryllupet, til Jan Snoghøj, og Hege, fra Rødgata, på Gulskogen, på Geilo, i 2001, var det kanskje.
Noe sånt.
Da skulle broren din bruden, lillebroren til Hege, holde tale.
Foran 100 bryllupsgjeseter, eller 50 kanskje, noe sånt.
Og da begynte han å prate, nervøst, om hvor mange, som Christell hadde hatt seg med.
Og jeg skal ikke si hvor mange det var jeg.
Da dukker det vel opp en hat-gruppe til.
Eller, det var vel ikke så mange som antall bryllupsgjester, men det var vel ikke så langt unna.
Kanskje halvparten.
Sa han luringen da.
Jeg vet ikke, hvorfor de prater om sånt i taler i bryllup osv., men det er kanskje sånn som er vanlig i Rødgata.
Hva vet jeg.
Etter middagen, var det ingen som ville prate med meg der.
Så jeg måtte bare ta kvelden.
Alle var helt usosiale, inkludert min kjære søster, som jeg har fått nok av å ha kontakt med.
F.eks. det med tigginga i Karl Johan, under bursdagen til Magne, på begynnelsen av 90-tallet.
Når hun var slavedriver, overfor han stakkars flat-mate'n sin, som det heter i England, kollektiv-samboeren sin, en kar fra Røyken med lyst hår, som jeg ikke husker hva heter.
Hun slavedrivde han, opp og ned Karl Johan, for å tigge om mynter.
Skikkelig bitch og slavedriver.
Jeg vet ikke hvordan det hang sammen.
Men han virka litt kua, han karen.
Så kom bursdagen til Magne forbi da, med unge Høyre ledere, klassekamerater fra Gjerde Videregående i Drammen, og en distriktsjef i Rimi, eller noe.
Da var det artig å møte søstra si, slavedrivende på en kar, for å få han til å tigge penger i Karl Johan.
Og det er mye mer og, jeg gidder ikke å skrive alt.
Så jeg tror jeg kutter ut dem to der, Pia og Christell.
Det er vel ikke noe håp uansett, for noen av dem, dem er vel ikke så oppegående, noen av dem.
Så dem er det nok like smart å kutte helt ut.
Så det har jeg herved gjort.
Ikke noe mer kontakt med dem fra nå.
Da vi var på Tre Brødre der, i 2001, eller når det var.
Når Christell venta på typen sin, Matthias vel, fra Sverige.
Sa tok dem opp det.
Da spurte vel Christell, var det vel.
Skal du ikke ha normalt forhold til fattern da.
Så sa jeg, ja men hva med det dere sa i Kristiansand da.
Om at fattern hadde fingra Pia.
Da sa Christell, at jeg også hadde misbrukt Pia.
Og det mener jeg, at ikke er sant.
Det var jeg og Petter og Christian, som kjeda vårs, og skulle ha sånn strippe-show lek osv., i 1980, eller 81, var det kanskje.
Når jeg var sånn 10 år da.
Og det var fordi jeg var vant til at Christell og Nina Monsen, pleide å komme på besøk, der jeg bodde aleine, i Hellinga.
Når jeg var sånn 10 år.
Dem var på besøk der, kanskje 3-4 ganger da.
Og en gang, så klinte jeg med begge to husker jeg.
Jeg spilte for dem på blokkfløyte.
Noe vi hadde lært på skolen, i 4. klasse, var det kanskje.
Morgenstemning, av Grieg.
Og det likte dem, så da satt jeg i den grønne 70-tallssofaen til fattern, med Christell på ene sida, og Nina Monsen på andre sida, og klinte med dem annenhver gang da.
På den tida, var jeg ikke så upopulær.
Men da jeg begynte på ungdomsskolen, da ble jeg så mye mobba, så da var jeg ikke så sosial.
Men samme det.
Nina Monsen er død nå, i hvertfall, og tok selvmord.
Det sa Pia, når vi kjørte opp til bryllupet til Jan og Hege, på Geilo i 2001, eller når det var.
Men det som skjedde.
Var, at jeg og Petter og Christian, ble enige om at vi skulle ha sånn strippe-show lek, når søstra min kom på besøk.
Jeg hadde vel lest for mye i Alle Menn bladene og Aktuell Rapport og sånn, som fattern hadde.
Og jeg var jo vant til at Christell og Nina kom opp dit.
Og jeg og Christell, da jeg fremdeles fikk lov å være nede hos Haldis.
Vi pleide å ta av madrassen til senga til Haldis, og så ta bort sengebunne, også ligge under der og kline.
Når vi var sånn 8-9-10 år.
Jeg var vel to år eldre enn henne vel.
Men det likte ikke Jan.
Jan var vel sånn 17-18 år kanskje.
Og han ble sur på meg da.
Og lurte fælt på hva vi gjorde under senga.
Men vi gjorde ikke noe alvorlig.
Men jeg ville ikke prate med han om det.
For jeg synes han var såpass mye eldre, at han ikke hadde noe med det.
Men da ble han litt sinna gitt, så det ut som, i blikket hans osv.
Men men, samme det.
Det som skjedde var at Petter og Christian strippa da, når søstra mi var der.
Og dagen, så skulle jeg få søstra mi til å strippe.
Og det gjorde hu.
Da var ikke Petter og Christian der.
Men hu Pia, hu begynte å skulle vise hva venninnene hennes i Larvik, hun Desire, eller hva hun het, hadde lært henne om anatomi osv.
Men det her var det søstra mi som begynte med.
Så det var hu som begynte å leke doktor istedet for strippe-lek.
Så det synes ikke jeg var min feil.
Men da sa Christell, at det hadde jeg gjort.
Jeg hadde misbrukt Pia da.
Så det var jo kult å få høre.
Jeg fikk helt sjokk, når jeg hørte hu sa det.
Så da klarte jeg ikke å si noe.
Og hu er sånn skråsikker.
Så det er ikke så lett å komme med noe argumenter.
Eller å få noe ordentlig kommunikasjon.
Og jeg var i sjokk, og sånne ting, er ikke noe artig å prate om.
Så jeg gjorde ikke det.
Jeg var i sjokk, så da klarte jeg ikke å prate om det.
Og jeg trodde ikke mine egne ører, at jeg skulle få høre noe sånt.
Så når jeg kom meg, etter sjokket, så var det noe annet som ble snakket om, så da var det nesten, som at det var noe, som man hadde drømt, så da bare fortsatte men å prate om noe annet.
Eller, jeg sa vel ikke så mye.
Jeg var vel sånn halv-sjokka, resten av dagen.
Og de her Pia og Christell, dem er sånn skråsikre og vel opptatt mest av seg selv, og vi har vel ikke så mye felles interesser osv.
Untatt å ta noen øl da.
Så, sånn var det.
Men jeg synes også, at det Annika skrev.
At hun ikke hadde fått noe ubehag, av det her, med rektoren.
Kunne tyde på at det kanskje var noe mer som hadde foregått.
Men det var vel ikke så klart, det hun skrev.
Men det er vel sånn det er.
At damer ofte, ikke skriver så direkte om sånt.
At når dem sier, at en ikke var noe snill mot noen.
Så betyr det at dem voldtok hu, eller noe sånn da.
Så det er vel ikke så lett, å skjønne seg på, hva dem mener alltid.
Når dem driver å prater sånn.
Men man kan vel ikke skjønne alt.
Men men, samme det.
Fattern sa, at han trodde at han hadde vært klåfingra på Pia, da hu var fem år, eller noe, var det her da, fordi han hadde drømt, at han lå ved siden av en dame.
Og det her, var mens vi bodde i Larvik.
Og da var vi på besøk hos fattern, en gang i året, kanskje.
Og da, hadde han bare to senger.
En dobbeltseng, og en enkeltseng.
Og da, sov jeg i enkeltsenga.
Mens Pia som i dobbeltsenga, med fattern.
Og da husker jeg, fra den gangen, at Pia sa, at hu ikke ville sove i dobbeltsenga.
Men fattern sa, jo du skal sove i dobbeltsenga.
Men det var jo ikke noen andre steder å sove.
Men da var hu kanskje 4-5 år.
Det var i Hellinga.
Men hvorfor hu sa det, det veit jeg ikke.
Men det er noe rart rundt alt det her.
At Christell sier i 89, at fattern fingra Pia.
Og Pia sier i 07, nesten 20 år etter, at det plutselig ikke var riktig, han var klåfingra.
Og fattern sier at det bare var noe som kan ha skjedd i søvne.
Altså, det er jo stor forskjell, på, at fattern kanskje hadde vært borti Pia, tilfeldig, i søvne, og det Christell sa, i Kr.sand, i 89, at fattern hadde fingra Pia, da hu var sånn fem år da.
Men, mellom at jeg fikk høre fra Pia, at han var klåfingra, og ikke hadde fingra.
Det var nesten 20 år, i mellom at de forskjellige versjonene ble fortalt.
Det er ikke sikkert, at jeg hadde brutt all kontakt med fattern, i 89, hvis Christell hadde sagt, at fattern var borti Pia, tilfeldig, i søvne.
Da hadde jeg kanskje ikke reagert så sterkt, og skjellt ut fattern, og foreslått, at vi skulle bryte kontakten med han, på de fleste områder.
Noe ingen svarte på.
Og Pia satt jo ved bordet der, og presenterte dette, hva fattern hadde gjort, sammen med Christell.
Jan sa nesten ikke noe.
Men hvis det var sånn, som Pia sa, i 2008, at fattern, var klåfingra.
Hvorfor, retta hu ikke på Christell da, når hu, i 89, sa at fattern hadde fingra hu.
Det mener jeg at det er forskjell på, i hvertfall.
I hvertfall, hvis det var noe som skjedde i søvne.
Så at dem, kan eventuellt ha fått det her, til å høres mye værre ut, eventuellt, enn det var.
For å få meg ut fra familien, sånn at dem fikk fler fordeler, og arva mer, for eksempel da.
Eller hva de hadde i tankene.
Sånn kan det virke for meg nå i hvertfall.
Og grunnen til at jeg hørte med hun Annika, om det var sant det med Borgen, at han gikk inn i garderoben dems.
Det var, for å prøve å finne ut, om Christell pleide å juge om sånne ting.
Da kom jeg i hvertfall litt nærmere en løsning.
Og da var det enklere, å ta opp det her, med fattern og Pia og.
Ellers, så hadde jeg vel ikke kommet noen vei.
For jeg tror nemlig, at jeg ville stolt mer på, hva Annika sa, enn hva Pia eller Christell, eller fattern sa.
Jeg husker Christell og Annika, var jo venninner, på begynnelsen av 80-tallet vel.
Og Haldis, hun hadde en sånn liten, blå Mazda, eller noe.
Og en gang, jeg var ikke så populær der nede hos Haldis og dem.
Men en gang, så skulle jeg være med til Drammen, av en eller annen anledning.
Og da skulle hun Annika være med og.
Siden hun var venninna til Christell.
Og jeg var sur på Haldis.
Fordi fattern pluteslig flytta dit, uten å si fra.
Så en gang, da jeg var ni, så kom plutselig ikke fattern hjem.
Og det var litt sånn sjokk.
At han ikke kom hjem, han pleide jo alltid å komme hjem fra jobben osv.
Det hadde sikkert vært greit, hvis han hadde sagt fra.
Men det gjorde han ikke, han bare unngikk å komme hjem.
Han var hos Haldis da.
Og jeg var jo vant til, å bo sammen med muttern og Pia og Arne-Thormod, og Axel og katta, i Larvik.
Så jeg var ikke vant til å være aleine i huset, når jeg var ni år osv.
Det hadde nok vært greit, hvis han hadde sagt fra, at han ikke kom hjem.
Da kunne jeg ha forberedt meg.
Men når han ikke kom hjem, så var det litt rart husker jeg.
Det var vel fordi, at jeg var litt traumatisert enda da, fra å ha bodd hos muttern, som var helt hysterisk, og ropte og skreik, og dytta og var ikke helt god da.
Og sa masse rart.
Så det var slitsomt å bo der.
Så jeg hadde sikkert hatt godt av, å bodd sammen med noen ansvarlige, og tålmodige foreldre/steforeldre, et par år i hvertfall.
For å komme meg, etter det kaoset, det var å bo, med muttern i Larvik.
Men det skjedde ikke.
Fattern flytta ned til Haldis.
Og der fikk ikke jeg lov å bo.
Så det ble ikke sånn som jeg hadde venta det, å flytte til Bergeråsen.
Men bestemor Ågot på Sand osv., var jo veldig snill da.
Så det var vel flaks.
Og fattern, pleide å ta meg med, når han skulle levere køyesenger og vannsenger, til folk som hadde svart på annonse i Aftenposten osv., i Oslo, Holmestrand, Tønsberg.
Men mest i Oslo.
Men tilbake til Mazdaen til Haldis.
Haldis, jobba på en elektrisk forretning, var det vel, på CC.
Seinere, så jobba hu på Hennes & Mauritz, på Bragernes.
Etter det, så begynte dem vannsengbutikk, på Strømsø, ved Grans der.
Og så, noen år etter, så flytta dem butikken, til Tordenskioldsgate, ovenfor brannstasjonen på Strømsø.
Men hun Annika ble skikkelig sur på meg da.
For jeg hadde vel ingen som sa til meg, at jeg ikke skulle pelle meg i nesa.
Da jeg satt der bak i bilen, sammen med hu.
Så da begynte hu å klage på det da.
Og Haldis bare stønna, og var oppgitt da.
Og Christell, sa vel ikke noe.
Men men.
En annen gang, det var vel, når vi var litt eldre.
Kanskje midt på 80-tallet, eller noe.
Da var Annika og ei venninne vel, nede i Havnehagen der.
Og da hadde søstra mi flytta dit da.
Og da klagde hu, Annika, på Christell da, (som ikke var der).
Vi var like ved postkassa til Haldis der, jeg og søstra mi.
Og Annika var der sammen med ei venninne da, av en eller annen anledning, for hu var vel ikke så ofte der nede, på den tida, for dem bodde i en annen gate der.
Men da sa hu, om Christell, til søstra mi da, sånn at jeg hørte det, at hu var ikke noe flink til å vaske håret, Christell da.
Jeg vet ikke hva hu mente med det.
Jeg hadde ikke merka noe til det.
At Christell ikke vaska håret.
Begge de jentene var av de peneste jentene på byggefeltet der, mener jeg å huske.
Så at det var noe galt med håret til en av dem, det skjønte jeg ikke helt.
Men hvis Annika sa det, så skjønte vel hu seg mer på sånne ting, enn meg.
Og, grunnen til, at jeg prøvde å spørre hu, om det her med Borgen osv.
Før jeg hørte med fattern og Pia, f.eks.
Det er fordi, at jeg tror egentlig at Annika, er mer pålitelig, og oppegående, enn dem, selv om dem er i familien min da.
Eller i hvertfall mer ordentlig da.
Selv om jeg ikke kjenner hu så bra, så er i hvertfall det inntrykket mitt.
Så det var derfor, at jeg hørte med hu først da.
Om det Christell hadde sagt, var jug, eller ikke.
Så tenkte jeg vel det, at det var noe galt på Bergeråsen der, siden det virka som at det var så mye sånn tull der.
Det var masse greier med onkelen min osv., uten at jeg gidder å gå i detalj om det nå.
Men jeg tenkte, at det virker som at noe er galt i Norge osv. da.
Og i familien min.
Og på Bergeråsen da, med han rektoren osv. da.
Og det virka som at de venninnnene hennes, Anne og Turid, som alle de tre, hadde bra rykte, på stedet der, hvis jeg husker riktig, at de bakka henne opp da.
At det var sant, det som Christell hadde sagt om rektoren da.
Så da tenkte jeg, at kanskje det var noe sånn, gjeng eller noe sånt, som hadde kontroll på stedet, siden rektoren kunne holde på sånn.
Siden onkelen min, mener jeg å huske, gjorde mye rart.
Og siden jeg selv, kunne bli boende alene i en leilighet der, fra jeg var ni år til jeg ble myndig, uten at noen av naboene varslet myndighetene f.eks.
Så tenkte jeg, at det smarteste ville være, å poste om det her, på blogg osv. da.
For ingen av de, Christell eller Annika, osv., hadde jo gjort noe galt.
Og da Christell fortalte meg det her.
Om at rektoren gikk inn i garderoben dems, i 6. klasse, mens klassen hennes skifta.
Da lå fattern, på terrassen, like ved.
Og han må ha hørt hva Christell sa.
Men han ble ikke sånn at han reiste seg opp, å begynte å bli forferda osv.
Neida, han sa ikke et ord.
Men bare lå der.
Jeg ble sjokka.
Og gikk hjem.
Og jeg fortalte vel et par klassekamerater, hva Christell hadde sagt da.
Borgen, sluta jo som rektor, noen år seinere vel.
Og begynte formidling av salg av fritidsbåter.
Uten at jeg vet hva årsaken var til det.
Men jeg tenkte, at hvem vet, det kunne kanskje ha vært, at en kamerat-gjeng, som var i 30-40 åra da, hadde ganske god kontroll på stedet da.
Det kunne jo ha vært en mulighet.
Siden rektoren bare kunne gå rett inn i garderoben sånn, og det også kunne virke som, at det kanskje kunne ha skjedd noe mer.
Så da bestemte jeg meg, for å poste om det, i tilfelle, at det var noe sånn lureri, som foregikk.
Og også, for å prøve å finne ut mer, om hva som har foregått i familien osv.
Med at Christell og Pia, jugde, må man vel si, i Kristiansand i 89 da.
Så sånn var det.
Så da har jeg prøvd å forklare litt mer om det i hvertfall.
Så får folk heller skrive kommentarer eventuellt, hvis det er noe dem er uenige i.
Så har i hvertfall jeg prøvd å bidra til å være ansvarlig, og forklare hva jeg vet.
Ettersom det virker som at det er mye rart som har foregått i familien, og på Berger osv.
Så får man håpe at det er i orden.
Vi får se.
mandag 28. april 2008
Angående hat-blogg. (In Norwegian).
Jeg ser de skriver at jeg trakasserer folk på den hat-bloggen.
Men hvis det er noe spesiellt, så får heller den personen, som mener det er noe spesiellt, heller ringe eller noe da.
Jeg kan jo ikke forsvare meg, hvis det er noe generellt piss-preik, mener jeg.
Jeg kan forklare grunnen til alt jeg har lagt ut på nettet, og det er en god grunn for alt.
Så det er bare å skrive kommentarer det.
F.eks. på den bloggen her.
Hvis det er noe spesiellt noen lurer på.
Så bare skriv en kommentar, så kan jeg forklare.
I stedet for å drive med latterlige og anonyme tullet på den bloggen.
Det er vel voksne mennesker, så å holde på sånn, det hører vel ikke hjemme så mange steder.
Så da får man ønske god bedring til de.
Med vennlig hilsen
Erik Ribsskog
Men hvis det er noe spesiellt, så får heller den personen, som mener det er noe spesiellt, heller ringe eller noe da.
Jeg kan jo ikke forsvare meg, hvis det er noe generellt piss-preik, mener jeg.
Jeg kan forklare grunnen til alt jeg har lagt ut på nettet, og det er en god grunn for alt.
Så det er bare å skrive kommentarer det.
F.eks. på den bloggen her.
Hvis det er noe spesiellt noen lurer på.
Så bare skriv en kommentar, så kan jeg forklare.
I stedet for å drive med latterlige og anonyme tullet på den bloggen.
Det er vel voksne mennesker, så å holde på sånn, det hører vel ikke hjemme så mange steder.
Så da får man ønske god bedring til de.
Med vennlig hilsen
Erik Ribsskog
E-mail to the UN, High Commissioner for Refugees, Britain, on 28/4/08.
From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: gbrlo@unhcr.org
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:28:27 +0100
Subject: Refugee-application.
Hi,
I was given your e-mail address, when I called your help-line, on 0207 759
8090, on 18/4.
I was just wondering, who I should contact, if I wanted to formally register
as a refugee in Britain.
Thanks in advance for the help!
Yours sincerly,
Erik Ribsskog
To: gbrlo@unhcr.org
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:28:27 +0100
Subject: Refugee-application.
Hi,
I was given your e-mail address, when I called your help-line, on 0207 759
8090, on 18/4.
I was just wondering, who I should contact, if I wanted to formally register
as a refugee in Britain.
Thanks in advance for the help!
Yours sincerly,
Erik Ribsskog
E-post til Nordea, klage på medarbeider, 28. april 2008. (In Norwegian).
From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: ragnhild.hjellen.lorgen@nordea.no
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:38:21 +0100
Subject: Klage på medarbeider.
Hei,
jeg ringte din kollega Grethe Leira, i dag, og fikk e-post adressen din,
siden
du er team-leader, med personalansvar, for en medarbeier, hos dere, som jeg
har bestemt meg, for å sende en klage på.
Det er i forbindelse med, en feil, som jeg synes var vedig grov, fra en av
deres
medarbeidere, så jeg har bestemt meg for å klage formelt på dette, for å
prøve
å finne ut hva som egentlig har foregått.
Ettersom, at jeg har tenkt å ta dette videre, med Nordea hovedkontoret osv.,
i forbindelse, med å rydde i problemene med kontoen.
Det som skjedde, var, at jeg ringte, for å overføre en overføring, fra
Barclays
i England, til Nordea-kontoen min.
Jeg skulle betale to regninger i Norge.
Det koster £20, å overføre penger fra Barclays til utlandet.
Siden det var to regninger i Norge, som skulle betales, så bestemte jeg meg
for, å sende en overføring til Nordea, og så betale firmaene i Norge, ved å
overføre pengene med nettbank osv.
På den måten, så ville jeg spare £20, ved at det bare ble en overføring fra
England,
istedet for to.
Jeg hadde allerede avtalt, med Aktiv Kapital, og Nordea, om at jeg skulle få
beholde
kontoen i Nordea.
(Jeg hadde hatt noe problemer med overtrekk, som skyldtes en misforståelse,
i forbindelse med at jeg ventet på en overføring fra Norge.
Det viste seg, at det ikke var den overføringen, som hadde dukket opp, det
var
minibanken i England, som var offline, så det var det som var bakgrunnen for
misforståelsen).
Så da jeg fikk jeg problemer med overtrekkavdelingen i Nordea, og dette, tok
jeg
opp med dem, og jeg skulle få beholde kontoen, hvis jeg fikk i stand en
tilbake-
betalingsavtale, med Aktiv Kaptial.
Noe jeg gjorde.
Aktiv Kapital, skulle meddele Nordea, om at tilbakebetalingsavtalen var i
orden,
slik at Nordea-kontoen, var oppe å kjøre, før jeg sendte pengene, til
Nordea,
kontoen, for å så å skulle sende de videre, pr telegiro til Aktiv Kapital og
det
andre firmaet i Norge.
Det som skjedde, var, at jeg ringte kundeservice hos Nordea, på 80024365,
for å
dobbeltsjekke, at kontoen var oppe å kjøre, og at det bare skulle være å
overføre
pengene.
Dette var i August i fjor.
Jeg pratet med Frode, en kar i 40-åra, hørtes det ut
som, på kundeservice-avdelingen,
hos dere.
Jeg hadde skrevet opp navnet, på et notat jeg hadde liggende her.
Jeg spurte medarbeideren deres, om det var helt sikkert, at det skulle være
i orden,
å sende penger, til Nordea-kontoen min, (xxxx.xx.xxxxx) en uke eller to
senere, når
jeg fikk lønning.
Medarbeideren deres, gikk inn på dataen, og sjekket, om dette var mulig.
(Og jeg mener å huske, at dette tok litt tid, og at han vel også skrev inn
noe på dataen,
hørtes det ut som).
Så opplyste han om, at det ikke skulle være noe problem, å sende pengene.
Kontoen, var i orden, og det var bare å sende pengene, senere i måneden, som
jeg hadde
forklart.
Jeg sendte £85, fra Barclays, 23. august, i fjor. (Jeg skal vedlegge scannet
kopi, av overføringsskjemaet).
Barclays, tar £20, i gebyr.
Det var noe problem med Nordea-kontoen, så pengene ble sendt tilbake til
Barclays, som da
tok nye £30-35 i gebyr.
Så av de £85, som jeg sendte 23. august, så fikk jeg tilbake ca. £32, noen
uker senere.
Uten at noen regninger var betalt.
Så jeg har hatt mye bry, og problemer med forsinkelser, med å betale
regningene, på grunn av denne
feilen, fra medarbeideren deres.
Når jeg ringte Nordea, nå, tidligere denne måneden, (jeg har hatt mye å
gjøre med jobb osv. de siste
månedene, og jeg er jo i Storbritannia, så jeg har prioritert, å ta det som
er med jobb osv. her først).
Men nå, den siste måneden, så har jeg prøvd, å finne ut av, hva det er som
har foregått, i forbindelse
med problemene, med den pengeoverføringen.
Fordi, det var jo en avtale, mellom meg, og Aktiv Kapital, og Nordea, at jeg
skulle få beholde den
kontoen.
Og, det er mulig jeg trenger den kontoen igjen nå, snart, i forbindelse med
noe firma jeg har her,
jeg jobber som selvstendig næringsdrivende, og har planlagt, å drive f.eks.
med e-handel osv,
i tilknytning til dette, og da hadde det vært veldig bra, å få ryddet opp og
funnet ut av, hva det
er som har foregått, i forbindelse med disse problemene.
Og jeg har fått opplyst, da jeg ringte Nordea, tidligere denne måneden, at
kontoen, har vært
stengt for bruk, siden februar i fjor.
Så det har vært problemer med Aktiv Kapital, siden de skulle ha meddelt
Nordea, om at en
betalingavtale, var oppe å kjøre, slik at kontoen, skulle være åpen for
vanlig bruk.
Dette har det tydeligvis vært noe problemer med. (Noe jeg driver å tar opp,
i en egen klagesak).
Og, i tillegg, så skjønner jeg ikke, hvordan Frode hos dere, kunne si til
meg, i august, i fjor, at kontoen,
var i orden, og at det bare skulle være å sende penger når jeg fikk lønning.
Når kontoen hadde vært stengt, siden februar, et halv år tidligere.
Dette synes jeg var en så bemerkelsesverdig feil.
Og at denne skulle komme i kombinasjon med feilen fra Aktiv Kapital, det
synes jeg var veldig rart.
Så jeg lurte på, om dere ikke kunne undersøke formellt, hva det er som har
foregått, i forbindelse
med problemene med overføringen.
Altså, hva denne feilinformasjonen, fra medarbeideren deres, kan skyldes.
Så skal jeg sende med den kopien, av det overføringsskjemaet, for den
aktuelle overføringen,
fra august, i fjor.
Håper dette er i orden!
Med vennlig hilsen
Erik Ribsskog
PS.
Hun kollegaen din, Grethe Leira, sa at e-postadressen din, var:
ragnhild.lorgen@nordea.no.
Men den adressen, fikk jeg feilmelding på.
Så ringte jeg sentralbordet til Nordea, og da sa de, at e-postadressen din
var:
ragnhild.hjellen.lorgen@nordea.no
Så jeg tenkte, at jeg kunne jo si fra om det og, nå, når jeg skrev den nye
e-posten, for det er vel greit,
at dem har samme e-postadressene, for deg, alle de forskjellige, som
opplyser Nordeas kunder,
om e-postadresser osv.
To: ragnhild.hjellen.lorgen@nordea.no
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:38:21 +0100
Subject: Klage på medarbeider.
Hei,
jeg ringte din kollega Grethe Leira, i dag, og fikk e-post adressen din,
siden
du er team-leader, med personalansvar, for en medarbeier, hos dere, som jeg
har bestemt meg, for å sende en klage på.
Det er i forbindelse med, en feil, som jeg synes var vedig grov, fra en av
deres
medarbeidere, så jeg har bestemt meg for å klage formelt på dette, for å
prøve
å finne ut hva som egentlig har foregått.
Ettersom, at jeg har tenkt å ta dette videre, med Nordea hovedkontoret osv.,
i forbindelse, med å rydde i problemene med kontoen.
Det som skjedde, var, at jeg ringte, for å overføre en overføring, fra
Barclays
i England, til Nordea-kontoen min.
Jeg skulle betale to regninger i Norge.
Det koster £20, å overføre penger fra Barclays til utlandet.
Siden det var to regninger i Norge, som skulle betales, så bestemte jeg meg
for, å sende en overføring til Nordea, og så betale firmaene i Norge, ved å
overføre pengene med nettbank osv.
På den måten, så ville jeg spare £20, ved at det bare ble en overføring fra
England,
istedet for to.
Jeg hadde allerede avtalt, med Aktiv Kapital, og Nordea, om at jeg skulle få
beholde
kontoen i Nordea.
(Jeg hadde hatt noe problemer med overtrekk, som skyldtes en misforståelse,
i forbindelse med at jeg ventet på en overføring fra Norge.
Det viste seg, at det ikke var den overføringen, som hadde dukket opp, det
var
minibanken i England, som var offline, så det var det som var bakgrunnen for
misforståelsen).
Så da jeg fikk jeg problemer med overtrekkavdelingen i Nordea, og dette, tok
jeg
opp med dem, og jeg skulle få beholde kontoen, hvis jeg fikk i stand en
tilbake-
betalingsavtale, med Aktiv Kaptial.
Noe jeg gjorde.
Aktiv Kapital, skulle meddele Nordea, om at tilbakebetalingsavtalen var i
orden,
slik at Nordea-kontoen, var oppe å kjøre, før jeg sendte pengene, til
Nordea,
kontoen, for å så å skulle sende de videre, pr telegiro til Aktiv Kapital og
det
andre firmaet i Norge.
Det som skjedde, var, at jeg ringte kundeservice hos Nordea, på 80024365,
for å
dobbeltsjekke, at kontoen var oppe å kjøre, og at det bare skulle være å
overføre
pengene.
Dette var i August i fjor.
Jeg pratet med Frode, en kar i 40-åra, hørtes det ut
som, på kundeservice-avdelingen,
hos dere.
Jeg hadde skrevet opp navnet, på et notat jeg hadde liggende her.
Jeg spurte medarbeideren deres, om det var helt sikkert, at det skulle være
i orden,
å sende penger, til Nordea-kontoen min, (xxxx.xx.xxxxx) en uke eller to
senere, når
jeg fikk lønning.
Medarbeideren deres, gikk inn på dataen, og sjekket, om dette var mulig.
(Og jeg mener å huske, at dette tok litt tid, og at han vel også skrev inn
noe på dataen,
hørtes det ut som).
Så opplyste han om, at det ikke skulle være noe problem, å sende pengene.
Kontoen, var i orden, og det var bare å sende pengene, senere i måneden, som
jeg hadde
forklart.
Jeg sendte £85, fra Barclays, 23. august, i fjor. (Jeg skal vedlegge scannet
kopi, av overføringsskjemaet).
Barclays, tar £20, i gebyr.
Det var noe problem med Nordea-kontoen, så pengene ble sendt tilbake til
Barclays, som da
tok nye £30-35 i gebyr.
Så av de £85, som jeg sendte 23. august, så fikk jeg tilbake ca. £32, noen
uker senere.
Uten at noen regninger var betalt.
Så jeg har hatt mye bry, og problemer med forsinkelser, med å betale
regningene, på grunn av denne
feilen, fra medarbeideren deres.
Når jeg ringte Nordea, nå, tidligere denne måneden, (jeg har hatt mye å
gjøre med jobb osv. de siste
månedene, og jeg er jo i Storbritannia, så jeg har prioritert, å ta det som
er med jobb osv. her først).
Men nå, den siste måneden, så har jeg prøvd, å finne ut av, hva det er som
har foregått, i forbindelse
med problemene, med den pengeoverføringen.
Fordi, det var jo en avtale, mellom meg, og Aktiv Kapital, og Nordea, at jeg
skulle få beholde den
kontoen.
Og, det er mulig jeg trenger den kontoen igjen nå, snart, i forbindelse med
noe firma jeg har her,
jeg jobber som selvstendig næringsdrivende, og har planlagt, å drive f.eks.
med e-handel osv,
i tilknytning til dette, og da hadde det vært veldig bra, å få ryddet opp og
funnet ut av, hva det
er som har foregått, i forbindelse med disse problemene.
Og jeg har fått opplyst, da jeg ringte Nordea, tidligere denne måneden, at
kontoen, har vært
stengt for bruk, siden februar i fjor.
Så det har vært problemer med Aktiv Kapital, siden de skulle ha meddelt
Nordea, om at en
betalingavtale, var oppe å kjøre, slik at kontoen, skulle være åpen for
vanlig bruk.
Dette har det tydeligvis vært noe problemer med. (Noe jeg driver å tar opp,
i en egen klagesak).
Og, i tillegg, så skjønner jeg ikke, hvordan Frode hos dere, kunne si til
meg, i august, i fjor, at kontoen,
var i orden, og at det bare skulle være å sende penger når jeg fikk lønning.
Når kontoen hadde vært stengt, siden februar, et halv år tidligere.
Dette synes jeg var en så bemerkelsesverdig feil.
Og at denne skulle komme i kombinasjon med feilen fra Aktiv Kapital, det
synes jeg var veldig rart.
Så jeg lurte på, om dere ikke kunne undersøke formellt, hva det er som har
foregått, i forbindelse
med problemene med overføringen.
Altså, hva denne feilinformasjonen, fra medarbeideren deres, kan skyldes.
Så skal jeg sende med den kopien, av det overføringsskjemaet, for den
aktuelle overføringen,
fra august, i fjor.
Håper dette er i orden!
Med vennlig hilsen
Erik Ribsskog
PS.
Hun kollegaen din, Grethe Leira, sa at e-postadressen din, var:
ragnhild.lorgen@nordea.no.
Men den adressen, fikk jeg feilmelding på.
Så ringte jeg sentralbordet til Nordea, og da sa de, at e-postadressen din
var:
ragnhild.hjellen.lorgen@nordea.no
Så jeg tenkte, at jeg kunne jo si fra om det og, nå, når jeg skrev den nye
e-posten, for det er vel greit,
at dem har samme e-postadressene, for deg, alle de forskjellige, som
opplyser Nordeas kunder,
om e-postadresser osv.
E-mail to the independent CAB Adjudicator, Barbara Stow, on 28/4/08.
From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: stow_adjudicator@btinternet.com Barbara Stow
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:49:34 +0100
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
Hi,
I think, that, when you wrote your report, you must have thought that the
automated e-mail, was sent on the
same day, as the e-mail it was answering to.
(And not six days before).
And also, you must have thought, that the CAB, had the right e-mail adresse,
on their website.
I explain to you, that this isn't right.
So, you have had wrong information, that you have based your report on.
I also question your judgement, regarding, what you wrote in your report.
This was mentioned, in points 1-8, in my previous e-mail, from 25/4.
This is only for the record.
I'm not telling you, what to do, regarding this. (Since I have no right to
do that, since
the CAB is a charity, and I have no formell right to complain about your
report, as far
I've understood).
I just wanted to make opinion clear.
Just for the record, so I at least can explain about the things I'm
disagreeing with, even if I know,
that I have no formell right to appeal.
So I hope it is alright, that I bring this up for the record, anyway!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 4/28/08, Barbara Stow wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog
>
> The result of my review of how your complaint was handled is in my
> report. I was grateful to you for pointing out my error in the date of the
> e-mail and explaining where the wrong e-mail address for the bureau was
> displayed.
>
> There is nothing else for me to add to the report.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Barbara Stow
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Erik Ribsskog
> To: Barbara Stow
> Sent: Friday, 25 April, 2008 3:50:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
>
> Hi,
>
> I see that you have conluded your involvement.
>
> But, how can you say that the CAB haven't done anything wrong, when.
>
> 1. The meeting at the CAB, was held in the dark.
>
> 2. The CAB representative, was lieing, in report 1, where he said he
> turned the lights on there, at the beginning of the
> meeting, which he didn't he turned them on at the end of the meeting.
>
> 3. How could the automated message, be delayed for six days?
>
> 4. Why doesn't anyone (neighter you, or the CAB Chief Executie), reflect
> on, that the automated message, was delayed for six days?
>
> 5. I tell you, that there was a street theater operation, going on in the
> CAB premisses.
>
> I don't mean that the operation was on the steet outside the State House.
>
> Street Theater, is a term, it doesn't have to be on the street, even if
> it's calles Street Theater.
>
> 6. How can the CAB have had the wrong e-mail address, on their website,
> for years, like it seems from the website design?
>
> 7. Why is it, that I'm writing all the time, that the meeting, on 5/4, was
> being held in the dark, and still noone reflects on this.
> Isn't this a bit inpolite, to act in a way like that?
>
> 8. You say, that the delay with the automated message, was not due to
> something that was sinister.
>
> I appriciate, that you are explaining to me, what it isn't due to.
>
> But the reason I'm complaing, is not to find out what it isn't due to.
>
> I'm trying to find out what it is due to.
>
> So I'm really not very much viser, from your reply.
>
> I know one thing that it isn't due to, but I think would be very fine, to
> know what it was due to.
>
> What caused this, the six days delay, to the automated message.
>
> So I hope you have the oppertunity to have a look at this again!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
> Again, I've seen that you have conluded your work, but like I explained,
> in the last e-mail, I can't see that these issues are
> being taken seriously, by eighter you or the Chief Executive, so I'm goint
>
>
>
> On 4/25/08, Barbara Stow wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribbskog
> >
> > Thank you for this message and for the second one to which you attached
> > a screenshot.
> >
> > I attach my letter in reply.
> >
> > Barbara Stow
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Erik Ribsskog
> > To: Barbara Stow
> > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:24:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > thank you very much for your answer!
> >
> > I've been reading through your report now, and I have some comments on
> > it.
> >
> > I hope it's alright that I send you these comments!
> >
> > 5.
> >
> > Here you write, that I left the employment with Arvato Services Ltd.
> >
> > What happened, was that the Managing Director ordered me home, with pay,
> > since he wouldn't let
> > me stay and work there, since he feared for my security there, he said.
> >
> > Arvato, were supposed to call me, when they had checked up more about
> > what went on in the company.
> >
> > They didn't call me, but they pushed a 'phoney' letter under the door to
> > the building I live in, which was
> > written, by one the persons I had reported there, and which the Managing
> > Director, had put in charge of
> > the investigation of the problems I had reported.
> >
> > And then, I got a form, saying my employment there had ended.
> >
> > I reported about this to the Police, as continuing of the harassment,
> > which is the way I saw it.
> >
> > Now lately, I've heard, that this type of dismissal, is also called
> > 'constructed dismissal'.
> >
> > So I didn't leave the employment.
> >
> > I was the subject of a constructed dismissal.
> >
> > I thought I'd make a point of this, since this isn't reflected in your
> > report.
> >
> > 9.
> >
> > You write that the area was poorly lit.
> >
> > It was in fact very poorly lit.
> >
> > One couldn't read like a folder or a newspaper there.
> >
> > (At the Liverpool Central CAB premisses).
> >
> > And most of the meeting there, was held in the dark there.
> >
> > This isn't reflected in your report I think, that the meeting was
> > held in the
> > dark, so that it wasn't possible to read there.
> >
> > 11.
> >
> > Morecrofts had promissed me, on 10/4, that they would take on the case,
> > on a payment plan type
> > of payment-solution.
> >
> > Miss Pool said this.
> >
> > So when they (Samantha) said on 24/4, that there could be no payment
> > plan type of payment-solution,
> > then the company, went back on what I had previously agreed with them.
> >
> > I thought I'd make a point of this as well, since I can't see it's
> > reflected in your report.
> >
> > 16.
> >
> > You write, that the second e-mail I sent the CAB Chief Executive David
> > Harker, was sent him on 22/8,
> > the same day as the automated reply for this e-mail was sent back.
> >
> > This isn't right at all.
> >
> > My e-mail, was sent on 16/8.
> >
> > And the CEO's automated, or 'automated' reply, was sent back, on 22/8.
> >
> > I'm a bit disapointed, since noone seem to think, that this is
> > remarkable.
> >
> > Since I myself, think, that automated replies, shouldn't be sent many
> > days later.
> >
> > Since then, I suspect that they aren't really automated at all.
> >
> > Then I would start to think, that there's something phoney going on.
> >
> > So I'm a bit disapointed that you write that the second e-mail, that I
> > sent the Chief Executive,
> > was sent on 22/8, when it was in fact sent on 16/8.
> >
> > 51.
> >
> > You write, that you have checked yourself, that the e-mail address,
> > listed on
> >
> > www.liverpoolcab.org, now is the right e-mail address.
> >
> > But I checked it now, I went to the website, and pressed the
> > e-mail-button.
> >
> > Then outlook opens, and the e-mail address that one get up, is:
> >
> > bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk
> >
> > and not the right e-mail address (bureau@liverpoolcab.org), like you
> > write in your report.
> >
> > I'm enclosing a screenshot, from the Liverpool Central CAB website, from
> > today, that shows this.
> >
> > 52.
> >
> > You say that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
> >
> > But I don't agree with this.
> >
> > Due to these reasons:
> >
> > 1:
> >
> > The CAP-representative, said that the whole meeting there, on 5/4, was
> > held with the lights on.
> >
> > But I explained, to the Chair there, that this was a lie.
> >
> > Since, he waited until the meeting was almost finished, before he
> > switched the lights on.
> >
> > And before this, it wasn't possible to read in the area.
> >
> > The fact, that the representative, read the fax-number, from the phone
> > list, instead of the
> > phone-number, to EAD, I think shows this, that the representative lied.
> >
> > But this fact, that the representative lied, has been ignored, by the
> > Chair there, thats Chairman of
> > the Board then, I presume. And by the CAB Chief Executive.
> >
> > I don't think this is very fair.
> >
> > 2:
> >
> > Further, you write, that e-mails were answered late.
> >
> > But some e-mails, like the ones I sent the Comlaints Manager there,
> > Follows, weren't answered at all.
> >
> > This isn't reflected on, as far as I can see, in your report.
> >
> > 3:
> >
> > And what about the problems with the automated reply.
> >
> > Or the 'magic' automated reply, would maybe be a better description of
> > the nature of this reply.
> >
> > Since the automaded reply, waited, from 16/8, untill 22/8, before it
> > found it right to send itself.
> >
> > Isn't this a bit strange, that the CAB headoffice, is operating, with
> > seemingly 'magic' automated replies?
> >
> > Why didn't the Chief Executive reflect on this at all?
> >
> > Even if I made a point of it, in the compaint.
> >
> > So I don't agree with you, that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
> >
> > And I also think also you yourself, should have maybe reflected more on,
> > at least, point 1 and 3 here, in your report,
> > since I made a point out of these issues, in my remarks, regarding the
> > Stage 3 report, from the Chief Executive.
> >
> > These are the issues that comes to mind, from reading your report now.
> >
> > So I thought I'd send you them, so that you could be aware, of the
> > obvious errors you've made, with the Liverpool
> > Central CAB's e-mail address, on their website, which you write that you
> > have checked, and you say it's now
> > the right address, which it isn't.
> >
> > And the error, when you write, that my second e-mail to the Chief
> > Executive, was sent on the same date, as the
> > ('magic') automated reply, was sent back (22/8), when the e-mail was in
> > fact sent on 16/8. (And not on 22/8,
> > like you write in your report).
> >
> > So these are obvious errors, to do with obvious facts. So I don't think
> > this can be disputed.
> >
> > The other issues, surrounding that the lie from the CAB representative,
> > isn't reflected on.
> >
> > That the fact that the meeting there, was held in the dark, isn't
> > acknoledgded, even if I make a point of it in the
> > answers to the various reports, I think is worrying.
> >
> > Since I explain what happened around this in detail.
> >
> > That I explain that the CAB representative read the fax-number to the
> > EAD-company, instead of the phone-number.
> >
> > So it shouldn't really be any doubt regarding if the meeting there, was
> > held in the dark or not.
> >
> > I also explained, that there seemed to be some kind of 'Street
> > Theather', arranged there, at the Liverpool Central CAB.
> >
> > That it seemed that there was a planned Street Theather operation, set
> > up there, in connection with my meeting there
> > on 5/4, last year.
> >
> > This isn't taken seriously.
> >
> > I think this is probably something to do with, that I have been in
> > contact, with the Liverpool Police, regarding something
> > I overheard, when I was working in Norway, that I was followed, for some
> > reason unclear to me, by some mafia.
> >
> > (Possibly due to some honour-stuff, due to some misunderstandings, with
> > a collegue there, in the township, that the
> > shop I worked as part-time team-leader in, besides my University level
> > studies).
> >
> > When I got to Liverpool, I overheard that the Police-officer, that I
> > explained to, that I was followed, said on the back-office,
> > on St. Ann St. Police Station there, that 'don't he understand, that
> > noone wants to be involved'.
> >
> > I think, that the British Police, after this, that they sent me out of
> > the Police-station, without leting me explain properly,
> > about this, why I thought I was being followed, have been having some
> > type of survailance operation, around me.
> >
> > And that this Street Theater operation, at the CAB, last year, was part
> > of this Police surveilance operation.
> >
> > So that the whole meeting there, wasn't a proper meeting at all, just
> > some kind of phoney set-up.
> >
> > I don't think this is right.
> >
> > Because since Norway are part of the EU-market, then Norwegian citizens
> > have the right, to work and live in Britain.
> >
> > And I have paid tax to the UK government, and to the Council.
> >
> > So I don't think it's right that my rights should be ignored, in a way
> > like this, since the Police want's to have some
> > kind of set-ups, like it seems.
> >
> > Anyway, how this is, I can't see that this is reflected on in your
> > report.
> >
> > But I suspect, due to the mistakes in your report, that I've mentioned,
> > and due to the many things you just ignore in it,
> > and fail to reflect on.
> >
> > Due to this, I also suspect that your report, could be part of this
> > phoney Police operation, or what this all is.
> >
> > So I think this is very poor.
> >
> > That the organisation, and system, around the CAB, that is supposed to
> > work for making sure that peoples rights are
> > respected, just play games with peoples rights in a way like this.
> >
> > Since I think it has to be something phoney going on here, since the
> > whole CAB process around the meeting and
> > the complaint, is obviously corrupt.
> >
> > So the reason that I'm writing this e-mail, isn't really because that I
> > think something will be done regarding the
> > serious issues I've been pointing at here.
> >
> > But I'm planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so then at least, I'll
> > be able to deal with this in that way, that
> > I at least get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and
> > maybe react or reflect on what's going on.
> >
> > So that's really why I'm writing this e-mail.
> >
> > Just to explain about this.
> >
> > Hope this is alright!
> >
> > Yours sincerly,
> >
> > Erik Ribsskog
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/24/08, Barbara Stow wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Eribsskog
> > >
> > > I enclose the report of my review of your complaint.
> > >
> > > I have also sent it to Citizens Advice. They will write to you within
> > > the next two weeks when they have considered the report.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > >
> > > Barbara Stow
> > > Independent Adjudicator
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Forwarded Message ----
> > > From: Barbara Stow
> > > To: Erik Ribsskog
> > > Sent: Friday, 18 April, 2008 12:12:35 PM
> > > Subject: Fw: Citizens Advice
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Ribsskog
> > >
> > > When I wrote to you on 1 April I said that I hoped to complete my
> > > review by today, 18 April.
> > >
> > > I have almost done so but I am not yet quite ready to send the report.
> > >
> > > I am sorry for the delay. I will write to you again not later than
> > > the end of next week.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > > Barbara Stow
> > > Independent Adjudicator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Forwarded Message ----
> > > From: Barbara Stow
> > > To: Erik Ribsskog
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 1:05:32 PM
> > > Subject: Citizens Advice
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Ribsskog
> > >
> > > I am the independent adjudicator for the Citizens Advice service and I
> > > write to confirm that Saffron Follows, on behalf of David Harker, has asked
> > > me to review how your complaint has been dealt with. I am writing by e-mail
> > > as I understand this is your preferred means of communication.
> > >
> > > I will consider whether your complaint has been dealt with in line
> > > with the Citizens Advice national complaints procedure and fairly. I have
> > > no authority to say whether your complaint justified. My task is to say
> > > whether it has been considered properly.
> > >
> > > Ms Follows has sent me the correspondence about your complaint. This
> > > includes the e-mail message of 14 March to David Harker in which you
> > > accepted the offer that someone independent could look at your complaint.
> > >
> > > If there is anything more you would like to say to me about why you
> > > are unhappy with the way your complaint has been considered, please let me
> > > know at the e-mail address above.
> > >
> > > I hope to be able to complete my review by 18 April. If I have not
> > > heard from you by 11 April I will assume that there is nothing you want to
> > > add to what you have explained already.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > > Barbara Stow
> > > Independent Adjudicator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
To: stow_adjudicator@btinternet.com Barbara Stow
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:49:34 +0100
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
Hi,
I think, that, when you wrote your report, you must have thought that the
automated e-mail, was sent on the
same day, as the e-mail it was answering to.
(And not six days before).
And also, you must have thought, that the CAB, had the right e-mail adresse,
on their website.
I explain to you, that this isn't right.
So, you have had wrong information, that you have based your report on.
I also question your judgement, regarding, what you wrote in your report.
This was mentioned, in points 1-8, in my previous e-mail, from 25/4.
This is only for the record.
I'm not telling you, what to do, regarding this. (Since I have no right to
do that, since
the CAB is a charity, and I have no formell right to complain about your
report, as far
I've understood).
I just wanted to make opinion clear.
Just for the record, so I at least can explain about the things I'm
disagreeing with, even if I know,
that I have no formell right to appeal.
So I hope it is alright, that I bring this up for the record, anyway!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 4/28/08, Barbara Stow
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog
>
> The result of my review of how your complaint was handled is in my
> report. I was grateful to you for pointing out my error in the date of the
> e-mail and explaining where the wrong e-mail address for the bureau was
> displayed.
>
> There is nothing else for me to add to the report.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Barbara Stow
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Erik Ribsskog
> To: Barbara Stow
> Sent: Friday, 25 April, 2008 3:50:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
>
> Hi,
>
> I see that you have conluded your involvement.
>
> But, how can you say that the CAB haven't done anything wrong, when.
>
> 1. The meeting at the CAB, was held in the dark.
>
> 2. The CAB representative, was lieing, in report 1, where he said he
> turned the lights on there, at the beginning of the
> meeting, which he didn't he turned them on at the end of the meeting.
>
> 3. How could the automated message, be delayed for six days?
>
> 4. Why doesn't anyone (neighter you, or the CAB Chief Executie), reflect
> on, that the automated message, was delayed for six days?
>
> 5. I tell you, that there was a street theater operation, going on in the
> CAB premisses.
>
> I don't mean that the operation was on the steet outside the State House.
>
> Street Theater, is a term, it doesn't have to be on the street, even if
> it's calles Street Theater.
>
> 6. How can the CAB have had the wrong e-mail address, on their website,
> for years, like it seems from the website design?
>
> 7. Why is it, that I'm writing all the time, that the meeting, on 5/4, was
> being held in the dark, and still noone reflects on this.
> Isn't this a bit inpolite, to act in a way like that?
>
> 8. You say, that the delay with the automated message, was not due to
> something that was sinister.
>
> I appriciate, that you are explaining to me, what it isn't due to.
>
> But the reason I'm complaing, is not to find out what it isn't due to.
>
> I'm trying to find out what it is due to.
>
> So I'm really not very much viser, from your reply.
>
> I know one thing that it isn't due to, but I think would be very fine, to
> know what it was due to.
>
> What caused this, the six days delay, to the automated message.
>
> So I hope you have the oppertunity to have a look at this again!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
> Again, I've seen that you have conluded your work, but like I explained,
> in the last e-mail, I can't see that these issues are
> being taken seriously, by eighter you or the Chief Executive, so I'm goint
>
>
>
> On 4/25/08, Barbara Stow
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribbskog
> >
> > Thank you for this message and for the second one to which you attached
> > a screenshot.
> >
> > I attach my letter in reply.
> >
> > Barbara Stow
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Erik Ribsskog
> > To: Barbara Stow
> > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:24:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > thank you very much for your answer!
> >
> > I've been reading through your report now, and I have some comments on
> > it.
> >
> > I hope it's alright that I send you these comments!
> >
> > 5.
> >
> > Here you write, that I left the employment with Arvato Services Ltd.
> >
> > What happened, was that the Managing Director ordered me home, with pay,
> > since he wouldn't let
> > me stay and work there, since he feared for my security there, he said.
> >
> > Arvato, were supposed to call me, when they had checked up more about
> > what went on in the company.
> >
> > They didn't call me, but they pushed a 'phoney' letter under the door to
> > the building I live in, which was
> > written, by one the persons I had reported there, and which the Managing
> > Director, had put in charge of
> > the investigation of the problems I had reported.
> >
> > And then, I got a form, saying my employment there had ended.
> >
> > I reported about this to the Police, as continuing of the harassment,
> > which is the way I saw it.
> >
> > Now lately, I've heard, that this type of dismissal, is also called
> > 'constructed dismissal'.
> >
> > So I didn't leave the employment.
> >
> > I was the subject of a constructed dismissal.
> >
> > I thought I'd make a point of this, since this isn't reflected in your
> > report.
> >
> > 9.
> >
> > You write that the area was poorly lit.
> >
> > It was in fact very poorly lit.
> >
> > One couldn't read like a folder or a newspaper there.
> >
> > (At the Liverpool Central CAB premisses).
> >
> > And most of the meeting there, was held in the dark there.
> >
> > This isn't reflected in your report I think, that the meeting was
> > held in the
> > dark, so that it wasn't possible to read there.
> >
> > 11.
> >
> > Morecrofts had promissed me, on 10/4, that they would take on the case,
> > on a payment plan type
> > of payment-solution.
> >
> > Miss Pool said this.
> >
> > So when they (Samantha) said on 24/4, that there could be no payment
> > plan type of payment-solution,
> > then the company, went back on what I had previously agreed with them.
> >
> > I thought I'd make a point of this as well, since I can't see it's
> > reflected in your report.
> >
> > 16.
> >
> > You write, that the second e-mail I sent the CAB Chief Executive David
> > Harker, was sent him on 22/8,
> > the same day as the automated reply for this e-mail was sent back.
> >
> > This isn't right at all.
> >
> > My e-mail, was sent on 16/8.
> >
> > And the CEO's automated, or 'automated' reply, was sent back, on 22/8.
> >
> > I'm a bit disapointed, since noone seem to think, that this is
> > remarkable.
> >
> > Since I myself, think, that automated replies, shouldn't be sent many
> > days later.
> >
> > Since then, I suspect that they aren't really automated at all.
> >
> > Then I would start to think, that there's something phoney going on.
> >
> > So I'm a bit disapointed that you write that the second e-mail, that I
> > sent the Chief Executive,
> > was sent on 22/8, when it was in fact sent on 16/8.
> >
> > 51.
> >
> > You write, that you have checked yourself, that the e-mail address,
> > listed on
> >
> > www.liverpoolcab.org, now is the right e-mail address.
> >
> > But I checked it now, I went to the website, and pressed the
> > e-mail-button.
> >
> > Then outlook opens, and the e-mail address that one get up, is:
> >
> > bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk
> >
> > and not the right e-mail address (bureau@liverpoolcab.org), like you
> > write in your report.
> >
> > I'm enclosing a screenshot, from the Liverpool Central CAB website, from
> > today, that shows this.
> >
> > 52.
> >
> > You say that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
> >
> > But I don't agree with this.
> >
> > Due to these reasons:
> >
> > 1:
> >
> > The CAP-representative, said that the whole meeting there, on 5/4, was
> > held with the lights on.
> >
> > But I explained, to the Chair there, that this was a lie.
> >
> > Since, he waited until the meeting was almost finished, before he
> > switched the lights on.
> >
> > And before this, it wasn't possible to read in the area.
> >
> > The fact, that the representative, read the fax-number, from the phone
> > list, instead of the
> > phone-number, to EAD, I think shows this, that the representative lied.
> >
> > But this fact, that the representative lied, has been ignored, by the
> > Chair there, thats Chairman of
> > the Board then, I presume. And by the CAB Chief Executive.
> >
> > I don't think this is very fair.
> >
> > 2:
> >
> > Further, you write, that e-mails were answered late.
> >
> > But some e-mails, like the ones I sent the Comlaints Manager there,
> > Follows, weren't answered at all.
> >
> > This isn't reflected on, as far as I can see, in your report.
> >
> > 3:
> >
> > And what about the problems with the automated reply.
> >
> > Or the 'magic' automated reply, would maybe be a better description of
> > the nature of this reply.
> >
> > Since the automaded reply, waited, from 16/8, untill 22/8, before it
> > found it right to send itself.
> >
> > Isn't this a bit strange, that the CAB headoffice, is operating, with
> > seemingly 'magic' automated replies?
> >
> > Why didn't the Chief Executive reflect on this at all?
> >
> > Even if I made a point of it, in the compaint.
> >
> > So I don't agree with you, that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
> >
> > And I also think also you yourself, should have maybe reflected more on,
> > at least, point 1 and 3 here, in your report,
> > since I made a point out of these issues, in my remarks, regarding the
> > Stage 3 report, from the Chief Executive.
> >
> > These are the issues that comes to mind, from reading your report now.
> >
> > So I thought I'd send you them, so that you could be aware, of the
> > obvious errors you've made, with the Liverpool
> > Central CAB's e-mail address, on their website, which you write that you
> > have checked, and you say it's now
> > the right address, which it isn't.
> >
> > And the error, when you write, that my second e-mail to the Chief
> > Executive, was sent on the same date, as the
> > ('magic') automated reply, was sent back (22/8), when the e-mail was in
> > fact sent on 16/8. (And not on 22/8,
> > like you write in your report).
> >
> > So these are obvious errors, to do with obvious facts. So I don't think
> > this can be disputed.
> >
> > The other issues, surrounding that the lie from the CAB representative,
> > isn't reflected on.
> >
> > That the fact that the meeting there, was held in the dark, isn't
> > acknoledgded, even if I make a point of it in the
> > answers to the various reports, I think is worrying.
> >
> > Since I explain what happened around this in detail.
> >
> > That I explain that the CAB representative read the fax-number to the
> > EAD-company, instead of the phone-number.
> >
> > So it shouldn't really be any doubt regarding if the meeting there, was
> > held in the dark or not.
> >
> > I also explained, that there seemed to be some kind of 'Street
> > Theather', arranged there, at the Liverpool Central CAB.
> >
> > That it seemed that there was a planned Street Theather operation, set
> > up there, in connection with my meeting there
> > on 5/4, last year.
> >
> > This isn't taken seriously.
> >
> > I think this is probably something to do with, that I have been in
> > contact, with the Liverpool Police, regarding something
> > I overheard, when I was working in Norway, that I was followed, for some
> > reason unclear to me, by some mafia.
> >
> > (Possibly due to some honour-stuff, due to some misunderstandings, with
> > a collegue there, in the township, that the
> > shop I worked as part-time team-leader in, besides my University level
> > studies).
> >
> > When I got to Liverpool, I overheard that the Police-officer, that I
> > explained to, that I was followed, said on the back-office,
> > on St. Ann St. Police Station there, that 'don't he understand, that
> > noone wants to be involved'.
> >
> > I think, that the British Police, after this, that they sent me out of
> > the Police-station, without leting me explain properly,
> > about this, why I thought I was being followed, have been having some
> > type of survailance operation, around me.
> >
> > And that this Street Theater operation, at the CAB, last year, was part
> > of this Police surveilance operation.
> >
> > So that the whole meeting there, wasn't a proper meeting at all, just
> > some kind of phoney set-up.
> >
> > I don't think this is right.
> >
> > Because since Norway are part of the EU-market, then Norwegian citizens
> > have the right, to work and live in Britain.
> >
> > And I have paid tax to the UK government, and to the Council.
> >
> > So I don't think it's right that my rights should be ignored, in a way
> > like this, since the Police want's to have some
> > kind of set-ups, like it seems.
> >
> > Anyway, how this is, I can't see that this is reflected on in your
> > report.
> >
> > But I suspect, due to the mistakes in your report, that I've mentioned,
> > and due to the many things you just ignore in it,
> > and fail to reflect on.
> >
> > Due to this, I also suspect that your report, could be part of this
> > phoney Police operation, or what this all is.
> >
> > So I think this is very poor.
> >
> > That the organisation, and system, around the CAB, that is supposed to
> > work for making sure that peoples rights are
> > respected, just play games with peoples rights in a way like this.
> >
> > Since I think it has to be something phoney going on here, since the
> > whole CAB process around the meeting and
> > the complaint, is obviously corrupt.
> >
> > So the reason that I'm writing this e-mail, isn't really because that I
> > think something will be done regarding the
> > serious issues I've been pointing at here.
> >
> > But I'm planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so then at least, I'll
> > be able to deal with this in that way, that
> > I at least get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and
> > maybe react or reflect on what's going on.
> >
> > So that's really why I'm writing this e-mail.
> >
> > Just to explain about this.
> >
> > Hope this is alright!
> >
> > Yours sincerly,
> >
> > Erik Ribsskog
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/24/08, Barbara Stow
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Eribsskog
> > >
> > > I enclose the report of my review of your complaint.
> > >
> > > I have also sent it to Citizens Advice. They will write to you within
> > > the next two weeks when they have considered the report.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > >
> > > Barbara Stow
> > > Independent Adjudicator
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Forwarded Message ----
> > > From: Barbara Stow
> > > To: Erik Ribsskog
> > > Sent: Friday, 18 April, 2008 12:12:35 PM
> > > Subject: Fw: Citizens Advice
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Ribsskog
> > >
> > > When I wrote to you on 1 April I said that I hoped to complete my
> > > review by today, 18 April.
> > >
> > > I have almost done so but I am not yet quite ready to send the report.
> > >
> > > I am sorry for the delay. I will write to you again not later than
> > > the end of next week.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > > Barbara Stow
> > > Independent Adjudicator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Forwarded Message ----
> > > From: Barbara Stow
> > > To: Erik Ribsskog
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 1:05:32 PM
> > > Subject: Citizens Advice
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Ribsskog
> > >
> > > I am the independent adjudicator for the Citizens Advice service and I
> > > write to confirm that Saffron Follows, on behalf of David Harker, has asked
> > > me to review how your complaint has been dealt with. I am writing by e-mail
> > > as I understand this is your preferred means of communication.
> > >
> > > I will consider whether your complaint has been dealt with in line
> > > with the Citizens Advice national complaints procedure and fairly. I have
> > > no authority to say whether your complaint justified. My task is to say
> > > whether it has been considered properly.
> > >
> > > Ms Follows has sent me the correspondence about your complaint. This
> > > includes the e-mail message of 14 March to David Harker in which you
> > > accepted the offer that someone independent could look at your complaint.
> > >
> > > If there is anything more you would like to say to me about why you
> > > are unhappy with the way your complaint has been considered, please let me
> > > know at the e-mail address above.
> > >
> > > I hope to be able to complete my review by 18 April. If I have not
> > > heard from you by 11 April I will assume that there is nothing you want to
> > > add to what you have explained already.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > > Barbara Stow
> > > Independent Adjudicator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
E-mail from the independent CAB Adjudicator, on 28/4/08.
From: stow_adjudicator@btinternet.com Barbara Stow
To: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:09:00 +0100
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
Dear Mr Ribsskog
The result of my review of how your complaint was handled is in my report. I was grateful to you for pointing out my error in the date of the e-mail and explaining where the wrong e-mail address for the bureau was displayed.
There is nothing else for me to add to the report.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Stow
----- Original Message ----
From: Erik Ribsskog
To: Barbara Stow
Sent: Friday, 25 April, 2008 3:50:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
Hi,
I see that you have conluded your involvement.
But, how can you say that the CAB haven't done anything wrong, when.
1. The meeting at the CAB, was held in the dark.
2. The CAB representative, was lieing, in report 1, where he said he turned the lights on there, at the beginning of the
meeting, which he didn't he turned them on at the end of the meeting.
3. How could the automated message, be delayed for six days?
4. Why doesn't anyone (neighter you, or the CAB Chief Executie), reflect on, that the automated message, was delayed for six days?
5. I tell you, that there was a street theater operation, going on in the CAB premisses.
I don't mean that the operation was on the steet outside the State House.
Street Theater, is a term, it doesn't have to be on the street, even if it's calles Street Theater.
6. How can the CAB have had the wrong e-mail address, on their website, for years, like it seems from the website design?
7. Why is it, that I'm writing all the time, that the meeting, on 5/4, was being held in the dark, and still noone reflects on this.
Isn't this a bit inpolite, to act in a way like that?
8. You say, that the delay with the automated message, was not due to something that was sinister.
I appriciate, that you are explaining to me, what it isn't due to.
But the reason I'm complaing, is not to find out what it isn't due to.
I'm trying to find out what it is due to.
So I'm really not very much viser, from your reply.
I know one thing that it isn't due to, but I think would be very fine, to know what it was due to.
What caused this, the six days delay, to the automated message.
So I hope you have the oppertunity to have a look at this again!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
Again, I've seen that you have conluded your work, but like I explained, in the last e-mail, I can't see that these issues are
being taken seriously, by eighter you or the Chief Executive, so I'm goint
On 4/25/08, Barbara Stow wrote:
Dear Mr Ribbskog
Thank you for this message and for the second one to which you attached a screenshot.
I attach my letter in reply.
Barbara Stow
----- Original Message ----
From: Erik Ribsskog
To: Barbara Stow
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:24:44 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
Hi,
thank you very much for your answer!
I've been reading through your report now, and I have some comments on it.
I hope it's alright that I send you these comments!
5.
Here you write, that I left the employment with Arvato Services Ltd.
What happened, was that the Managing Director ordered me home, with pay, since he wouldn't let
me stay and work there, since he feared for my security there, he said.
Arvato, were supposed to call me, when they had checked up more about what went on in the company.
They didn't call me, but they pushed a 'phoney' letter under the door to the building I live in, which was
written, by one the persons I had reported there, and which the Managing Director, had put in charge of
the investigation of the problems I had reported.
And then, I got a form, saying my employment there had ended.
I reported about this to the Police, as continuing of the harassment, which is the way I saw it.
Now lately, I've heard, that this type of dismissal, is also called 'constructed dismissal'.
So I didn't leave the employment.
I was the subject of a constructed dismissal.
I thought I'd make a point of this, since this isn't reflected in your report.
9.
You write that the area was poorly lit.
It was in fact very poorly lit.
One couldn't read like a folder or a newspaper there.
(At the Liverpool Central CAB premisses).
And most of the meeting there, was held in the dark there.
This isn't reflected in your report I think, that the meeting was held in the
dark, so that it wasn't possible to read there.
11.
Morecrofts had promissed me, on 10/4, that they would take on the case, on a payment plan type
of payment-solution.
Miss Pool said this.
So when they (Samantha) said on 24/4, that there could be no payment plan type of payment-solution,
then the company, went back on what I had previously agreed with them.
I thought I'd make a point of this as well, since I can't see it's reflected in your report.
16.
You write, that the second e-mail I sent the CAB Chief Executive David Harker, was sent him on 22/8,
the same day as the automated reply for this e-mail was sent back.
This isn't right at all.
My e-mail, was sent on 16/8.
And the CEO's automated, or 'automated' reply, was sent back, on 22/8.
I'm a bit disapointed, since noone seem to think, that this is remarkable.
Since I myself, think, that automated replies, shouldn't be sent many days later.
Since then, I suspect that they aren't really automated at all.
Then I would start to think, that there's something phoney going on.
So I'm a bit disapointed that you write that the second e-mail, that I sent the Chief Executive,
was sent on 22/8, when it was in fact sent on 16/8.
51.
You write, that you have checked yourself, that the e-mail address, listed on
www.liverpoolcab.org, now is the right e-mail address.
But I checked it now, I went to the website, and pressed the e-mail-button.
Then outlook opens, and the e-mail address that one get up, is:
bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk
and not the right e-mail address (bureau@liverpoolcab.org), like you write in your report.
I'm enclosing a screenshot, from the Liverpool Central CAB website, from today, that shows this.
52.
You say that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
But I don't agree with this.
Due to these reasons:
1:
The CAP-representative, said that the whole meeting there, on 5/4, was held with the lights on.
But I explained, to the Chair there, that this was a lie.
Since, he waited until the meeting was almost finished, before he switched the lights on.
And before this, it wasn't possible to read in the area.
The fact, that the representative, read the fax-number, from the phone list, instead of the
phone-number, to EAD, I think shows this, that the representative lied.
But this fact, that the representative lied, has been ignored, by the Chair there, thats Chairman of
the Board then, I presume. And by the CAB Chief Executive.
I don't think this is very fair.
2:
Further, you write, that e-mails were answered late.
But some e-mails, like the ones I sent the Comlaints Manager there, Follows, weren't answered at all.
This isn't reflected on, as far as I can see, in your report.
3:
And what about the problems with the automated reply.
Or the 'magic' automated reply, would maybe be a better description of the nature of this reply.
Since the automaded reply, waited, from 16/8, untill 22/8, before it found it right to send itself.
Isn't this a bit strange, that the CAB headoffice, is operating, with seemingly 'magic' automated replies?
Why didn't the Chief Executive reflect on this at all?
Even if I made a point of it, in the compaint.
So I don't agree with you, that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
And I also think also you yourself, should have maybe reflected more on, at least, point 1 and 3 here, in your report,
since I made a point out of these issues, in my remarks, regarding the Stage 3 report, from the Chief Executive.
These are the issues that comes to mind, from reading your report now.
So I thought I'd send you them, so that you could be aware, of the obvious errors you've made, with the Liverpool
Central CAB's e-mail address, on their website, which you write that you have checked, and you say it's now
the right address, which it isn't.
And the error, when you write, that my second e-mail to the Chief Executive, was sent on the same date, as the
('magic') automated reply, was sent back (22/8), when the e-mail was in fact sent on 16/8. (And not on 22/8,
like you write in your report).
So these are obvious errors, to do with obvious facts. So I don't think this can be disputed.
The other issues, surrounding that the lie from the CAB representative, isn't reflected on.
That the fact that the meeting there, was held in the dark, isn't acknoledgded, even if I make a point of it in the
answers to the various reports, I think is worrying.
Since I explain what happened around this in detail.
That I explain that the CAB representative read the fax-number to the EAD-company, instead of the phone-number.
So it shouldn't really be any doubt regarding if the meeting there, was held in the dark or not.
I also explained, that there seemed to be some kind of 'Street Theather', arranged there, at the Liverpool Central CAB.
That it seemed that there was a planned Street Theather operation, set up there, in connection with my meeting there
on 5/4, last year.
This isn't taken seriously.
I think this is probably something to do with, that I have been in contact, with the Liverpool Police, regarding something
I overheard, when I was working in Norway, that I was followed, for some reason unclear to me, by some mafia.
(Possibly due to some honour-stuff, due to some misunderstandings, with a collegue there, in the township, that the
shop I worked as part-time team-leader in, besides my University level studies).
When I got to Liverpool, I overheard that the Police-officer, that I explained to, that I was followed, said on the back-office,
on St. Ann St. Police Station there, that 'don't he understand, that noone wants to be involved'.
I think, that the British Police, after this, that they sent me out of the Police-station, without leting me explain properly,
about this, why I thought I was being followed, have been having some type of survailance operation, around me.
And that this Street Theater operation, at the CAB, last year, was part of this Police surveilance operation.
So that the whole meeting there, wasn't a proper meeting at all, just some kind of phoney set-up.
I don't think this is right.
Because since Norway are part of the EU-market, then Norwegian citizens have the right, to work and live in Britain.
And I have paid tax to the UK government, and to the Council.
So I don't think it's right that my rights should be ignored, in a way like this, since the Police want's to have some
kind of set-ups, like it seems.
Anyway, how this is, I can't see that this is reflected on in your report.
But I suspect, due to the mistakes in your report, that I've mentioned, and due to the many things you just ignore in it,
and fail to reflect on.
Due to this, I also suspect that your report, could be part of this phoney Police operation, or what this all is.
So I think this is very poor.
That the organisation, and system, around the CAB, that is supposed to work for making sure that peoples rights are
respected, just play games with peoples rights in a way like this.
Since I think it has to be something phoney going on here, since the whole CAB process around the meeting and
the complaint, is obviously corrupt.
So the reason that I'm writing this e-mail, isn't really because that I think something will be done regarding the
serious issues I've been pointing at here.
But I'm planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so then at least, I'll be able to deal with this in that way, that
I at least get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and maybe react or reflect on what's going on.
So that's really why I'm writing this e-mail.
Just to explain about this.
Hope this is alright!
Yours sincerly,
Erik Ribsskog
On 4/24/08, Barbara Stow wrote:
Dear Mr Eribsskog
I enclose the report of my review of your complaint.
I have also sent it to Citizens Advice. They will write to you within the next two weeks when they have considered the report.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Stow
Independent Adjudicator
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Barbara Stow
To: Erik Ribsskog
Sent: Friday, 18 April, 2008 12:12:35 PM
Subject: Fw: Citizens Advice
Dear Mr Ribsskog
When I wrote to you on 1 April I said that I hoped to complete my review by today, 18 April.
I have almost done so but I am not yet quite ready to send the report.
I am sorry for the delay. I will write to you again not later than the end of next week.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Stow
Independent Adjudicator
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Barbara Stow
To: Erik Ribsskog
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 1:05:32 PM
Subject: Citizens Advice
Dear Mr Ribsskog
I am the independent adjudicator for the Citizens Advice service and I write to confirm that Saffron Follows, on behalf of David Harker, has asked me to review how your complaint has been dealt with. I am writing by e-mail as I understand this is your preferred means of communication.
I will consider whether your complaint has been dealt with in line with the Citizens Advice national complaints procedure and fairly. I have no authority to say whether your complaint justified. My task is to say whether it has been considered properly.
Ms Follows has sent me the correspondence about your complaint. This includes the e-mail message of 14 March to David Harker in which you accepted the offer that someone independent could look at your complaint.
If there is anything more you would like to say to me about why you are unhappy with the way your complaint has been considered, please let me know at the e-mail address above.
I hope to be able to complete my review by 18 April. If I have not heard from you by 11 April I will assume that there is nothing you want to add to what you have explained already.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Stow
Independent Adjudicator
To: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:09:00 +0100
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
Dear Mr Ribsskog
The result of my review of how your complaint was handled is in my report. I was grateful to you for pointing out my error in the date of the e-mail and explaining where the wrong e-mail address for the bureau was displayed.
There is nothing else for me to add to the report.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Stow
----- Original Message ----
From: Erik Ribsskog
To: Barbara Stow
Sent: Friday, 25 April, 2008 3:50:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
Hi,
I see that you have conluded your involvement.
But, how can you say that the CAB haven't done anything wrong, when.
1. The meeting at the CAB, was held in the dark.
2. The CAB representative, was lieing, in report 1, where he said he turned the lights on there, at the beginning of the
meeting, which he didn't he turned them on at the end of the meeting.
3. How could the automated message, be delayed for six days?
4. Why doesn't anyone (neighter you, or the CAB Chief Executie), reflect on, that the automated message, was delayed for six days?
5. I tell you, that there was a street theater operation, going on in the CAB premisses.
I don't mean that the operation was on the steet outside the State House.
Street Theater, is a term, it doesn't have to be on the street, even if it's calles Street Theater.
6. How can the CAB have had the wrong e-mail address, on their website, for years, like it seems from the website design?
7. Why is it, that I'm writing all the time, that the meeting, on 5/4, was being held in the dark, and still noone reflects on this.
Isn't this a bit inpolite, to act in a way like that?
8. You say, that the delay with the automated message, was not due to something that was sinister.
I appriciate, that you are explaining to me, what it isn't due to.
But the reason I'm complaing, is not to find out what it isn't due to.
I'm trying to find out what it is due to.
So I'm really not very much viser, from your reply.
I know one thing that it isn't due to, but I think would be very fine, to know what it was due to.
What caused this, the six days delay, to the automated message.
So I hope you have the oppertunity to have a look at this again!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
Again, I've seen that you have conluded your work, but like I explained, in the last e-mail, I can't see that these issues are
being taken seriously, by eighter you or the Chief Executive, so I'm goint
On 4/25/08, Barbara Stow
Dear Mr Ribbskog
Thank you for this message and for the second one to which you attached a screenshot.
I attach my letter in reply.
Barbara Stow
----- Original Message ----
From: Erik Ribsskog
To: Barbara Stow
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:24:44 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
Hi,
thank you very much for your answer!
I've been reading through your report now, and I have some comments on it.
I hope it's alright that I send you these comments!
5.
Here you write, that I left the employment with Arvato Services Ltd.
What happened, was that the Managing Director ordered me home, with pay, since he wouldn't let
me stay and work there, since he feared for my security there, he said.
Arvato, were supposed to call me, when they had checked up more about what went on in the company.
They didn't call me, but they pushed a 'phoney' letter under the door to the building I live in, which was
written, by one the persons I had reported there, and which the Managing Director, had put in charge of
the investigation of the problems I had reported.
And then, I got a form, saying my employment there had ended.
I reported about this to the Police, as continuing of the harassment, which is the way I saw it.
Now lately, I've heard, that this type of dismissal, is also called 'constructed dismissal'.
So I didn't leave the employment.
I was the subject of a constructed dismissal.
I thought I'd make a point of this, since this isn't reflected in your report.
9.
You write that the area was poorly lit.
It was in fact very poorly lit.
One couldn't read like a folder or a newspaper there.
(At the Liverpool Central CAB premisses).
And most of the meeting there, was held in the dark there.
This isn't reflected in your report I think, that the meeting was held in the
dark, so that it wasn't possible to read there.
11.
Morecrofts had promissed me, on 10/4, that they would take on the case, on a payment plan type
of payment-solution.
Miss Pool said this.
So when they (Samantha) said on 24/4, that there could be no payment plan type of payment-solution,
then the company, went back on what I had previously agreed with them.
I thought I'd make a point of this as well, since I can't see it's reflected in your report.
16.
You write, that the second e-mail I sent the CAB Chief Executive David Harker, was sent him on 22/8,
the same day as the automated reply for this e-mail was sent back.
This isn't right at all.
My e-mail, was sent on 16/8.
And the CEO's automated, or 'automated' reply, was sent back, on 22/8.
I'm a bit disapointed, since noone seem to think, that this is remarkable.
Since I myself, think, that automated replies, shouldn't be sent many days later.
Since then, I suspect that they aren't really automated at all.
Then I would start to think, that there's something phoney going on.
So I'm a bit disapointed that you write that the second e-mail, that I sent the Chief Executive,
was sent on 22/8, when it was in fact sent on 16/8.
51.
You write, that you have checked yourself, that the e-mail address, listed on
www.liverpoolcab.org, now is the right e-mail address.
But I checked it now, I went to the website, and pressed the e-mail-button.
Then outlook opens, and the e-mail address that one get up, is:
bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk
and not the right e-mail address (bureau@liverpoolcab.org), like you write in your report.
I'm enclosing a screenshot, from the Liverpool Central CAB website, from today, that shows this.
52.
You say that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
But I don't agree with this.
Due to these reasons:
1:
The CAP-representative, said that the whole meeting there, on 5/4, was held with the lights on.
But I explained, to the Chair there, that this was a lie.
Since, he waited until the meeting was almost finished, before he switched the lights on.
And before this, it wasn't possible to read in the area.
The fact, that the representative, read the fax-number, from the phone list, instead of the
phone-number, to EAD, I think shows this, that the representative lied.
But this fact, that the representative lied, has been ignored, by the Chair there, thats Chairman of
the Board then, I presume. And by the CAB Chief Executive.
I don't think this is very fair.
2:
Further, you write, that e-mails were answered late.
But some e-mails, like the ones I sent the Comlaints Manager there, Follows, weren't answered at all.
This isn't reflected on, as far as I can see, in your report.
3:
And what about the problems with the automated reply.
Or the 'magic' automated reply, would maybe be a better description of the nature of this reply.
Since the automaded reply, waited, from 16/8, untill 22/8, before it found it right to send itself.
Isn't this a bit strange, that the CAB headoffice, is operating, with seemingly 'magic' automated replies?
Why didn't the Chief Executive reflect on this at all?
Even if I made a point of it, in the compaint.
So I don't agree with you, that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
And I also think also you yourself, should have maybe reflected more on, at least, point 1 and 3 here, in your report,
since I made a point out of these issues, in my remarks, regarding the Stage 3 report, from the Chief Executive.
These are the issues that comes to mind, from reading your report now.
So I thought I'd send you them, so that you could be aware, of the obvious errors you've made, with the Liverpool
Central CAB's e-mail address, on their website, which you write that you have checked, and you say it's now
the right address, which it isn't.
And the error, when you write, that my second e-mail to the Chief Executive, was sent on the same date, as the
('magic') automated reply, was sent back (22/8), when the e-mail was in fact sent on 16/8. (And not on 22/8,
like you write in your report).
So these are obvious errors, to do with obvious facts. So I don't think this can be disputed.
The other issues, surrounding that the lie from the CAB representative, isn't reflected on.
That the fact that the meeting there, was held in the dark, isn't acknoledgded, even if I make a point of it in the
answers to the various reports, I think is worrying.
Since I explain what happened around this in detail.
That I explain that the CAB representative read the fax-number to the EAD-company, instead of the phone-number.
So it shouldn't really be any doubt regarding if the meeting there, was held in the dark or not.
I also explained, that there seemed to be some kind of 'Street Theather', arranged there, at the Liverpool Central CAB.
That it seemed that there was a planned Street Theather operation, set up there, in connection with my meeting there
on 5/4, last year.
This isn't taken seriously.
I think this is probably something to do with, that I have been in contact, with the Liverpool Police, regarding something
I overheard, when I was working in Norway, that I was followed, for some reason unclear to me, by some mafia.
(Possibly due to some honour-stuff, due to some misunderstandings, with a collegue there, in the township, that the
shop I worked as part-time team-leader in, besides my University level studies).
When I got to Liverpool, I overheard that the Police-officer, that I explained to, that I was followed, said on the back-office,
on St. Ann St. Police Station there, that 'don't he understand, that noone wants to be involved'.
I think, that the British Police, after this, that they sent me out of the Police-station, without leting me explain properly,
about this, why I thought I was being followed, have been having some type of survailance operation, around me.
And that this Street Theater operation, at the CAB, last year, was part of this Police surveilance operation.
So that the whole meeting there, wasn't a proper meeting at all, just some kind of phoney set-up.
I don't think this is right.
Because since Norway are part of the EU-market, then Norwegian citizens have the right, to work and live in Britain.
And I have paid tax to the UK government, and to the Council.
So I don't think it's right that my rights should be ignored, in a way like this, since the Police want's to have some
kind of set-ups, like it seems.
Anyway, how this is, I can't see that this is reflected on in your report.
But I suspect, due to the mistakes in your report, that I've mentioned, and due to the many things you just ignore in it,
and fail to reflect on.
Due to this, I also suspect that your report, could be part of this phoney Police operation, or what this all is.
So I think this is very poor.
That the organisation, and system, around the CAB, that is supposed to work for making sure that peoples rights are
respected, just play games with peoples rights in a way like this.
Since I think it has to be something phoney going on here, since the whole CAB process around the meeting and
the complaint, is obviously corrupt.
So the reason that I'm writing this e-mail, isn't really because that I think something will be done regarding the
serious issues I've been pointing at here.
But I'm planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so then at least, I'll be able to deal with this in that way, that
I at least get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and maybe react or reflect on what's going on.
So that's really why I'm writing this e-mail.
Just to explain about this.
Hope this is alright!
Yours sincerly,
Erik Ribsskog
On 4/24/08, Barbara Stow
Dear Mr Eribsskog
I enclose the report of my review of your complaint.
I have also sent it to Citizens Advice. They will write to you within the next two weeks when they have considered the report.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Stow
Independent Adjudicator
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Barbara Stow
To: Erik Ribsskog
Sent: Friday, 18 April, 2008 12:12:35 PM
Subject: Fw: Citizens Advice
Dear Mr Ribsskog
When I wrote to you on 1 April I said that I hoped to complete my review by today, 18 April.
I have almost done so but I am not yet quite ready to send the report.
I am sorry for the delay. I will write to you again not later than the end of next week.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Stow
Independent Adjudicator
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Barbara Stow
To: Erik Ribsskog
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 1:05:32 PM
Subject: Citizens Advice
Dear Mr Ribsskog
I am the independent adjudicator for the Citizens Advice service and I write to confirm that Saffron Follows, on behalf of David Harker, has asked me to review how your complaint has been dealt with. I am writing by e-mail as I understand this is your preferred means of communication.
I will consider whether your complaint has been dealt with in line with the Citizens Advice national complaints procedure and fairly. I have no authority to say whether your complaint justified. My task is to say whether it has been considered properly.
Ms Follows has sent me the correspondence about your complaint. This includes the e-mail message of 14 March to David Harker in which you accepted the offer that someone independent could look at your complaint.
If there is anything more you would like to say to me about why you are unhappy with the way your complaint has been considered, please let me know at the e-mail address above.
I hope to be able to complete my review by 18 April. If I have not heard from you by 11 April I will assume that there is nothing you want to add to what you have explained already.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Stow
Independent Adjudicator
Mer Sovjet-stat ting. (In Norwegian).
From: noreply-comment@blogger.com Lena mot ErikR
To: eribsskog@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:53:16 +0100
Subject: [johncons] New comment on What Issmat A., is writing on message, and what he....
Lena mot ErikR has left a new comment on your post "What Issmat A., is
writing on message, and what he...":
Snart får du besøk;-)
http://galeribsskog.blogspot.com/
Lena
Moderate comments for this blog:
http://www.blogger.com/moderate-comment.g?blogID=407973739067553285
Posted by Lena mot ErikR to johncons at 28 April 2008 02:53
http://galeribsskog.blogspot.com/2008/04/tvangsinnleggelse.html
Og hun, hvem hun nå er (jeg kjenner ingen ved det navnet, og hun har ikke presantert seg), sendte e-post til g-mail e-postadressen min og:
From: lenalier@googlemail.com Lena Lier
To: eribsskog@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:56:56 +0100
Subject: Snart kommer snille menn på besøk.
Erik!
Snart får du besøk;-)
http://galeribsskog.blogspot.com/
Lena
Og jeg gjentar, at jeg har alltid prøvd å oppføre meg bra, og har aldri trakassert noen, (jeg har tatt igjen når folk har mobba meg for mye, og sagt fra at her går grensen, det er det eneste).
Og jeg har heller aldri vært noe sinnsyk, eller noe sånt, jeg har bare vært overarbeida og litt deppa, pga. av problemer på jobb osv.
Så det greiene her, ser helt ut som sånn dem dreiv med i Sovjet-russland.
Hvis det er noe tull fra politiet, det her da.
Jeg kan jo ikke vite hvem denne personen er, for det er jo ikke et ekte navn.
Men jeg har blitt forfulgt i Norge, uten at jeg har gjort noe galt, og på nettet, så det er mulig at overvåkningspolitiet driver å tuller med noe.
Men det skal jeg ikke si sikkert, hvem det er.
Men at det er noe som foregår, det er sikkert.
Men hva nøyaktig det her er, det vet jeg ikke.
For jeg har ikke klart å finne ut hvem den personen er.
Det er ingen med det navnet i Norge.
Og jeg kjenner ikke igjen personen, på det hun skriver osv.
Så det her var litt rart.
Men det kan jo være, at det er en person, som blir lett påvirket, av å lese blogg på nettet osv., og som ikke har noe arbeid, men mye fritid, og driver å lager psycho-blogg, om folk hun ikke kjenner.
Det er jo også en mulighet.
Vi får se.
To: eribsskog@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:53:16 +0100
Subject: [johncons] New comment on What Issmat A., is writing on message, and what he....
Lena mot ErikR has left a new comment on your post "What Issmat A., is
writing on message, and what he...":
Snart får du besøk;-)
http://galeribsskog.blogspot.com/
Lena
Moderate comments for this blog:
http://www.blogger.com/moderate-comment.g?blogID=407973739067553285
Posted by Lena mot ErikR to johncons at 28 April 2008 02:53
http://galeribsskog.blogspot.com/2008/04/tvangsinnleggelse.html
Og hun, hvem hun nå er (jeg kjenner ingen ved det navnet, og hun har ikke presantert seg), sendte e-post til g-mail e-postadressen min og:
From: lenalier@googlemail.com Lena Lier
To: eribsskog@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:56:56 +0100
Subject: Snart kommer snille menn på besøk.
Erik!
Snart får du besøk;-)
http://galeribsskog.blogspot.com/
Lena
Og jeg gjentar, at jeg har alltid prøvd å oppføre meg bra, og har aldri trakassert noen, (jeg har tatt igjen når folk har mobba meg for mye, og sagt fra at her går grensen, det er det eneste).
Og jeg har heller aldri vært noe sinnsyk, eller noe sånt, jeg har bare vært overarbeida og litt deppa, pga. av problemer på jobb osv.
Så det greiene her, ser helt ut som sånn dem dreiv med i Sovjet-russland.
Hvis det er noe tull fra politiet, det her da.
Jeg kan jo ikke vite hvem denne personen er, for det er jo ikke et ekte navn.
Men jeg har blitt forfulgt i Norge, uten at jeg har gjort noe galt, og på nettet, så det er mulig at overvåkningspolitiet driver å tuller med noe.
Men det skal jeg ikke si sikkert, hvem det er.
Men at det er noe som foregår, det er sikkert.
Men hva nøyaktig det her er, det vet jeg ikke.
For jeg har ikke klart å finne ut hvem den personen er.
Det er ingen med det navnet i Norge.
Og jeg kjenner ikke igjen personen, på det hun skriver osv.
Så det her var litt rart.
Men det kan jo være, at det er en person, som blir lett påvirket, av å lese blogg på nettet osv., og som ikke har noe arbeid, men mye fritid, og driver å lager psycho-blogg, om folk hun ikke kjenner.
Det er jo også en mulighet.
Vi får se.
