Sv: Trafikering av nordiske jenter til UK etc
Hei,
jeg hørte folk prate på bussen, på vei til jobben.
Og jeg hørte kunder i flere aldersgrupper, prate om dette, på jobben, på Rimi, på Bjørndal, på slutten av 2003.
En dame i 50-årene, som jeg visste hvem var fra før, det var hun som anbefalte oss et nytt vaskefirma, noen år tidligere, hun sa til en annen kunde, at hun hadde hørt, at jeg 'var forfulgt av 'mafian' også'.
Jeg hørte også en pakistansk dame som jobbet der, sa at en kurdisk dame, som også jobbet der, prøvde å få tak i medarbeiderpermen, og hadde tatt telefoner hele dagen, for å prøve å finne adressen min.
Jeg hørte også folk prate, når jeg var ute i byen, i Oslo, for å gjøre ærender.
Jeg gikk på H&M, ved Stortorget, i Oslo, for å kjøpe noen nye t-skjorter osv., som jeg trengte.
Og da hørte jeg noen utenlandske ungdommer, som jeg ikke visste hvem var, sa 'han kjøper jo klær også han jo'.
At de visste hvem jeg var, og var nesten sjokkerte over at jeg kunne gjøre ting som å kjøpe klær. (mens jeg var forfulgt av mafian da).
Senere, sommeren 2004, hørte jeg voksne folk, sittende på en fortausresturant, i Oslo sentrum, ved Saga kino, si ting som, 'har de ikke fått tatt'n enda da'.
Og noen folk på et utested, på Majorstua, i Oslo, sa, 'jeg skjønner ikke at det skal være så vanskelig å få tatt han der, han går jo samme vei hjem fra jobb hver dag'.
Etterhvert dro jeg til Sunderland, for å studere, høsten 2004.
Jeg dro tilbake til Norge, pga. forsinkelser med å få studielånet, og at mitt hjemme-universitet, Høyskolen i Oslo, brukte veldig lang tid, på å godkjenne studiet mitt, så studiene gikk i vasken.
Så bodde jeg noen måneder, på gården til onkelen min, i Larvik.
Før jeg ble forsøkt drept der, sommeren 2005.
Jeg kom såvidt unna, og dro til Liverpool, hvor jeg har bodd i tre år nå.
Jeg har kontaktet politiet i Norge (Kripos), mange ganger, og også politiet i England.
Men ingen vil fortelle meg noe, om hva som foregår, og hvem denne 'mafian', egentlig er.
Så jeg savner åpenhet om dette, fra myndighetene.
Jeg så at du skrev om 'maffian', i denne tråden, så jeg lurte på om det kunne være snakk om den samme mafian.
Men jeg er egentlig ikke fra Oslo, men fra et ganske lite sted, i Vestfold, ved Drammensfjorden.
Så jeg vet ikke så mye, om slik mafia osv.
Det forbinder jeg egentlig mest med mafia-filmer fra Chicago og Sicilia osv.
Av johncons (idag kl 15:51)
Sv: Trafikering av nordiske jenter til UK
"Og da overhørte jeg, i 2003, at jeg var forfulgt, av 'mafian', på jobben min, på Rimi Bjørndal."
Hur märkte du det Joncons? Vilken taktik använde de sig av?
Av HumlAnz X (idag kl 13:17)
fredag 29. august 2008
Even more about the Police's general enquiery e-mail addresses.
Re: A crazy person emails the queen
by johncons on Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:33 am
Jayfive wrote:
Huh?
Are you now saying BOTH email addresses are fake? But fake in different ways?
Isnt it obvious that the email they gave you in the meeting is the right one, and the email on the letter is SUPPOSED TO BE the right one, but has a mistake in it caused by a printing error?
Have you tried to actually email them using that email address to check if its real? Try it now and see. FFS, Ill email it now if you want and see if I get a reply.
Why would they give you a fake address? You have their phone number and address so what would be the point.
To sumarise this another way:
I think that the Police shouldn't operate with more than one general enquiery e-mail address.
Simply because I think it's sloppy and unprofessional.
I don't trust organisations that operate in a sloppy and unprofessional way like this.
http://www.ush.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=229585&p=2853286#p2853286
by johncons on Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:33 am
Jayfive wrote:
Huh?
Are you now saying BOTH email addresses are fake? But fake in different ways?
Isnt it obvious that the email they gave you in the meeting is the right one, and the email on the letter is SUPPOSED TO BE the right one, but has a mistake in it caused by a printing error?
Have you tried to actually email them using that email address to check if its real? Try it now and see. FFS, Ill email it now if you want and see if I get a reply.
Why would they give you a fake address? You have their phone number and address so what would be the point.
To sumarise this another way:
I think that the Police shouldn't operate with more than one general enquiery e-mail address.
Simply because I think it's sloppy and unprofessional.
I don't trust organisations that operate in a sloppy and unprofessional way like this.
http://www.ush.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=229585&p=2853286#p2853286
Even more from the ush.net message-board.
by johncons on Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:49 am
traffic_cone wrote:
johncons wrote:
traffic_cone wrote:
OK, so you don't think it's a misprint - what is it then?
I think the e-mail address written on the letter, is the right e-mail address, and that the e-mail address I was given in the meeting, is
a phoney e-mail address.
What makes you think this is more likely than it being a misprint?
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Well I have already written about this.
I've received at least two letters with the e-mail address written like that.
Police-detectives should have noticed an error like that.
Respectable organisations, don't use letters with misprinted e-mail addresses on them.
The letters from the Police, even have the Queens sigl, on them 'ER II', they shouldn't have misprints on them.
traffic_cone wrote:
johncons wrote:
traffic_cone wrote:
OK, so you don't think it's a misprint - what is it then?
I think the e-mail address written on the letter, is the right e-mail address, and that the e-mail address I was given in the meeting, is
a phoney e-mail address.
What makes you think this is more likely than it being a misprint?
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Well I have already written about this.
I've received at least two letters with the e-mail address written like that.
Police-detectives should have noticed an error like that.
Respectable organisations, don't use letters with misprinted e-mail addresses on them.
The letters from the Police, even have the Queens sigl, on them 'ER II', they shouldn't have misprints on them.
Skammer meg over å være norsk. (In Norwegian).
Jeg må si jeg skammer meg over å være norsk nå.
Når jeg tenker over, at norske myndigheter lar britiske myndigheter tulle og herje med meg, på den måten som er vist eksempel på, i den forrige bloggposten osv., uten å gi noen form for hjelp, etter utallige henvendelser.
Jeg må si at de myndighetene vi har i Norge i dag, de er en form for Quisling-myndigheter.
Når jeg tenker over, at norske myndigheter lar britiske myndigheter tulle og herje med meg, på den måten som er vist eksempel på, i den forrige bloggposten osv., uten å gi noen form for hjelp, etter utallige henvendelser.
Jeg må si at de myndighetene vi har i Norge i dag, de er en form for Quisling-myndigheter.
From the ush.net message-board.
traffic_cone wrote:
OK, so you don't think it's a misprint - what is it then?
I think the e-mail address written on the letter, is the right e-mail address, and that the e-mail address I was given in the meeting, is
a phoney e-mail address.
http://www.ush.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=229585&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=f8ce67d594d7cf8621f8f0e5483d0dbb&start=30
OK, so you don't think it's a misprint - what is it then?
I think the e-mail address written on the letter, is the right e-mail address, and that the e-mail address I was given in the meeting, is
a phoney e-mail address.
http://www.ush.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=229585&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=f8ce67d594d7cf8621f8f0e5483d0dbb&start=30
Even more from the ush.net message-board.
johncons on Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:40 am
traffic_cone wrote:
johncons wrote:
The e-mail address, that I was given, in a meeting, was:
civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848292/encl- ... laddresses
Where as the address, that is written on their letters, is:
civil.litigation.e.@merseyside.police.uk (An extra dot, after the 'e').
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848297/encl- ... laddresses
I asked the Police about this, and then they said, that the first e-mail address, was the correct one.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848223/email ... resses-etc (This is where I explained to the IPCC about this,
but the actual e-mail from the Police, is one of the e-mails in this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4847797/walton-police-email ).
So the Merseyside Police, (the Standards Unit), have printed their e-mail address wrongly, on their offical letters.
I work as a Company Researcher, and I'm used with evaluating companies.
If a company, have two official general enquiery e-mail addresses, then I'd say that something isn't right.
And I wouldn't have trusted the company, and I wouldn't have added them on the directory, that I'm working on.
The same with the Police Standards Unit, if they have two official general enquiery e-mail addresses for the unit, and claim both to be
their official e-mail address, then I find this so unprofessional, so that I don't trust the Police-force any longer, like I reported to the IPCC.
You don't think it might be a misprint?
Especially as "civil.litigation.e.@merseyside.police.uk" wouldn't be a valid syntax for an e-mail address?
No,
I don't think it's a misprint, because I don't think the Police should use letters, with misprinted e-mail addresses on them.
Then they should have thrown them away, and printed new letters.
I've recieved at least two letters with the e-mail address written like that, on them.
The people working there, are detectives etc.
If the Police-detectives, can't detect errors like that, then I don't trust the detectives.
And I don't think that it's not a valid e-mail address syntax, since I've been sending e-mails, and got confirmed that they
have been recieved, to an e-mail address with the same syntax.
http://www.ush.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=229585&sid=9b66c5b313df46405aed9ea42e30b221
traffic_cone wrote:
johncons wrote:
The e-mail address, that I was given, in a meeting, was:
civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848292/encl- ... laddresses
Where as the address, that is written on their letters, is:
civil.litigation.e.@merseyside.police.uk (An extra dot, after the 'e').
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848297/encl- ... laddresses
I asked the Police about this, and then they said, that the first e-mail address, was the correct one.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848223/email ... resses-etc (This is where I explained to the IPCC about this,
but the actual e-mail from the Police, is one of the e-mails in this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4847797/walton-police-email ).
So the Merseyside Police, (the Standards Unit), have printed their e-mail address wrongly, on their offical letters.
I work as a Company Researcher, and I'm used with evaluating companies.
If a company, have two official general enquiery e-mail addresses, then I'd say that something isn't right.
And I wouldn't have trusted the company, and I wouldn't have added them on the directory, that I'm working on.
The same with the Police Standards Unit, if they have two official general enquiery e-mail addresses for the unit, and claim both to be
their official e-mail address, then I find this so unprofessional, so that I don't trust the Police-force any longer, like I reported to the IPCC.
You don't think it might be a misprint?
Especially as "civil.litigation.e.@merseyside.police.uk" wouldn't be a valid syntax for an e-mail address?
No,
I don't think it's a misprint, because I don't think the Police should use letters, with misprinted e-mail addresses on them.
Then they should have thrown them away, and printed new letters.
I've recieved at least two letters with the e-mail address written like that, on them.
The people working there, are detectives etc.
If the Police-detectives, can't detect errors like that, then I don't trust the detectives.
And I don't think that it's not a valid e-mail address syntax, since I've been sending e-mails, and got confirmed that they
have been recieved, to an e-mail address with the same syntax.
http://www.ush.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=229585&sid=9b66c5b313df46405aed9ea42e30b221
E-post fra kulturdepartementet. (In Norwegian).
|
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> |
VS: Til Trond Giske, eller en av assistentene/håndtlangerne.
|
Larsen Trine Synøve Lie <Trine-Synove.Larsen@kkd.dep.no> |
Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:39 AM | |
|
To: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> | ||
| ||
More from the ush.net message-board.
Re: A crazy person emails the queen
by johncons on Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:45 am
Dave M wrote:
dont you just hate it when the police use phony e-mail addresses
Hi,
what happened, was that I complained, to the IPCC, about unproffesional conduct, from the Merseyside Police, in connection with
the case I have, against Aravato/Microsoft.
The IPCC, arranged a meeting, at Walton Lane Police Station, in Novemeber last year, where it was agreed, that I was to e-mail,
the documents regarding the case, to the Police, the next day.
The e-mail address, that I was given, in a meeting, was:
civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848292/encl- ... laddresses
Where as the address, that is written on their letters, is:
civil.litigation.e.@merseyside.police.uk (An extra dot, after the 'e').
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848297/encl- ... laddresses
I asked the Police about this, and then they said, that the first e-mail address, was the correct one.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848223/email ... resses-etc (This is where I explained to the IPCC about this,
but the actual e-mail from the Police, is one of the e-mails in this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4847797/walton-police-email ).
So the Merseyside Police, (the Standards Unit), have printed their e-mail address wrongly, on their offical letters.
I work as a Company Researcher, and I'm used with evaluating companies.
If a company, have two official general enquiery e-mail addresses, then I'd say that something isn't right.
And I wouldn't have trusted the company, and I wouldn't have added them on the directory, that I'm working on.
The same with the Police Standards Unit, if they have two official general enquiery e-mail addresses for the unit, and claim both to be
their official e-mail address, then I find this so unprofessional, so that I don't trust the Police-force any longer, like I reported to the IPCC.
Sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
http://www.ush.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=229585
by johncons on Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:45 am
Dave M wrote:
dont you just hate it when the police use phony e-mail addresses
Hi,
what happened, was that I complained, to the IPCC, about unproffesional conduct, from the Merseyside Police, in connection with
the case I have, against Aravato/Microsoft.
The IPCC, arranged a meeting, at Walton Lane Police Station, in Novemeber last year, where it was agreed, that I was to e-mail,
the documents regarding the case, to the Police, the next day.
The e-mail address, that I was given, in a meeting, was:
civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848292/encl- ... laddresses
Where as the address, that is written on their letters, is:
civil.litigation.e.@merseyside.police.uk (An extra dot, after the 'e').
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848297/encl- ... laddresses
I asked the Police about this, and then they said, that the first e-mail address, was the correct one.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848223/email ... resses-etc (This is where I explained to the IPCC about this,
but the actual e-mail from the Police, is one of the e-mails in this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4847797/walton-police-email ).
So the Merseyside Police, (the Standards Unit), have printed their e-mail address wrongly, on their offical letters.
I work as a Company Researcher, and I'm used with evaluating companies.
If a company, have two official general enquiery e-mail addresses, then I'd say that something isn't right.
And I wouldn't have trusted the company, and I wouldn't have added them on the directory, that I'm working on.
The same with the Police Standards Unit, if they have two official general enquiery e-mail addresses for the unit, and claim both to be
their official e-mail address, then I find this so unprofessional, so that I don't trust the Police-force any longer, like I reported to the IPCC.
Sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
http://www.ush.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=229585
Språkproblemer på svensk forum. (In Norwegian).
Ett inlägg i diskussionen Svensk dame i problemer i Liverpool?
så var hun under kontroll av en ire, i 50-60 årene.
Vad är en Ire? Av LongbowD (igår kl 8:41)
Ordning: Visa inlägg som:
Sv: ?
Hei det er en fra Irland.
Eller en irlender.
Selv om han også snakket svensk og tidligere jobbet på Svenska Kyrkan, i Liverpool, og dro ganske ofte til Malmö.
Det var en som hadde jobbet på Microsoft-aktiveringen lenge, men ikke var leder, og som ikke lengre hadde kone og barn, sa de andre svenske som jobbet de.
PS.
Jeg leste over det du skrev en gang til.
Du spørr meg, hva en 'Ire' er.
Ire er vel engelsk.
Det lærer man vel på skolen.
I Norge heter det også Ire, men vi skriver det ire, med liten forbokstav.
I Norge heter det nordmann, svenske, finne, ire, osv. osv.
Med vennlig hilsen
Erik Ribsskog
PS 2.
Nå sjekka jeg det på Google osv.
Man kan ikke si 'Ire' på engelsk, man må si 'Irishman'.
Så da heter det vel ire på norsk.
Irishman på engelsk.
Og irländare, så jeg på Google, at det heter på svensk.
Så får håpe at det skulle være klargjort.
Det vel andre ting som er viktigere, i forbindelse med dette, ville jeg tro.
Av johncons (igår kl 9:04) -- Inlägget ändrat idag kl 11:14
http://forum.aftonbladet.se/thread.jspa?messageID=985206
så var hun under kontroll av en ire, i 50-60 årene.
Vad är en Ire? Av LongbowD (igår kl 8:41)
Ordning: Visa inlägg som:
Sv: ?
Hei det er en fra Irland.
Eller en irlender.
Selv om han også snakket svensk og tidligere jobbet på Svenska Kyrkan, i Liverpool, og dro ganske ofte til Malmö.
Det var en som hadde jobbet på Microsoft-aktiveringen lenge, men ikke var leder, og som ikke lengre hadde kone og barn, sa de andre svenske som jobbet de.
PS.
Jeg leste over det du skrev en gang til.
Du spørr meg, hva en 'Ire' er.
Ire er vel engelsk.
Det lærer man vel på skolen.
I Norge heter det også Ire, men vi skriver det ire, med liten forbokstav.
I Norge heter det nordmann, svenske, finne, ire, osv. osv.
Med vennlig hilsen
Erik Ribsskog
PS 2.
Nå sjekka jeg det på Google osv.
Man kan ikke si 'Ire' på engelsk, man må si 'Irishman'.
Så da heter det vel ire på norsk.
Irishman på engelsk.
Og irländare, så jeg på Google, at det heter på svensk.
Så får håpe at det skulle være klargjort.
Det vel andre ting som er viktigere, i forbindelse med dette, ville jeg tro.
Av johncons (igår kl 9:04) -- Inlägget ändrat idag kl 11:14
http://forum.aftonbladet.se/thread.jspa?messageID=985206
Jeg er i familie med en ganske kjent tidligere AP-politiker, så jeg har tatt på meg rollen, å prøve å passe litt på, de moderne politikerne. (N).
|
|
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> |
VS: Til Trond Giske, eller en av assistentene/håndtlangerne.
|
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> |
Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:23 AM | |
|
To: Trine-Synove.Larsen@kkd.dep.no | ||
| ||
E-post til Fagforbundet. (In Norwegian).
|
|
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> |
VS: Søking på mitt navn på Google.