Enclosure 5.

SUMMARY MEETING 29/11/06

Line Sletvold, Team-leader, MSPA, Arvato Services.

Sarah Rushby, HR, Arvato Services.

Ian Carrel, Managing Director, Arvato Services.

Erik Ribsskog, Contact Center Representative, MSPA, Arvato Services.

About four hours before the meeting, I had sent an e-mail to Managing Directot Ian

Carrel regarding a serious harassment-incident and other very serious problems that

had been going on in the company.

I also sent him a copy of the summary from the meeting with Line Sletvold 26/11/06,

where I discribed the problems with the harassment-incidents involving Team-leader

at the Bon Prix campaign Chris Baines.

I also sent a copy of the the summary from the meeting with Senior Team-leader

Aidan Tippins from 28/11/06, where Mr. Tippins is clearly lying.

I also descibed in the e-mail how Sarah Rushby (HR), Aidan Tippins (STL Arvato),

and Chris Baines, clearly co-operated in covering the harassment episodes up

in the other meeting regarding this on 28/11/06.

These episodes were only the tip of the iceberg, and from all the other things that

were going on in the company, it was clear to me, that most or all of these

harassment-problems and other problems were organised.

After the meetings on 28/11/06, I contacted the police again regarding these

problems, and I got telephone-call back later from the police. The police sounded

concerned, and because of the nature of the problems Id been having with these

persons, the police adviced me to report to higher management about these

problems.

And because of the seriousity regarding the problems in the company, I found that

it was important to act fast regarding this, and I decided I also contact the owner-

company Bertelsmann, and some newspapers etc.

I thought that this was the only resposible thing to do.

So Mr Carrol said he had got some phone-calls from Bertelsmann head of PR, and

a newspaper regarding this.

I insisted that I had only done what I though was the only thing responsible.

Sarah Rushby said that she admited to having interupted me a couple of times in

the meeting the day before, an apologised for this.

I said that I had been thinking more about what happened on the meeting the day

before, and said that she was also talking very fast and not taking any concern

to me not having English as my first language.

She said that she had never heard this being said before [that she talked very fast],

and asked me about an example on how they had been taking things out of context,

like I had mentioned that they did in the e-mail to Ian Carrol.

I explained that I hadnt prepared that much for this meeting, (because the reason I

was working that day, was that I was working on writing on the finished version on

the summary from the meeting with Line Sletvold 30/10/06 and 11/11/06).

But I remembered an example of this in my head: Mr. Baines appoligesed in the

meeting 28/11/06 about him not saying bye in an earlier incident.

Mr. Tippins said (in the second meeting 28/11/06), that I shouldnt have needed to

be concerned about this (Mr. Baines acting impolite/ignoring me in that earlier incident).

Mr Tippins said that I shouldnt have needed to be concerned about this (have this in the

back on my head) on 25/11/06, since Mr. Baines had appologised about this earlier

in the meeting on 28/11/06.

Rushby said that I hadnt given Mr. Tippins any chance to explain [about the lying-

episode in the first meeting 28/11/06].

I said that I normally would have done this, but that this situation was so serious,

that the only thing responisble would be to act fast.

Rushby said that the acusaitons [in the e-mail to Ian Carrol] didnt have any substance.

I said that I could document most of what I had been saying in the e-mail and more.

I continued to read from the e-mail, where I explained why I had acted like I did:

'The harassment cases, the lies, the covering up and breaching of agreements, are so

serious, that the only thing responsible, would be to have a meeting about this

as soon as possible.'

-

Mr. Carrol said that I should have waited for his reply before I contacted the newspaper.

-

I said that it would have been irresponsible.

It was clear to me that it was important to act as fart as possible in this matter.

Mr. Carrol said that contacting the newspaper was breach of company policy.

I said that in any other case, I would never have done it like this, but that this situation

was so serious, that it would have been irresponsible not to do it.

I explained that I had contacted him about this, before I contacted anyone else

about this. [Even if this was only a technicalty].

It seemed clear to me that this was organised.

-

Mr. Carrol wondered what I wanted from the investigation.

I explained that i wasnt an expert on this, an that the way I normally would have tried

to deal with problems that I didnt have any competence in myself, would be to contact

people that have competence in dealing with these kinds of problems.

-

Mr. Carrol said that I should have escalated this earlier.

I said that in the meeting with Line Sletvold 26/11/06, I said that we had to inform the

people responsible for security and operations in the company about the situation.

I was offered a meeting with the two Senior team-leaders for the two campaigns

involved, the team-leader involved, my line-manager and myself.

I agreed to this, because I thought it was important that we came to an agreement

about how we should deal with the problems.

I thought it was important to get my line-managers support in this. And I thought

that I could escalate it later, if I didnt think the problems were taken seriously

enough. [This was before I found out about my Senior team-leader lying, and the

cover-up and the lyes in the scheduled meeting 28/11/06].

[Line sent me an e-mail, it must have been on 27/11/06, where she asked me

if it was ok that also HR participated on the meeting 28/11/06.

(For some reason the Senior team-leader for the Bon Prix-campaign, wasnt

going to participate in the meeting, and neighter would my line-manager.

She said, when I talked to her about this, I think on the same day, that she had

a rest-day on 28/11/06, and wouldnt participate because of this.

I thought she looked afraid when we spoke about this, so I didnt insist that she

should participate on the meeting.)

In my answer on her e-mail, I wrote that it was ok that HR participated on the

meeting.

I also reminded her about what I had said in the meeting with her on 26/11/06,

that I thought that this was so serious, that I thought that it was important that

also the people responsible for security and operations in the company was

informed.]

-

I continued to ask if there was a department responsible for securtiy in the company,

and Mr. Carrol said that there wasnt.

I asked if Bertelsmann in Germany had got a department like this.

Mr. Carrol said that they had an anti-fraud department there.

I explained that when I worked in one of Norways biggest companies, a grocery-

store chain called Ica-gruppen (former Hakon-gruppen/Rimi).

Ica-gruppen (Rimi) had their own security-department [who worked with clearing

up cases with robberies, dishonest employees etc. etc]. They were a kind of

Rimi-police, you could call them.

So I wondered if Bertelsmann could have a similar department like this, and if

then I thought they should be informed.

Because then I thought they would be able to give advice in how to deal with

the situation. Eg. advice on how to conduct the investigation etc.

-

I wanted to make sure that Mr. Carrol understood how important I thougt it was

that this was dealt with as professional as possible, so I went on with explaining

something from the sheduled meeting 28/11/06.

I told him that in the beginning of the meeting on 28/11/06, I had handed out a

summary from the meeting with Line Sletvold on 26/11/06, where I explained

about the harassment-incidents.

I told everyone on the sheduled meeting 28/11/06 (Rushby, Tippins, Baines), that

if everyone could read through the summary, then everyone would have the

details from the incidents fresh in their head.

And I said that I though everyone on that meeting had also been sent the summary

from the meeting 26/11/06, well in front of the meeting on 28/11/06.

Line confirmed that Rushby and Tippins had been sent an email with the summary

from the meeting between Line and me on 26/11/06 (where I explaied about the

harassment-incidents), but Baines hadnt.

I continued to say that Baines at least read it at the beginning of the meeting

28/11/06.

My point was, that what was said in that summary, and would have made me

myself very much raise my eyebrows if it was me who read the summary

under similar circomstances was this:

On page 6 in the summary (from the meeting between Line Sletvold and myself

on Sunday 26/11/06), that was handed out on the meeting on 28/11/06, it says:

'And because I found this behaviour very uncomfortalbe, and because Ive earlier

had problems with organised criminals in Oslo and Liverpool (problems which
I have reported to the police in Norway and England), I decided to take a taxi

to the police-station to report this.'

Neighter my senior team-leader Aidan Tippins (who said he didnt need to read

this document at the meeting, since he had recieved it on email and read it

before), or Sarah Rushby, from HR (who recieved the document on email, and

also read it at meeting), reacted in any way to this information.

None of them mentioned this at all.

How could this be?

I would have found information like this very unusual, yet no-one asked about

this or seemed scared [or concerned], about this.

They seemed to be comfortable and relaxed.

I explained this to Ian Carrol.

Sarah Rushby didnt comment on this.

I continued to say to Ian Carrol, that since hed asked what I wanted that should

be done regarding this.

I continued to explain that I hadnt done anything wrong, and that I had reported

about these problems to the police in Norway and England.

But that I hadnt managed to get any help, or even advice, from the police about

regarding how to deal with this.

So when you (Ian Carrol) ask what I want the company to do about this, then

I wonder if it maybe is possible to get help, with advice on how to deal with this.

Mr. Carrol said that the company could only help with advice on how to deal

with organised crime, if it was within the company.

If its external, it should be covered by the police.

Erik accepted this, and continued to say that he think that it is important that

these problems should be dealt with, and not hidden under the carpet.

Mr. Carrol said that I wouldnt find anything hidden at Arvato, here everything

is open.

Erik started to read again from the e-mail sent to Mr. Carrol earlier that day:

'It seems clear to me that most of, or all of, there harassment-cases and other

cases, are organised.'

Ian Carrol: 'If its organised crime within the company, then you should email me

me about it.'

Erik: 'I thought that was what I did this morning.'

Mr. Carrol doesnt answer.

Erik (reads from the email again): 'It seems clear to me that most of, or all of,

there harassment-cases and other cases, are organised.'

Erik: 'And its not organised by Arvato.'

Sarah Rushby: 'I think what Erik is trying to say is that this is organised crime,

that we all are criminals.'

Erik continues to say to Ian Carrol: 'I think its important that everyone act responisble

about this, and that expertise outside of the organisation should be contacted about

this.'

Erik: 'The police, you should contact St. Annes police-station about this.'

Mr. Carrol: 'Have you got a log-number.'

Erik: 'Yes.'

Mr. Carrol: 'Could you email me the log-number.'

Erik: 'Yes, of course.'

Sarah Rushby: 'Erik, here is a copy of the companys harassment-policy copied from

the employee-handbook.'

[I had read the harassment-policy earlier, and had also got the employee-manual at

home, but I didnt want to be inpolite.]

Erik: 'Ok, thank you very much.'

Erik (to Mr. Carrol): 'Have you got a piece of paper?'

Mr. Carrol: 'Yes'.

Erik: 'I think I have the log-number here somewhere.'

(I had the log-number written on a note in my wallet, I write the log-nr on the piece

of paper, and gives it to Mr. Carrol.)

(Meeting ended).

OTHER THINGS THAT WAS SAID IN THE MEETING #1

It was agreed that Erik should stay home, and write on writing summaries etc. while the

investigation continued.

Erik hadnt got to write all the summaries from the meetings, since there had been many

meetings the last days and weeks, and would have liked it, if he could go to work and

write the summaries at work, without being interupted by the phones.

Mr. Carrol said that because it was an harassment-case ('given the aligations' + 'duty

of care', was the words he used that i wrote down on the meeting).

Given this, Mr. Carrol said that he couldnt allow me to go to work during the investigation.

#2

Rusby said: at the meeting [sheduled meeting 28/11/06], we agreed that the way we

would go forward with this, was that we would find out some information, and then

have a later meeting about this.

Yet you went to the police [after the sheduled meeting 28/11/06]. She wondered why.

Erik said that he started to think about the things that had happend on the meetings on

Tuesday 28/11/06, and the more I thought about it, it got clear to me that something was

seriously wrong. [the lies and the covering up etc.]

So I thought the only thing responsible would be to contact the police.

At the [sheduled] meeting 28/11/06, we were discussing how we were going to pursue

the case further.

I said that I would continue to seek advice from indipendent institutions/organisations,

to make sure that I dealt with the situation as responsible as possible.

I reminded Rushby that the police is an indipendent organisation, and that they can be

trusted.

And that it therefore is ok to contact the police in situations like these.

[It looked like Mr. Carrol agreed with this.]

It was clear to me that this was the only responsible thing to do.

And then later, the police called (in the middle of the night), and seemed concerned.

They said that the problems Id been having with these persons should be taken seriously.

They seemed concerned, and continued to say that I should contact higher management

about the problems id been having with these persons.

#3 (REGARDING WHEN WE WOULD HAVE THE MEETING AFTER THE INVESTIGATION)

Line: Erik has got his holidays coming up in not long.

Mr. Carrol: Ok, then he would try to have the investigation ready before my holiday started.

I said it was no need to hurry for my sake. I thought it was more important that one used the

necessarty time to make sure that the investigation was contucted in an apropriate manner.

I wouldnt mind using of my holidays, and instead get a lue-day etc.

I though that the most important thing was that the investigation was done properly.

Mr. Carrol wondered if I was staying home during my holidays.

I asked Line what 'sannsynligvis' was in English again.

Most likely, Line said.

#4 (HOW I TRY TO EXPLAIN TO MR. CARROL HOW I THOUGHT THE PROBLEM SHOULD

BE DEALT WITH)

It should be put light on this problem.

It should not be put under the carpet.

If it isnt dealt with, then the problem could grow bigger and bigger, until it gets to big to

be [easily] dealt with.

Thats why it is important to deal with problems like this as efficently, professional and

responsible as possible.

#5 WHO WOULD LEAD THE INVESTIGATION

In the beginning of the meeting Mr. Carrel also said that Sarah Rushby, HR, would be

leading the investigation.

Enclosure 4.

Enclosure 3.

SUMMARY MEETING 28/11/06

Sarah Rushby, HR, Arvato Services.

Chris Baines, Team-leader, Bon Prix, Arvato Services.

Aidan Tippins, Senior Team-leader, Arvato Services.

Erik Ribsskog, Contact Center Representative, MSPA, Arvato Services.

When the meeting started, I asked Mr. Tippins if it was me that should lead the meeting

since it was me who wanted to have a meeting regarding this.

Mr. Tippins said that it wasnt. Then I asked if I could make a presentation, and Mr.

Tippins said that this was ok.

I started with handing out an agenda for the presentation, and also copies of the

summary from my meeting with Line Sletvold on Sunday 26/11/06.

I suggested that everybody started with reading the summary from that meeting,

because then everybody would have the details fresh in their head.

Rushby and Baines read the summary. Tippins said that he had got the summary

from before.

When they were finished reading, Rushby asked if she could ask a question, and

I answered that it was ok.

Rushby asked me to confirm that the person who had been harassing me in the

episode surrounding the extra headphones, was wearing a white hooded sweater.

Rushby and Tippins said that Mr. Baines had told them that he didnt have a

sweater like this.

Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines most often was wearing black t-shirts, Mr. Tippins

had himself noticed this, so he didnt think it could have been Mr. Baines.

I confirmed that I had seen Mr. Baines sit down by a workstation situated on a row

two rows from the workstation I was sitting with.

Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines was working on the Bon Prix campaign, who were

situated furter away from our campaign, by the exit-door, so it couldnt have been

Mr. Baines.

They said that I must have been mistaken Mr. Baines with another team-leader, a

team-leader who was working on a campaign closer to our campaign.

I said that I was sorry if I had made a mistake, but that I would still like to use my

own judgement regarding this. By that I mean waiting til I had seen what this other

team-leader looked like, before I would decide if I thought I could have made a

mistake.

[After this first episode, I started noticing Mr. Baines, and recognized him on several

occations every week, so I meant that I had been keeping good track of who he

was, and before this I hadnt been in any doubt about that it really was him that

was involved in this episode.

(From Mr. Tippins unsheduled meeting, earlier on the same day as this meeting, I

could remember that I got a bit uncertain, but really more confused, because I

didnt understand what the purpose of this unsheduled meeting really was.)

This other team-leader must have recembeled Mr. Baines very much. I was 100%

certain that the person had been wearing a white hooded sweater, with a Nike

logo on it, so when they told me that Mr. Baines didnt own a sweater like this,

then this made me a bit uncertain, but I still wanted to trust my own judgement,

and see with my own eyes how this other team-leader looked, before I said

anything more about this].

Mr. Tippins said that he had been showing me the other team-leader earlier this

day.

I answered yes, but he was standing quite far away and was wearing office-clothes.

The persons Mr. Tippins were showing me, one a quite heavily built person, and

another much less heavily built, was standing with their backs towards us, and

was about 10-12 meters away.

I was tired on this meeting, but I could see that they both had short hair, and their

body-types/(Norwegian 'holdning') didnt match eighter.

I didnt want to acuse the people on this meeting of lying. I thought that the only

possibilty that it wasnt Mr. Baines, was if it was a person looking almost excactly

like him that was working there. A relative of Mr. Baines or something like that.

When Mr. Tippins said that they were thinking of [I asumed] the least heavily built

of the persons he had been showing me, then I at once was certain that it couldnt

have been this person, but I wouldnt acuse the people on the meeting of lying.

So I was feeling a bit uncomfertable, and wanted to speak about something else.

But when I understood that it was one of the two persons (and then probably the

less heavily built person) that they were thinking about, then I got suspicious

that something could be wrong.

At once when they said that Mr. Baines didnt own a sweater like that, then I got

suspicious.

I noticed that Rushby and Tippins was looking "tellingly" at eachother, after they

saw that I got uncertain when they told me that Mr. Baines didnt own a white

hooded sweater.

Like they were having a 'battleplan', and that they now had reached a 'milestone',

and that they after this would continue to follow a certain pattern.

From the beginning of the meeting:

Rushby: 'You said that he was wearing a white hooded sweater'.

Ribsskog: 'Yes'.

Tippins: 'Chris says that he has never owned a sweater like that'. 'Have you ever

owned a sweater like that Chris?'.

Baines: 'No'.

Tippins: 'Chris is usually wearing black t-shirts, so it couldnt have been him'.

At this point in the meeting, several things hade made me suspicious:

- The other three persons seemed like they were co-operating, and like they had

planned a strategy on how they were going to go through with the meeting.

- Baines almost didnt say anything at all. It seemed clear that he let Tippins

and Rushby control the meeting. It was like they were defending him.

- They were saying that Mr. Baines didnt have a white hooded sweater.

- Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines mostly was wearing black t-shirts, so he

couldnt have been wearing a white hooded sweater (Mr. Tippins meant

that wearing a white hooded sweater wouldnt be Mr. Baines style).

But it could have been that Mr. Baines owned a white hooded sweater, but that

he only had used it one or two times at work, eg. when Mr. Tippins had been having

a rest-day etc.

On the meeting earlier this day, the one Mr. Tippins asked for, I was tired. I almost

never had any conversations with Mr. Tippins. I had been having 3 or 4 conversations

with Mr. Tippins during a years time.

1. When Mr. Tippins complained about me reading the newspaper.

2. When Mr. Tippins asked me if I knew a particular computer-programme, and later

on the same day when Mr. Tippins didnt say hi when I walked past him.

3. The meeting when I asked Mr. Tippins about the reasons for why I didnt get to get

a job-interview etc. [regarding the team-leader position I applied for].

4. The episode when I got back from my rest-days, and Mr. Tippins had stolen the

place I used to sit at by the campaign-table.

He didnt use to say hi when we met [I thought that this could maybe be because of

some English tradition, because it was a quite big step in status between our positions

in the company].

One day, the day of the second episode, I walked past Mr. Tippins on the sidewalk

outside of the Cunard building. (I was on my way back from my lunch-break). I went

passed him on the sidewalk, maybe a meter away, turned my head to say hi, but

he only looked away/down. He didnt want to say hi.

Recently there had been an episode (episode 4), where Mr. Tippins stole my place

by the campaign-table while I had some rest-days, about a week before this meeting

[28/11/06].

[When I got back after my rest-days, I sat down at my usual place, and when Mr.

Tippins got to work a couple of hours later.]

He gave me an ultimatum. He said I had to move within five minutes, or else. (He

didnt say what would happen, but I feared that I could get fired, so I thought it best

to move to another workstation).

And it also was an episode with the newspaper.

And also a meeting regarding why I hadnt got any feedback on my application for

the team-leader job.

I was tired on the unsheduled meeting. But even I was tired, I still was focused and

aware, because of the episodes earlier [involving Mr. Tippins,. I wasnt used to speak

much with Mr. Tippins, so the fact that Mr. Tippins asked for an unsheduled meeting

woke me up]. So I still remember every word from this meeting.

When Mr. Tippins said that we didnt have a team-leader with the name of Chris

Baines, then I at first thought that he meant that it must have been a typo

surrounding a letter in the name, or something like that. That he was picking on

a detail.

That his name was Christopher, and only was called Chris, or something like that.

I didnt ask any questions on this meeting, to make things more clear, because I

had things like the problems surrounding episode three and four in the back of

my mind.

I thought that I had better watch out so that I didnt get even more on bad terms

with Mr. Tippins, because I didnt want to loose my job or anything like that.

I thought that the reasons for these questions would seem clearer to me after we

had been having the sheduled meeting at 11.30.

So then, when he in the meeting at 11.30 says that the team-leader in the episode

with the extra headphones, was the same guy (I asumed the one that was least

heavily built), then I understood that this couldnt be right.

I thought back on the uncheduled meeting with Mr. Tippins at around 10 am, and

remember what Mr. Tippins had been saying then, that we didnt have a team-leader

with the name of Chris Baines.

I hadnt taken what he said to be very important earlier, because I reconed that the

reason of why he brought up this with the name, was because there was a problem

regarding a technicality with the name. And I asumed that the reason for why he

asked me if it was the small guy standing next to the big guy, would be made

clear later.

Now I suddently understood that this wasnt at all about a technicality with the name.

I now understood that Mr. Tippins wanted me to think that there wasnt any team-

leader with the name of Chris Baines employed in the company.

And when I told Mr. Tippins, that [my team-leader] Line Sletvold had told me that his

name was Chris Baines, then Mr. Tippins must have changed strategy, it seemed,

and wanted me then to belive that the team-leader was one of the two guys he was

showing me.

This was how it seemed to me.

It was clear to me that something was wrong, but I was still uncertain because of

the fact that they were saying that Mr. Baines didnt own a white hooded sweater.

So later, when we were discussing the next incident, and they claimed that Mr.

Baines behaviour when he didnt say bye, was acceptable and usual, then I

accepted the appology from Mr. Baines regarding this, even if I thought that

this behaviour wasnt acceptable for a team-leader.

Tippins said that in a hectic work environment, it was often that these things

happened. (That one ignored people and didnt say hi or bye).

I was a bit afraid that I would end up loosing my job the way the meeting was

going, so I therefore accepted the appology and we went on.

Baines said that he had said bye to me once.

I couldnt remeber this at the meeting, [but I later remembered that it must have

been probably the Sunday, the first day after the first incident, when I sayd

load and clear: 'Bye', and Baines answered: 'See you'].

Baines said that he could remeber having said bye to Osman and me.

[Baines, by the way, mixed up all the incidents all the time. For instance he

mixed up the situation when he didnt say bye to me [when I was alone], with the

incident when Osman and I finished work, and went out at the same time.

Baines seemed unfocused and disinterested. He let Tippins and Rushby take

charge in sorting the situation.

Mr. Tippins and me had to all the time help Mr. Baines, and explain which

incidents we were discussing.

Line Sletvold had told me that Mr. Baines was working at the Bon Prix campaign.

I noticed that he was working with the mail-bags on Sunday [26/11]. On Monday

[27/11] he had the day off. On Tuesday[28/11], I tryed to notice if he was working,

when I passed the Bon Prix campaign area, on the way to the toilet.

And I also tryed to look around and see if I could see him (inbetween the phone-

calls), butI didnt see him untill about 5 or 10 minutes before the meeting was

starting, when he was standing [together with Tippins I think] not far from our

campaign area.

(Im writing this because Mr. Tippins was asking me in the unsheduled meeting

if I had been seeing Mr. Baines at work that day.)]

Then we started talking about the episode surrounding Mr. Baines following me

on my way home after work.

Baines said that he hadnt seen me turn around, even if I turned around a lot of

times, and looked straight at him each time.

Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines probably was wearing his headphones.

-

How Rushby acted in the meeting:

- Was jumping from point to point.

- Was talking fast.

- Was interupting.

- Was having long, fast-speaking summaries, where she mixed together several

things (Norwegian word: 'Vas'), to then sneak in a conclusion that was meant

to be a conclusion that we both agreed on.

It seemed like she wanted to overload my brain with information/unimportant talk.

To tire me out, to then sneak in a conclusion, that she meant that we both were

agreeing on.

Time after time, I had to ask her to let me finish, to not interupt, to talk clearly

[so that I could understand what she was saying even if Im Norwegian], and ask

her to talk about one subject at a time.

She was trying to confuse me, to get me out of track. All the time I had to try

to backtrack the discusion, to try to find out what I was really trying to say,

since she all the interupted me, and tryed to get me out of track.

Rushby didnt take any consideration to the fact that English is only my second

language, but was talking fast and tryed to get me out of track.

I think it would be difficult for someone to follow her, even if they had been living

in England all their life.

All the time I had to ask her to let me finish and not interupt me.

-

And none of them brought up the point surrounding me been having problems with

organised criminals in Oslo and Liverpool.

Noone mentioned this.

They seemed like they were in balance and acted naturally.

Mr. Baines seemed dozy and disinterested. Mr. Tippins seemed to act like usual.

And also Rushby seemed to act natural, even if she got tears in her eyes a couple

of times, when she didnt sucseed in confusing me/getting me out of track.

-

They said that Mr. Baines hadnt seen me, and was only walking the usual way

he used to walk to the bus.

I said that I was looking straight at him several times [he looked back at me].

I was turning around so many times that he must have noticed it.

I noticed that he wasnt looking straight down, and wasnt looking straight ahead.

Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines probably was walking in his own world listening

to his walkman.

[But at the bus-stop, Mr. Baines wasnt wearing any headphones.

He didnt need to remove any headphones. He put up a 'stone-face', he was looking

unshaven, with long 'fjones'/hair in his face, and looked a bit unrested.

He didnt look like he recongnized me at all.

But I recongnized him. And when I asked him if it was him that was working at

Arvato, then he said yes.

I again recognized, like I did when he was passing Leather Lane [the Lane where

my flat is], that he was wearing a dark coloured parkas with a many-coloured

(Norwegian: 'Spraglete') fur-colar.

He was also wearing this jacket to work the day after, on Sunday, when he showed

up at work at Arvato a bit before 12 oclock.]

Mr. Tippins asked Mr. Baines if he had noticed that it was me [walking in front of him].

Mr. Baines answered that he hadnt noticed me at all.

I continued to explain another reason why I found it not likely that Mr. Baines hadnt

noticed me, people skills.

When I was working as a store manager in Norway, and was closing the store, then

I always tryed to remember whom I had said bye to, which way people used to

walk home etc.

This to avoid 'embarrasing' situations, like saying bye to the same person twice etc.

Because when you are working with people, then you should have a certain amount

of social intelligence.

[better: one would asume that to have at least a certain amount of people skills/

sosial inteligence would be a prerequisite to get a job as a manager.]

[And its clear that Mr. Baines have got social inteligence/people skills. He smiles,

has got charm/charisma, it seems to me when his speaking with other people.

Its seems to me that other people treats him with respect, that hes seem smart,

that hes aware. And it seems like hes got inteligence from how the look in his

eyes look.

It seems clear to me that he doesnt lack eighter regular or social intelligence,

in other words, he would know how to act if he wants to [it isnt like hes challenged

when it comes to social or regular inteligence].

When Mr. Baines is ignoring people, and when hes not acting polite, then his

doing this on purpose. [he isnt doing this because his challenged when it

comes to social intelligence].

So that Mr. Baines shouldnt be aware of the fact that it is me that is walking in

front of him on the other side of the street, when he a minute or two earlier have

turned off the lights at Arvato. (Been responsible for ending the shift).

(To end the shift he needs to know things like that everybody has left the Arvato

company area, he probably have to check that everyone has written them self

out on the timesheet, and things like managers have to do when they close

the Arvato work area.)

So at this time, he has got the overview of the company-area, and knows that

Osman and me are the last employees to leave the company-area.

He refered to Osman in the meeting, so he knew who Osman is, and its no

doubt that he also knows who I am.

[Since I have been worked there much longer than Osman, and because of

the several incidents surrounding him and me earlier, and because he from

time to time, like this day, is the shift-leader for our campaign, when our

campaign havent got any team-leader working on a particular shift.]

So I dont find it probable at all that he doesnt know that its me that is walking

in front of him.

Its clear to me that he must know that its me that walks a bit infront of him

when he walks out of the Cunard builidng.

Hes walking on the other side of the street. He sees that it is me that turns

around several times. Hes ignoring me as usual. He puts up a stone-face.

On purpose he continues to follow me into Dale St, even it must be obvious

to him, that I dont like that he is following me.]

-

The reason that I start to turn around to see if he was walking the same way

as me, is that I had the previous incidents with him in the back of my head.

[I think he acted so cold in the incident when he didnt say bye, and from

the other incident on the same day as he followed me (25/11), when Mr.

Baines kept starring at me, without any reason, and for a long time, while

I was working on translating to English the summary from the meeting with

Line Sletvold 31/10/06 and 11/11/06 on the computer at my workstation by

our campaign-table.]

-

Mr. Tippins says that Mr. Baines have appologised for not saying bye, so I

didnt have any reason to worry about this incident.

I understand that Mr. Tippins wants us to shake hands and square it up.

I answer that Mr. Baines had appologized now in the meeting.

What Mr. Baines says in the meeting today, didnt have any influence on how

threatened I felt by the situation on Saturday, three days earlier.

[Mr. Tippins is trying to bring things out of context].

-

I also explain that even if I personaly acepted Mr. Baines' appology [for not

saying bye] in the beginning of the meeting, I [looking at the incident in a

stricly professional way] thinks that Mr. Baines behaviour [in this incident]

was unaceptable [for a team-leader].

I explained that the manager (who works with people), is the person who is

responsible for the communication, who is the professional in this interaction.

So for a manager, in this very inpolite way, ignoring an employee, and dont

want to say bye, I find unaceptable.

Mr. Baines was also my shift-leader on this shift (since our campaign didnt

have a team-leader on this shift) [and this makes it even less aceptable].

Noone gives any answer to this.

-

We agree that well find out if its probable that the person Mr. Tippins noded

towards [in the unsheduled meeting 28/11/06], could be the team-leader

in the first incident.

The shift-plans would be studied to find out who was working on this

specific day (the day that incident with the extra headphones happened).

Then we were going to have a new meeting.

Rushby asked me what I would do regarding this case in the mean-time.

I answered that I would continue to seek advice from indipendent

organisations/institutions regarding how to deal with this matter.

-

The meeting is over, Im writing down what we were agreeing. The other

participants at the meeting is leaving the room while Im writing.

Rushby enters the room again for some reason.

She walks out after me, I hold the door to be polite.

Then we enter the hall in the 2nd floor.

I waited to see if she would head for the stairs or the elevator. She head

for the stairs, so I chose to take the elevator.

Because it became a bit akward when she entered the meeting-room

again, and I held open one or two doors for her.

So I found it best to take the elevator, since I thought the situation

became a bit to social-like, and I thought the situation lacked a bit of

the distance you'd expect situations at work to have.

I didnt quite understand the reason for why Rushby went back into the

meeting-room again.

She didnt say anything. She didnt explain the reason. And I couldnt see

that she picked up anything, like something she had forgotten, eighter.

She also used very long time, and walked very slowly in front of me,

before it was possible for me to see if she headed for the stairs or

the elevator.

So I remember I found the way she behaved a bit peculiar. [thats why

I chose to include it in the summary].

Enclosure 2.

CONTENCE OF E-MAIL SENT TO MANAGING DIRECTOR IAN CARROL, ARVATO SERVICES

LIVERPOOL 29/11/06

Advice from police regarding harassment case

Hi,

I went to the St. Annes police office yesterday, regarding a harassment issue that

has been happening at work and after work, involving Chris Baines, team-leader

Bon Prix, and me.

After I got home, the police called me, and adviced me to contact higher management

because of the obvious problems Ive been having with this person.

I asked if they meant the Managing Director, and the police-officer said yes.

We had two meetings about this case at work yesterday. In one meeting, involving

Senior team-leader Aidan Tippins and me, it seems clear to me that Mr Tippins

was lying.

Mr. Tippins said that we didnt have a team-leader with the name of Chris Baines

in the company.

I'll send a summary from this meeting ASAP.

In the other meeting about this harassment-case, involving Sarah Rushby, Aidan

Tippins and Chris Baines, it seemed clear to me that they were trying to help

him covering up.

It was really three against one. They kept interupting me and bringing things out

of context. They showed no interest in helping me, or see the case from my

side. They seemed more interested in what Ive told the police.

I'll write a summary from this meeting aswell.

In another harassment case, which I have contacted core-care about, Mr. Tippins

have said that he wants to bypass the sequence of events which my line-manager

and I had agreed on. He wanted to have a meeting about this in the near future.

My line-manager and me agreed that the sequence of events should be:

1. I contact core-care and get advice on how tho deal with the harassment-case.

2. Line (my line-manager) and I, where to have a meeting deciding how we

should deal with this issue further.

Mr. Tippins is not paying regards to this agreed schedule, but wants to have the

meeting when it suits him.

I'll send a copy of the e-mail regarding this issue.

Im going to translate to English a summary from a meeting with my line-manager,

where I address several other cases.

These issues seems clear to be serious cases of harassment and breach of

company-policy.

I'll send a copy of the summary ASAP.

I think these harassment-cases, lies, covering-up and breaching of agreements,

are so serious, that the only responsible thing to do would be to have a meeting

about this as soon as possible.

It seems clear to me that most of, or all of, these harassment-cases and other

cases, are organised.

I'll keep being in contact with the police, core-care, and other relevant institutions,

to get advice on how to deal with this as professional as possible.

So hope to hear from you about this as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance and regards,

Erik Ribsskog, MSPA.

Enclosure 1.

Hva skjedde rundt påsketider 2004? (In Norwegian).

I forbindelse med at jeg leverte noen statestikk-oppgaver, på HiO, like etter påsken 2004, kan det vel ha vært, så overhørte jeg to medstudenter, som pratet sammen der.

Han ene var skikkelig oppspilt, og forklarte han andre, som ikke helt trodde hva som ble sagt, at nå var de tatt ned.

Og det var vel det som ble presantert, i avisene, som at de hadde tatt ned noen heroin-smuglere.

Og jeg husker jo sommeren 2004, så kikka jo alle damene i Oslo blidt på meg, når jeg gikk hjem fra jobben osv, uten at jeg skal påstå at jeg vet helt sikkert at det var derfor.

Men, jeg overhørte jo, i desember 2003, at jeg var forfulgt av 'mafian også'.

Jeg klarte jo å få ødelagt tryne mitt, jeg hadde noen rynker over nesa, som plaga meg skikkelig, for jeg var omtrent ikke ferdig med å ha kviser, når jeg fikk dem, så prøvde jeg å få noe hjelp med det da, på et sånt hudpleie-senter på St. Hanshaugen, men da ble hele trynet fucka opp, så det her kan ha vært noe set-up.

Så det kan ha vært, at jeg var forfulgt av mafian, og hadde fått ødelagt tryne.

Eller det kunne ha vært at jeg var forfulgt av mafian (en slags norsk mafia?), og var forfulgt av noe muslimsk/albansk mafia, for det skjønte jeg vel nesten av andre ting som jeg overhørte, og av hvordan de utenlandske kollegaene mine oppførte seg der/reagerte på tryne, eller hva det var, at jeg var.

Og det var noen tøffe albanere innom og, for å se på navnskiltet mitt, hvem jeg var, og så gikk dem ut.

Det var en på 2 meter og 130-140 kg kanskje.

Noe sånt.

Og som tok med en kasse klementiner bort til meg, og spurte 'hva koster appelsiner'.

Så han hadde nok ikke vært mye i matbutikker før.

Han kikka på navnskiltet mitt, og gliste eller reagerte, la tilbake kassa med klementiner, og gikk ut av butikken.

Jeg er vant til å følge med litt på kunder, siden jeg har jobba en del år som butikksjef osv.

Hun Songül der, overhørte jeg, at var sammen med en mafia nå, sa hun eldste av de to pakistanske søstrene som jobbet der, til en annen pakistansk dame der vel.

Jeg overhørte hva de prata om.

Og Songül prøvde visst å få tak i informasjon, om meg, og få tak i medarbeiderpermen, for å få tak i adressen min, eller hva det kunne ha vært.

Og jeg hørte ungdommene på stedet, prata om at jeg var forfulgt av mafian, og enda var jeg ikke redd osv., selv om jeg bare gikk på jobben som vanlig.

Og Gezim, som jobba der, kikka bekymret på meg, må man vel si, pluss noen andre utenlandske kunder, som jeg kjente fra før, det hørtes ut på dem, som at noe var galt da, at de var triste/høytidelige da.

Og en gjeng med tre-fire albanere, eller noe, kom innom butikken, og klappa meg på skuldra, jeg var litt deppa på grunn av trynet osv.

Og sa noe på noe utenlandsk språk da, som jeg ikke skjønte, men som jeg så, av Thor-Arild, som også la opp frysevarer, at han ikke likte det, at han var sur på dem, han synes dem oppførte seg galt da, han reagerte på at dem tok meg på skuldern, og sa noe på utenlandskt.

Jeg var veldig deppa på grunn av tryne var fucka opp, så jeg reagerte nesten ikke da.

Men så dro Toro og Fredrick meg ned til Burger King, og Platekompaniet, ved Stortinget t-bane, etter endt arbeidstid, den dagen, en mandag, etter julebordet, vil jeg tro.

Det var vel den dagen, som han albaneren, som skulle kjøpe klementiner/appelsiner, var innom, litt tidligere på dagen, enn de tre-fire andre, litt mindre og vel i 20-åra.

Den mandagen, så hadde David Hjort, ringt Toro, på jobben, mens vi la opp frysevarer, og han ville at jeg skulle ringe han, på mobil, men jeg ringte hjem til han.

Da fikk jeg prate med svigermora hans, eller mora til Melina, samboeren hans, som hørtes nervøs ut.

Så jeg skjønte jo etterhvert, at noe foregikk.

Siden David ringte Toro, fordi David likte vel egentlig ikke Toro, så bra, at han ville ringe han osv. på jobben, etter som jeg mener å ha huska fra før.

Toro, ville ikke prate mer, plutselig, på Platekompaniet, og trakk seg unna meg/unngikk meg.

Jeg lot dem være i fred, og gikk hjemover.

David Hjort ringte, og ville møte meg, i en bil, nede ved Gunerius-senteret.

Han satt på med en kar fra Grefsen, eller noe, som han måtte forklare hvor skulle kjøre osv.

På en litt nervøs/amper måte vel, han kunne ha vært utenlandsk, eller noe mafia, kanskje.

Jeg sa jeg var der om 15 minutter.

Jeg ville ikke stresse, jeg huska at svigermora hans var nervøs osv.

Thomas Bruun, eller Brun, hadde ringt meg 10 ganger ca. på t-banen fra Bjørndal, til Stortinget, men jeg hadde ikke på lyden, så jeg bare ringte eller skrev melding, om at jeg ikke ville være med på T5PC, eller T5%C, møte, på Fornebu.

Det minnet om pyramidespill for meg, og det husker jeg vel at både faren min og stefaren min, pleide å være med på, men jeg leste jo i avisa osv., at det var mest bare tull/useriøst, lugubert er vel mer riktig uttrykk.

David Hjort, synes det var for lenge å vente 15 minutter, så han sa at dem droppa det.

Jeg gikk hjem.

Så dro jeg på jobb igjen tirsdag.

Da hørte jeg hun pakistanske store-søstra prata om, at Songül var sammen med en mafia, og prøvde å finne informasjon om meg.

At hun hadde sagt ja til å hjelpe Songül.

Og det var vel noen kunder eller medarbeidere, eller noe, som jeg skjønte det samme fra.

Og jeg skjønte det jo fra dagen før og, at noe foregikk.

Så til slutt, så virka det for meg, som at de kanskje planla, å ta meg på veien hjem fra jobben.

Det virka som om hele, eller halve, Bjørndal, visste om hva som foregikk.

Så jeg sa til han Frederick, at jeg var litt dårlig, og dro hjem med taxi.

Da ble jeg hjemme i et par ukers tid, og dro til legen like over nyttår, var det vel.

Og fortalte om det her mafia-greiene til legen da.

Han sa det var en politi-sak.

Men jeg hadde ikke så lyst til å gå til politiet, for jeg så så ung ut i tryne, det så helt rart ut, så det frista ikke.

Og, jeg skjønte noe var galt, siden det ikke stod noe om, i avisa, at det fantes en mafia, som man kunne bli forfulgt av.

Legen ville ikke skrive sykmelding på etterskudd, men jeg hadde to jobber.

Så jeg bare ringte Bjørndal, hvor jeg jobbet 5 timer hver lørdag, og sa at jeg slutta der.

Jeg hadde jo Langhus-jobben.

Jeg bestemte meg for å dra til utlandet, for det var litt flaut å gå rundt med et sånt rart tryne, og det her mafia-greiene, var litt stressende, for jeg skjønte ikke helt hva som foregikk, for jeg trodde ikke det var sånn, at man kunne bli forfulgt av mafia i Norge.

Og siden jeg leste avisa hver dag, men aldri hadde lest noe om noe mafia, som forfulgte folk, så stolte jeg ikke helt på at myndighetene visste hva de gjorde.

Så jeg tenkte, at å gå til politiet, bare ville gi en falsk trygghet, og muligens en psykisk knekk, hvis jeg ikke fikk hjelp, og planen min var å klare alle fagene på skolen, pluss et fra året før.

Så jeg bestemte meg bare for å fokusere på skolen, for å klare nok fag, til å få studielån også neste år, og så studere i utlandet.

For jeg hadde ikke noen oppsparte penger da, for jeg var student på den tiden.

Så dro jeg til Sunderland i september 2004.

Men, like etter påske, 2004, var det vel, så gikk jeg på HiO, for å levere en obligatiorsk oppgave i statestikk.

Jeg var ikke på forelesningene i statestikk, på ingeniørhøyskolen, men jeg satt hjemme hele påsken, og prøvde å skjønne det her.

Så skjønte jeg det såpass, at jeg fikk til oppgaven sånn noenlunde, så jeg vel tilslutt B eller C i faget vel.

Men jeg var flau over trynet, så jeg dro bare på skolen sånn en dag i uka.

Også jobba jeg på Rimi Langhus, hver fredag, seinvakt, som låseansvarlig.

Men da jeg leverte oppgaven, mener jeg det var.

Så overhørte jeg at en kar i 20-åra, sa til en annen, at nå var de nede.

Men det var bare noe jeg overhørte.

Så det kan jo ha vært den her albanske mafian da.

Og at de sa at det var en heroin-sak, for å dekke over.

For det har jeg inntrykk av at myndighetene ofte gjør, som en regel nærmest, dekker over mafia/mob-saker i ettertid.

Sånn virker det for meg fra England osv., hvor jeg opplevd ting på jobb og treningsstudio, som virker som var mob/mafia/etc., og som har blitt dekket over i ettertid av myndighetene, virker det som for meg.

Men jeg tok ikke dette for 'god fisk'.

For jeg visste ikke hvem de folka var, som sa det.

Og det kunne jo tenkes at de hadde misforstått.

Så jeg synes ikke det var bra nok, for å forrandre på planen min.

Det kunne jo ha vært flere i den mafiaen, som dem ikke hadde fått tatt ned, for eksempel.

Men at det kan ha vært en albansk mafia, med forgreninger til Gøteborg osv., som dem tok ned da.

Og som kontrollerte mye av Oslo da.

For jeg hørte jo folk prate om meg, bak ryggen, de gangene jeg gikk ut for å kjøpe mat og klær osv.

Også norske folk, sommeren 2004.

Men utenlandske folk, våren 2004.

Men det virka som at det var noe set-up, på apoteket, på St.Hanshaugen, i det nye senteret der, ved siden av det nye vinmonopolet, i forbindelse med noe salve jeg skulle smøre i tryne.

For de damene der, miksa en egen krem, for å fikse tryne, men jeg tror det må ha vært noe galt, fra det jeg hørte de prata om, og at de var så anspente osv.

Så om det er en norsk, eller en New World Order mafia også.

CIA?

Det er vanskelig å si.

Men at de har tatt ned den muslimske/albanske mafiaen da, men at ingen har sagt fra til meg.

Og nå bare tuller politiet med meg, og bruker meg som target-guy, mot andre mafiaer.

Er jeg i noe 'slaughterhouse', lurer jeg på, som det vel heter i New World Order terminologien.

At de har funnet ut at jeg er 'expendable', eller noe.

Og bruker meg som target-guy, mot mafia, i Norge og England, på en kynisk måte.

At de ikke sier noe, eller bryr seg om meg, annet enn at de kan bruke de delene av meg, som de ønsker, derav slaugterhouse(?)

Og at det er derfor at jeg ikke får noe hjelp av myndighetene.

Fordi de ønsker å dekke over, at de har brukt meg som spion/target-guy, i Norge og England?

Det var dette jeg lurte litt over nå da, når jeg våkna, og underbevisstheten min hadde jobba litt i løpet av natta vel.

Så tenkte jeg, at jeg fikk vel skrive om det på bloggen, siden jeg har skrevet om det meste andre som har skjedd.

Så fikk jeg vel ta med om det her og.

Så får vi se hva som skjer.

Med vennlig hilsen

Erik Ribsskog

PS.

Men det er ingen som har fortalt meg noe, om hva det er som foregår, i forbindelse med mafia osv., hverken før eller etter 2003.

Så jeg er ikke helt oppdatert, angående hva det er som foregår.

Jeg startet en tråd på et debattforum, Veggavisen, i fjor om det tema, om det er mafia i Norge, hvor jeg forklarer det jeg har kjennskap til om referanser til en slik mafia osv:

14/10/2007 00:33

cons Heltidsansatt Innlegg: 406 Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

Ja, for å følge opp åpningsinnlegget litt, så har jeg jo selv ved minst fem forskjellige anledninger, hørt at det har blitt referert til mafia i Norge. 1. Da jeg jobbet på Rimi Bjørndal, så hørte jeg flere kunder på jobben, og også at det ble pratet om på bussen, at jeg var forfulgt av 'mafiaen'. Her er link en e-post jeg sendte til Kripos i forbindelse med dette: link 2. Som jeg forklarte om i tråden 'Norge er ikke som du tror', så var det ved en anledning, når jeg jobbet som ass. butikksjef ved Rimi Nylænde, at en kamerat og da vel tidligere kollega av meg i Rimi, Magne, som refererte til to kolleager av oss i Rimi, som mafia: link 3. Da jeg leste en debatt i forbindelse med en reportasje på NA-24 eller N-24, eller hva de heter igjen, (det må vel ha vært i mars i fjor), så kom jeg over dette debatt-inlegget: 'Hvitvasking vs. mafiapenger Jonny 24/03 12:46 Denne karen får sikkert med stor sannsynlighet sine penger fra "mafiaen". De har sine karteller rundt omkring i dette landet. Når en person kan få oppimot 120 millioner kroner på grunn av ett ekteskap, kan man spørre seg selv hvor mektige de egentlig er!'. (Jeg har prøvd å finne det igjen seinere, men jeg har ikke klart å finne den nøyaktige reportasjen ennå dessverre). 4. Da jeg bodde i rimi-leilighetene i Waldemar Thranes gate, så chattet jeg på irc, mens halvbroren min Axel var på besøk, Av kjedsomhet, å av fantasimangel, (av fantasi-mangel og kjedsomhet, så brukte jeg nicket Capone for moro skyld, men det betyr ikke at jeg er kriminell, jeg brukte nicket Allah også jeg, og det betyr ikke at jeg er relgiøs, jeg bare flippa litt). Og da var det en jente som begynte å msg-e meg og fortalte at det var mafia i Norge, og at jeg sikkert kunne blir sjafør og diverse andre jobber, jeg husker ikke alle jobbforslagene i farta. Men jeg svarte ikke noe, men jeg hadde jo vært en del på irc, så jeg var jo litt vant til å avgjøre om folk 'tullet', eller ikke. Og det virket oppriktig for meg. Men når broren min våkna på sofaen, og spurte hva som foregikk/hadde skjedd, så svarte jeg ikke noe, for jeg var ikke helt sikker på hvordan man skulle forklare om det. Jeg avfeiet det først som tull, men det virket oppriktig også samtidig. Grunnet at jeg avfeiet det som tull, var jo at hvis det hadde vært mafia i Norge, så hadde det vel stått om det i avisene osv. Jeg har jo alltid pleid å holde meg noenlunde oppdatert når det gjelder nyheter osv, så hvis det hadde vært mafia i Norge, så hadde det vel stått om i avisa tenkte jeg. Men hun jenta jeg prata med, virka oppriktig, så jeg viste ikke helt hva jeg skulle tro. 5. Da jeg raporterte en 'harassment at work' sak, fra Arvato Microsoft Scandinavian Product Activaition, som virker som er i forbindelse med organisert kriminalitet sak. (Dette er skrevet mer om i denne tråden: link). Så var det problemer med samarbeidet med the Merseyside Police. (Dette er beskrevet mer her: link). Så jeg sendte en klage til ipcc (som er den britiske enheten tilsvarende Spesialenheten i Norge). Så the Merseyside Police, behandlet klagen, og jeg var på et møte på politistasjonen i Walton Lane Police Station. Men the Merseyside Police, avslo å behandle klagen. Jeg sendte da en 'appeal' på avslaget, til ipcc. Og de 'upheld the appeal', altså de beordret at the Merseyside Police skulle etterforske klagen likevel. I avslagsbrevet, fra the Merseyside Police, så refererer the Merseyside Police til 'the Norwegian Mafia'. De mente vel da at jeg hadde brukt det utrykket i møte på Walton Lane police-station 22/6. Men jeg selv har aldri hørt om noen 'norsk mafia'. Jeg har hørt om italiensk mafia, albansk mafia, og russisk mafia, men ikke noe norsk mafia. Og jeg har ikke brukt det uttrykket noengang, så hvor the Merseyside Police har fått det utryket fra, det aner jeg ikke. Men et eller annet sted må de vel antagelig ha fått det fra, her er kopi av brevet: link

http://forum.tv2.no/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=12&threadid=38119&highlight_key=y