johncons

Måned: mars 2008

  • Grandiosa. (In Norwegian).

    [rediger] Ingredienser
    Den nøyaktige oppskriften er hemmelig. Kjøttet på pizzaen er en blanding av storfekjøtt, vann, soyaprotein, krydre og konserveringsmiddel. [1] Etter 1997 ble det i en periode brukt gelatin som bindemiddel i kjøttblandingen. (Noe vi kan se på Stabburets websider. På noen websider står det at pizzaen inneholder soyaprotein, og på andre websider står det at pizzaen inneholder gelatin fra svin, som bindemiddel.) [2] [3]

    [rediger] Eksport av Grandiosa
    Når det gjelder eksport av Grandiosa, så er det to andre land enn Norge, hvor Orkla har fullt utbygget salg, markedsførings og distribusjonsnett innen frossenpizza-segmentet.

    Dette er Finland og Sverige.

    I Finland så selges disse variantene av den originale Grandiosaen: Grandiosa Original, Grandiosa Original 2 pk., Grandiosa Hawaii, Grandiosa Kjøttdeig og Løk og Grandiosa Pepperoni.[4]

    I Sverige selger de ingen varianter av den originale Grandiosaen.[5]

    http://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizza_Grandiosa&oldid=3487120

  • Det er det jeg alltid har sagt. (In Norwegian).

    Det er det jeg alltid har sagt. (In Norwegian).

    http://www.yeye.no/tester/article1549238.ece

  • Krig i Norge? 53. (In Norwegian).

    Jeg husker jeg bodde noen måneder hos onkelen min, Martin, og dem, på gården dems i Kvelde i Larvik, fra påsken til slutten av juli 2005.

    Jeg dreiv å jobba med forskjellig arbeid i skogen osv., når jeg bodde der.

    Onkelen trodde ikke noe på det greiene jeg hadde overhørt på Rimi Bjørndal, at jeg var forfulgt av ‘mafian’ osv., så han insisterte, på at jeg måtte dra til psykolog osv., hvis jeg skulle bo der.

    Jeg hadde egentlig ikke så mange andre steder å dra.

    Og jeg ville jo prøve å få han onkelen min, og søstra mi og broren min, til å tro på meg da.

    Så da tenkte jeg, at det var jo kanskje greit det, så kanskje de endelig trodde på hva jeg sa da.

    Selv om jeg nok ikke trodde selv at det var noe som feilte meg, sånn at jeg måtte gå til psykolog osv.

    Når jeg dro til gården til onkelen min, i påsken 2005.

    Så ringte jeg broren min og søsteren min i Oslo, og fikk de til å komme ut med toget til Larvik da, så henta onkelen min dem der da.

    Så prøvde jeg å forklare dette med at jeg hadde overhørt at jeg var forfulgt av ‘mafian’ osv.

    Jeg foreslo at vi dro til Canada eller noe jeg da.

    For å komme unna det greiene her, og ha kontrollen liksom.

    Men det ville ikke søstra mi da, hu ville bo i Oslo.

    Og broren min sa han kjente en av lederne i A-gjengen, var det vel, så han var ikke så bekymra.

    Jeg sa at jeg ville ringe politiet, men det virka ikke som at de andre var med på de, jeg overhørte at de prata om det, på en, mer eller mindre, forskrekka måte.

    Og jeg hadde jo dratt rundt i de forskjellige landene i Europa, før jeg dro til onkelen min.

    Og jeg var til og med en snartur i USA, for å prøve å komme unna det her greiene.

    Men det var ingen som hjalp meg med å kontakte politiet osv. da.

    Det virka som om dem synes det var en dårlig ide.

    Så når alle synes det, så kvia jeg meg litt for å kontakte dem jeg og, for jeg hadde ikke noe støtte fra de andre, for å gjøre det.

    Så det bare rant ut i sanden.

    Jeg tenkte heller at jeg dro til utlandet aleine.

    Men jeg søkte på noe sykepenger osv., fordi jeg måtte avbryte studiene i Sunderland, noen måneder før.

    Men dem fikk jeg ikke da.

    Men jeg hadde noen penger igjen av studielånet fra Sunderland osv.

    Og søstra mi, ordna noe med selvangivelsen min, så jeg fikk igjen på skatten.

    Av en eller annen, mer eller mindre, merkelig årsak.

    Så det var litt rart kanskje, når jeg tenker på det nå, for jeg fikk jo mye mer igjen på skatten enn jeg hadde regna med.

    20.000 mer eller noe, så det kan nok ha vært noe lureri der.

    Hvis ikke søstra mi visste om noe triks, som er mer eller mindre hemmelige med selvangivelsen da.

    Det er mulig hu har lært noen smarte triks av vennene eller venninnene hennes, det er mulig.

    I forbindelse med det her da, så hadde jeg møte inne på sykehuset, hvor de har psykologer osv., i bakken opp fra Torstrand skole der, hvor jeg pleide å gå i 2. og litt av 3. klasse.

    Ikke den bakken som Herregården ligger nederst i, men den bakken på andre sida da.

    Og da var jeg på et møte der, en dag i slutten av juni, eller begynnelsen av juli 2005, må det vel ha vært.

    Det var hun tyske psykolog-dama, Silke, det var en sosionom-dame fra hovedavdelingen i Tønsberg, mener jeg å huske, og det var onkelen min, Martin, og meg da.

    Martin er jo sånn skikkelig villmarkskar, må man vel kalle han.

    Han har jobba for landbrukshøyskolen i Ås, med å kartlegge bestand av villdyr ute i skogen og merke rovdyr og fugler og andre ville dyr i de norske skogene osv. da.

    Uten at jeg husker nøyaktig hvordan dyr det var.

    Og han hadde sånn fiskedam ute i Spydeberg, var det vel.

    Hvor han skulle leie ut osv. da.

    Da, i 2005, så hadde han en gård, som egentlig var dama hans sin, som han har tatt over nå da.

    En gård med noe sauer, og skog, og beite for hester osv.

    Moren min hadde jo helt svart hår vel, i hvertfall veldig mørkt.

    Og Martin har vel enda mørkere hår, det er vel helt svart, må man vel si.

    Mens tanta mi, Ellen, hu har helt lyst hår.

    Så det her var vel litt rart.

    Og jeg har mørkt blondt hår, og søstra mi har brunt hår sier hu.

    Og broren min har ganske lyst blondt hår, enda begge foreldra hans har mørkt hår.

    Så det er vel kanskje litt rart.

    Men jeg vet ikke helt hvordan det her fungerer.

    Jeg vet at hvis begge foreldra har brune øyne, så får man brune øyne.

    Men hvis begge foreldra har mørkt hår, kan man egentlig få lyst hår da.

    Det har jeg ikke akkurat studert, så det skal jeg ikke si for sikkert.

    Men både hun her tyske psykolog-dama.

    Som Marting kalte hu ‘tyske hora’.

    Og jeg tror også, hu sosionomdama fra Tønsberg, også hadde lyst hår.

    Så under møte, tror jeg det var.

    Så stakk hu silke for å ordne noe vel.

    Og da sa Martin, mens hu sosionom-dama ordna noe da.

    At, ‘hu der er hore’.

    Og det var visst hu tyske psykolog-dama og.

    Hvorfor det, spurte jeg.

    Han sa ikke noe.

    Han bare sa at hu andre var hore og.

    Jeg lurer på om han sa det, fordi dem hadde lyst hår.

    Dem var jo helt vanlige, dem var ikke lettkledde eller noe.

    Så jeg prøver å skjønne det her.

    Men jeg kan ikke skjønne noen annen forklaring.

    Og det er et eller annet som foregår i Norge virker det som.

    Så da tenkte jeg at jeg kunne jo skrive om det her og.

    Selv om det går inn på tema og ordbruk som kanskje ikke er så populær men.

    Men det er kanskje bare jeg som ikke skjønner dette her.

    At han egentlig kødda med meg da, siden jeg har lyst hår.

    At, det blir sånn at de som har mørkt hår, ser på damene med lyst hår som horer.

    Og omvendt da muligens.

    At folk som har lyst hår, muligens ser på de med damene med mørkt hår som horer da.

    At det damer man bare bruker, og ikke gifter seg med da.

    Det må vel ha vært noe sånt han onkelen min mente.

    Så jeg vet ikke hvor utbredt det er å tenke sånn her jeg.

    Og hvem det er som gjør det.

    Men det er klart, det blir vel litt urettferdig da.

    Ovenfor de med lyst hår.

    Hvis det er sånn her f.eks. de med mørkt hår og damene med lyst hår tenker.

    Damene med mørkt hår, de hender det vel er katolikker og muslimer osv.

    Så da blir vel oftere kontrollert, enn de damene som har lyst hår.

    Og da får jo ikke de mennene som har lyst hår, så mye mulighet til å ha det moro, og få kontrollen, sånn at de ikke bare tenker på damer, før de gifter seg.

    Hvis noen vil ha dem før de får kontrollen da.

    Jeg lurer på om det kan være noe sånt her.

    Og også det med blondinne-vitser, leste jeg at påvirket de lyshårede damene.

    Denne nedlatende behandlingen, gjorde de dårligere til å løse oppgaver osv., leste jeg.

    http://www.dn.no/forsiden/article278621.ece?jgo=c1_re&WT.svl=article_title

    Betyr det, at å bli behandlet nedlatende, gjør at de lyshårede damene, heller vil ha det morsomt da.

    At de får problemer med å konsentrere seg.

    Så vil de ha det mer morsomt.

    Men da vil de bare ha det, med de som ikke er lyshårede.

    Pga. at dem liker vil ikke at dem oppfører seg for ‘dårlig’ osv. da.

    Noe sånt.

    At dem tenker på samme måte som onkelen min, at hvis dem skal gifte seg, så skal dem ha en med samme hårfarge osv. da.

    Og hvis dem skal ha det morsomt, så er det med motsatt hårfarge osv. da.

    Det er mulig dem tenker sånn da.

    Og at blondinne-vitser osv., dem gjør at de lyshåra damene, mister kontrollen, fordi damene reagerer, hvis de blir behandlet nedlatende.

    Så blir de, hva skal man si, mer kåte da, og vil bare ha det morsomt.

    Og hvis man kan si det sånn, at de blonde damene, er de nordiske damene.

    Da går jo dette ut over de nordiske menna og.

    Hvis de nordiske damene, har blitt så kåte, av å bli nedlatende behandlet, gjennom å bli fortalt blondinne-vitser osv., at de bare vi ha det morsomt, og ikke vil gifte seg f.eks. da.

    Da går jo dette med blondinne-vitser også ut over de nordiske menna da.

    For da får jo dem seg noe kone osv.

    Siden de bare vil ha det morsomt.

    Jeg vet ikke om andre synes at det er noe logikk i dette.

    Men jeg lurer på om man ikke også kan si at blondinne-vitser også er et angrep på de nordiske menna, siden de gjør de nordiske damene kåtere, sånn at de bare vil ha det moro, og ikke vil binde seg, siden de da ‘craver’ mer sex og fler sex-partnere osv., eller i hvertfall ikke har kontrollen da.

    Jeg sier ikke at jeg vet at det er sånn.

    Men jeg mistenker at det kan være sånn.

    At dem er noe lureri med de her blondinne-vitsene osv.

    Monica, assistent på Rimi Kalbakken, likte blondinne-vitser husker jeg.

    Uten at jeg skjønte helt hva som var så morsomt, hu var jo blond selv.

    Men noe var det vel.

    Jeg lurer på om det kan være noe lureri med dem.

    De er jo ganske profft laget noen ganger.

    Hvor kommer disse her blondinne-vitsene fra?

    Jeg mistenker at de kan være del av en større, organisert kampanje mot de nordiske folka.

    Så det tenkte jeg at jeg kunne skrive om.

    Nå er det kanskje enklere tema å skrive om.

    Det er vel ikke alt man har i hue, som virker såpass spesiellt å skrive om, får man håpe.

    Men jeg tok meg en øl nå da, og jeg bor like ved et diskotek i sentrum av Liverpool, som har åpent veldig lenge natt til søndag.

    Så da nytter det ikke å sove før kl. 8 om morgenen på søndagen.

    For dem spiller noe techno på full guffe der.

    Så da fikk jeg skrevet noe av det jeg hadde i hue da i hvertfall.

    Så er det kanskje plass til noe annet der.

    Vi får se.

  • Institusjoner som Kongehuset og Politiet en del av undergrunnen? (In Norwegian).

    I det siste, så har jeg begynt å mistenke at institusjoner som Kongehuset og Politiet, kan være styrt av noe muslimsk og/eller kommunistisk nettverk (mafia).

    Og at de nettverkene da, har, mer eller mindre, kontroll på Norge.

    Det virker som om Kongehuset, har kapitulert, for kommunistene, eller hvem det er, det virker som om det meste er tull der for tiden:

    https://johncons-blogg.net/2008/03/kongen-i-in-norwegian.html

    Og politet, de juger, de sier at de ikke hadde nok informasjon til å etterforske hvorfor jeg ble forfulgt av ‘mafian’ (det må nok ha vært albansk/muslimsk mafia), i Oslo i 2003/04, og jaget vekk fra gården til onkelen min i Kvelde i Larvik i 2005.

    Enda jeg ga de opplysninger, med navn og adresser og alt mulig:

    https://johncons-blogg.net/2008/03/svar-p-brev-om-underretning-om.html

    https://johncons-blogg.net/2008/03/e-post-til-riksadvokaten-fra-12.html

    https://johncons-blogg.net/2008/03/blog-post_1920.html

    https://johncons-blogg.net/2008/03/vedlegg-4-kopi-av-e-post-sendt-kripos.html

    https://johncons-blogg.net/2008/03/fwd-anmeldelse-mot-kripos-henlagt-av.html

    Og jeg ga de også kontakttelefonnummere til meg selv, privat og på jobb, e-postadresse og postadresse.

    Men alikevel, så hører jeg ikke noe fra politiet.

    Og to år senere, så påstår de, at de ikke var nok informasjon i e-postene, til å etterforske, enda de inneholdt navn osv.

    Og hvis det var noe mer informasjon de ville ha, så kunne de bare ha ringt meg.

    Så det er ingen unnskyldning.

    De satt bare på ræva.

    Og de juger nå, og sier at de ikke hadde tilgang på nok informasjon.

    Og det er bare deres egen feil.

    Så det må jeg si er løgn.

    Så jeg lurer på om politiet er del av, eller under kontroll, av noe muslimsk mafia.

    Eventuelt noe kommunistisk mafia, som samarbeider med noe muslimsk mafia da.

    For politiet har for vane å sitte for det meste på ræva har jeg inntrykk av.

    Og fattern, han har vel fått noe muslimsk skole, eller noe, som nabo, i Tordenskioldsgt. i Drammen, fortalte han meg forrige gang han prata med meg.

    Der hvor det pleide å være elektrisk forretning, i samme gata som brannstasjonen på Strømsø.

    Og nå sier han, at han har hatt naboen på døra.

    Og at det er feite, svære rotter som går rundt i gatene i Drammen.

    Så det her tolker jeg, som at han har mottatt noen trusler fra noe mafia eller undergrunns-nettverk i Drammen da.

    Han nevnte naboen, så jeg mistenker at det er noe muslimsk nettverk der som driver å truer fatter.

    Det hørtes det ut som på stemmen hans, når han la igjen en sånn ‘voicemail’ på mobilen min i går, at noe var gæernt.

    Sånn hørtes det i hvertfall ut.

    Og i dag, så nevnte han det med naboen og rotter i gatene osv.

    https://johncons-blogg.net/2008/03/fattern-ringte-og-sa-han-hadde-hatt-noe.html

    Så det kan tyde på at han har fått noe trusler.

    Men politi sitter vel på ræva og har full kontroll.

    Så det er nok ingen fare.

    Skulle man tro.

  • Krig i Norge? 52. (In Norwegian).

    Fattern ringte og sa han hadde hatt noe prat med naboene.

    Og at det var svære, digre, feite rotter i gatene i Drammen.

    Og at det var så mye rart som foregikk i landet.

  • Liverpool Central CAB V.

    Regarding complaint

    14 March 2008
    22:40

    Subject Regarding complaint
    From Erik Ribsskog
    To david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk
    Sent 14 March 2008 22:46

    Hi,
     
    sorry that I’m sending another e-mail.

    But I read through your letter again now.

    And there are some more points, that also weren’t right:
     
    – You write in your e-mail, that the CAB informed me that it was only the first 30 minutes of legal advice,
    that was fee of charge.
     
    This isn’t right.
     
    Noone at the CAB informed me about this.

    I thought it was free advice, since the Police, had sent me to the CAB, to ‘get the case brought up for
    the Crowns Court’.

    The Police also said that the CAB, ‘was Government’.
     
    If the CAB, had told me, when I went there in February, straight from the Police, with the documents,
    that I had given them.

    If the CAB had made this clear, that it was only the first thirthy minutes that were free advice.

    Then I would have gone back to the Police, and complained.
     
    So it seems to me, like I have suspected from before.

    That it must have been a plot, involving the Police, and the CAB, to make problems for me, or the
    case I was bringing up against Arvato’s Microsoft-campaign.
     
    (See also my main complaint from my e-mail earlier today).
     
    Also, when I called EAD, they said that the time-limit was out for the harrasment at work case.

    Then I went to Morecrofts the same day, and they said it had a longer time-limit, since it was an
    harassment at work case, and not an employment case.
     
    I think the issues I bring up in this e-mail, and the issues from the e-mail earlier today, seems like,
    they probably all are part of a plot, to make me loose control, on the case against Arvato Microsoft
    campaign, or something like this.
     
    So I just thought I’d also add this perspective to my comlaint.

    I think it isn’t right of the CAB, to take part in CIA-plots, or what it is, in a way like this.

    So I wanted to also complain about this!
     
    I’m sorry if I’m sending many e-mails!
     
    Hope this is alright!
     
    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

  • Liverpool Central CAB III.

    Fwd: Complaint against Liverpool Central CAB.

    14 March 2008
    21:16

    Subject Fwd: Complaint against Liverpool Central CAB.
    From Erik Ribsskog
    To david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk
    Sent 14 March 2008 21:17
    Attachments

    Hi,
     
    I forgot to add the enclosure.
     
    So I’m sending it with this e-mail.
     
    Hope this is alright!
    Yours sincerely,
    Erik Ribsskog

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Erik Ribsskog
    Date: Mar 14, 2008 9:14 PM
    Subject: Complaint against Liverpool Central CAB.
    To: david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk

     
    Hi,
     
    thank you very much, for your letter, which I recieved in an e-mail today.
     
    You write that I have the chance to get someone outside of the CAB, to
    have at the complaint if I wanted.

    I think this sound smart, since there are a few points, that I’m still wondering
    about.
     
    First I wanted to explain why I sent a lenghty complaint, to the Complaints
    Officer, last year.
     
    It was because the Police, told me to go to the CAB, since they couldn’t help
    me with what seemed to be organised criminal activity at work.
     
    Since it had to do with work, the Police said, then I had to go to the CAB.

    So I wanted to explain to the CAB, what had been going on at work, in case
    the Police were trying to fool me, with telling me to go to the CAB.
     
    Since I thought this sounded a bit strange.
     
    Also, you write that I had some problems with the environment at the CAB.
     
    But I brought this up, since it seemed to me, that this must have been part
    of some plot.
     
    Because, first there was a 12-13 y.o. girl, standing outside the CAB office,
    in the State House, which is an office building.

    Then someone buzzed me in, I had to ask twice.
     
    Then they let me sit in the dark, for about ten minutes.

    Then a CAB-representative, that looked very like he was gay, held the meeting
    there in the dark.
     
    And the solicitor had canceled.

    I think I should have been set up for a new solicitors-meeting.

    Then, at the end of the meeting, the CAB-representative, turned on the lights.

    Then the woman working there, in her fifties, placed herself in the reception,
    scanning my face, as I walked out of the office.
     
    And none of them were out for lunch.
     
    This seemed like a set-up to me.

    When I left the State Building, the receptionist there, didn’t look at me, or
    answer my salute.

    He looked outside, on Dale St.

    And he was red in his face.

    I was almost run over by a lorry, or trailer, if I remember correctly.
     
    And then the CAB-representative lied, in the answer to the complaint.

    He said he had turned on the lights, at the beginning of the meeting.
    But he didn’t.

    This is also shown by that he read me the fax-number to the company, and not
    the telephone-number. (Like he appologised for).

    I think this supports my version, that the meeing was held in the dark.
     
    That it was so dark, that he read the fax-number, instead of the phone-
    number from the list.
     
    And I think they should have turned the lights on there, when I arrived.
     
    At 1.30 pm. 5/4/07 (The day before Good Friday).
     
    (I have a scanned copy of the CAB appointment-notice, that I will enclose with this e-mail).

    I was a bit late, since I was writing some documents, to bring to the meeting.
     
    So I was at the CAB, at around 1.35 pm.
     
    Then I was left sitting waiting, til untill 1.45 pm.
     
    And the meeting started, and I guess the lights were turned on, something like 1.55 pm.
     
    So I think it’s strange, that they have lunch till 1.55 pm, in an office building.
    If they work 8 to 5, then I think it’s strange, that they have lunch at 1 pm.
     
    Because I think most offices like this, have lunch at 12 am.
     
    And also, if they have lunch from 12 am, untill 1.55 pm, I think this is to long lunch-break.

    So I’m worried about what they might be doing there in the lunch-break.
     
    I think they should turn on the lights, when citizens enter their offices.
     
    And not twenty minutes later.
     
    But I suspect, that this was to do with a plot.

    To check if I reacted on the girl they had placed outside, or on the homosexual
    CAB-representative, that held the meeting in the dark.

    Due to the way the woman working there scanned my face, when I went out.

    She was just standing there, and ‘scanning’ my face, when I went out, in a
    totally strange way.

    Like it was some kind of psycho movie.
     
    So I think, that one should be able to go to the CAB, without being set up in
    a plot like that.

    Thats my main complaint.

    And I don’t want to go back there now.
     
    And also, that your automated message was sent so late.
    Like you write:
     
    ‘You also supplied copies of e-mails sent to me on August 3rd and August 16th and
    my automatically generated ‘out of office’ reply dated August 22nd.’. 
     
    Shouldn’t this have been reflected on?
     
    Why was the automatically generated ‘out of office’ reply sent on 22/8?
     
    When the e-mail it was answering was sent on 16/8?
     
    Why wasn’t this explained about?

    What was the automated reply doing in the mean-time?
     
    Shouldn’t the automated reply have been sent to me on 16/8?
     
    What happened between 16/8 and 22/8 with the automated message?
    Was it a manual ‘automated’ message?

    In that case, it shouldn’t be called ‘automated’.
     
    This is very strange I think.
    And I think it should have been explained about.
     
    In case some mafia-people have been sending phoney automated, or
    ‘automated’ replies, in your name, when you were on holiday.

    At least I think this should have been explained and investigated.
    Because automated replies don’t behave like this.
     
    And the Liverpool Central CAB, have written their old e-mail address,
    on their website.

    So they have an e-mail address, that isn’t working, on their web-site.

    Then people can’t just send e-mails, to complain, they have to call,
    and speak with the ones they are complaining about.

    So I this also should have been brought up in your letter.
     
    But thank you very much anyway, for you letter!
     
    But I must also point out, that I think the very serious problems that
    I mention in this e-mail, should be looked upon, and dealt with.
     
    So I hope you have the chance, to have someone outside of the CAB,
    to have a look at this, like you mention in your letter!
     
    Hope this is alright!
     
    Yours sincerely,
    Erik Ribsskog
     

  • Liverpool Central CAB II.

    Myddelton House

    115-123 Pentonville Road

    London N1 9LZ

    www.citizensadvice.org.uk

    Tel: 020 7833 2181

    March 13 2008

    Dear Mr Ribsskog

    Your complaint against Liverpool Central CAB

    This is the third stage of the Citizens Advice complaints procedure. The aim of the review is to look at how your complaint was handled by the CAB at local level and to check that the fundamental issues were addressed. I have read through the case file and correspondence.

    Chronology of your complaint

    In February 2007 you saw a duty solicitor at the bureau for advice on how to deal with harassment at work. .

    In March you again attended the bureau and asked to see a solicitor. It appears that you were allowed to use the bureau phone and were put in touch with an external solicitor.

    You were given an appointment to see a duty solicitor on April 5th, but this meeting was cancelled as the solicitor was unable to attend the bureau.

    On May 18th 2007 you contacted the Complaints Officer at Citizens Advice by phone, explained that you wanted to make a complaint against Liverpool Central CAB, and that you would send a more detailed complaint by email.

    On May 23rd you sent a 53 page complaint by email plus an additional 30 plus attachments which were not directly related to your complaint.

    On May 31st the Complaints Officer emailed to confirm that she had been in contact with the bureau, that they had located the notes related to your case, that your complaints material had been forwarded on to them, and that a member of their managerial team would now investigate your complaint.

    Stage 1 – review by the General Unit Coordinator (GUC)

    On September 6th the GUC sent you his full response by email. His review:

    • Confirmed that you had been interviewed, on a free 30 minute basis, by a duty solicitor on February 27th 2007. The notes taken indicated that the solicitor felt you might have a claim for harassment but there was insufficient time to get full details during that interview.

    • In response to your complaint that you should have been informed beforehand that further advice from the solicitor would be charged stated that the initial interview was given on a payment free basis but that any subsequent issues you had with the solicitor needed to be taken up directly with them.

    • Explained what had happened when you arrived for your appointment with the Employment Duty Solicitor i.e. that unfortunately the EAD had to cancel their session at the last minute and the bureau had been unable to inform you of this.

    • You apparently contacted the EAD directly and were informed that regardless of the missed appointment you were out of time to commence with employment tribunal proceedings. You stated that you asked how the legal aid system worked but were told by the solicitor that he was unable to discuss the issue in detail over the phone.

    • Stated that as far as he was concerned you had received a free initial consultation as per the standard rota system.

    The GUC then went on to address some specific points that you had raised:

    • He explained that he had not set up an appointment for the next available duty solicitor slot after April 5th as it would not have been possible for you to see a solicitor until May and this may have impacted on legal time limits.

    • Confirmed that the bureau only has details of which practice will be providing a solicitor for rota duty, not the name of the individual solicitor.

    • Confirmed that reception staff cannot provide detailed information on the legal aid process.

    • Confirmed that the solicitors practice in question was Liverpool based.

    • Apologized for accidentally providing you with the fax number for the practice, not the main telephone number.

    • Stated that the lights in the bureau were partially off when you attended in April because the bureau was in fact closed for lunch.

    • Confirmed that clients are made aware in advance that only the initial 30 minute consultation with the duty solicitor is free of charge.

    • Confirmed that the bureau cannot be held responsible for the actions of a solicitor after the initial consultation.

    • The GUC concluded by stating that if you were dissatisfied with his response you were entitled to a further review by the bureau Chair.

    Stage 2 – review by the Chair of the Trustee Board

    On October 27th you sent an email requesting a further review by the Chair of the Trustee Board. During this period there seems to have been some difficulties with email contact which may explain the delay in the production of this review. The copy of the response I have is undated but I have been told by the bureau that it was sent to you on December 14th 2007. In your request for a review you set out the reasons why you were not happy with the response given by the bureau.

    In his response the Chair:

    • Set out what he considered to be the main points of your complaint.

    • Confirmed that the GUC had not made another appointment for you to see an EAD but had followed standard procedure and provided you with details for the solicitors practice so that you could instead make direct contact. This was to ensure that you received advice straight away and were not inconvenienced by the cancelled appointment.

    • Stated that the GUC had not rescheduled the appointment due to potential legal deadlines.

    • Explained how the duty solicitor system works.

    • Confirmed that in general the CAB does not know the names of individual solicitors who attend the duty session.

    • Confirmed that the solicitors practice in question was based in central Liverpool.

    • Again apologised for the fact that you were given the wrong contact number.

    • Stated that the lights in the bureau were turned off because it was lunch time.

    • Stated that clients are informed by reception staff that only the first 30 minutes with the duty solicitor are free of charge. He stated that it was the responsibility of the solicitor, not the CAB, to explain the legal aid process to clients.

    • Concluded by providing details of the next stage in the standard complaints procedure.

    On February 11th 2008 Sue Thomas, Head of Advice Policy and Standards at Citizens Advice, received a number of e-mails from you. At this point it became clear that you were not happy with the way your complaint had been handled by the bureau. You also raised concerns about the lack of contact by Citizens Advice in the early stages. Your complaint therefore was moved to the next stage and referred for review under my direction.

    Conclusions

    There was a four month delay between the receipt of your complaint and the initial response from the bureau. Whilst I appreciate that there was a lot of material involved in your complaint, this falls well outside of the organisational deadlines and is not acceptable. The stage 2 review also seems to have been completed outside the usual deadlines, again with no evidence of contact with you to explain the delay.

    I would ask bureau staff to re-familiarise themselves with the standard procedure for handling complaints. There may be a substantive explanation for this, but unfortunately it is not documented in the file notes and clearly had not been communicated to you.

    I am concerned that there seem to be no notes documenting what action was taken by the bureau following your initial interview with the duty solicitor in February and I would ask that bureau staff re-familiarise themselves with the organisational requirements and standards of case recording.

    Turning to the content of the reviews, both addressed the issues that you have raised in some depth. Your complaint is lengthy in nature considering that your contact with the bureau has been minimal.

    I am satisfied that the bureau made acceptable arrangements for you to seek legal advice in this matter, the issues that you raised are certainly too specialised for the bureau to deal with.

    You have raised a number of issues about the bureau environment; these have already been addressed in some detail and I do not feel I can add anything that would help.

    Finally, I would like to turn to your issues about the way your complaint was dealt with by Citizens Advice. You first spoke to our Complaints Officer (Saffron Follows) on 18th May and e-mailed her your complaint on 23rd May. On 31st May she replied to say she had contacted the bureau and you should hear from them in 20 working days.

    You have given us copies of e-mails sent to Saffron dated 5th July and 22nd July to which you received no response. You also supplied copies of e-mails sent to me on August 3rd and August 16th and my automatically generated ‘out of office’ reply dated August 22nd. As a result of these emails Saffron contacted the bureau at the end of August in order to chase progress. I apologise that you were not made aware of this action and appreciate how this may have added to your frustration.

    Overall I will apologise for the delays in dealing with your initial complaint and the lack of responsiveness from this office. I certainly uphold your complaint in that respect. However I feel that the bureau did deal fully with the issues you raise though can see that you are not happy with their responses. Bureaux have to find ways of coping with the demand for their advice services, and it is not inappropriate for bureaux to work closely with local solicitors to help provide advice.

    If you are unhappy with this review, you have the right to a final review conducted by an Adjudicator who is independent of Citizens Advice. The aim of the Adjudicator’s review is to assess whether the complaint’s investigation had been handled fairly and in line with procedures. If you would like such a review, please write to me, stating the points in my review on which you disagree.

    Yours sincerely,

    David Harker

    Chief Executive

    Cc Chair of Liverpool Central CAB

    Patron HRH The Princess Royal Citizens Advice is an operating name of

    Chair The Revd. Hilary Watkins The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

    Chief Executive David Harker OBE Charity registration number 279057

    VAT number 726 0202 76

    Company limited by guarantee

    Registered number 1436945 England

    Registered office as above

  • Liverpool Central CAB.

    Your complaint against Liverpool Central CAB

    14 March 2008
    20:14

    Subject
    Your complaint against Liverpool Central CAB
    From
    Follows, Saffron
    To
    eribsskog@gmail.com
    Sent
    14 March 2008 11:01
    Attachments

    <>
    Dear Mr Ribsskog,
    Please find attached the stage 3 review of your complaint against Liverpool Central CAB.
    Yours sincerely,
    Saffron Follows
    Complaints & Policy Officer
    • please consider the environment – do you really need to print this email?
    The Citizens Advice service helps people resolve their legal, money and other problems by providing information and advice, and by influencing policymakers. Citizens Advice is an operating name of The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
    • Information and Advice www.adviceguide.org.uk
    • For information about our campaigns, to volunteer or support us www.citizensadvice.org.uk
    • Volunteer hotline 08451-264-264 (local rate Mon-Fri)
    NOTICE: this e-mail originates from Citizens Advice, an operating name of The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (Charity Registration Number 279057, VAT number 726 0202 76, Company limited by guarantee, Registered Number 1436945 England, Registered office Myddelton House, 115-123 Pentonville Road, London N1 9LZ). It contains proprietary information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or reply to this e-mail (other than for the reason stated above).
    This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses.