Måned: november 2008

---

From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]

Sent: 05 December 2007 18:39
To: Joanne

Fitzgerald
Subject: Re: FW: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police –

2007/006341

Hi,

 

thank you very much for your answer!

 

I found that I had to contact you again, since I haven't heard anything

from Mr. Gibbs, and in the

meantime, I've recieved one letter from the Merseyside Police Complaints

Investigation Bureau,

from 03/12 (it also says that they sent a letter on 23/11, but I can't see

that I have recieved

that letter).

 

Also, I recieved a letter from the ipcc, from 30/11, where it says that the

ipcc wants to send

my complaint regarding the harassment from The Merseyside Police on 8/11,

to the Merseyside

Police Professional Standards Department.

 

I'm wondering a bit on how I should go forward with these letters, since,

like I wrote to you on

10/11, I have lost a bit of confidence in the Merseyside Police, due to the

problems mentioned

in my e-mail from 10/11, with the problems conected with the way my

complaint from 3/5, and the

appeal from 26/8, have been dealt with by them, and more.

 

So, like I wrote on 10/11, I thought that it could maybe be a god idea if

someone else, other than

the Merseyside Police, dealt with these issues.

 

And I also think this should maybe apply for the complaint against the

harassment from the

Merseyside Police on 8/11, since I think that this could be linked with the

complaint from 3/5,

and the appeal from 26/8, or also since I've I, like I explained in the

e-mail from 10/11, that I

have maybe lost a bit of confidence with them.

So, what I'll do, is that I'll enclose these letters, one from the

Merseyside Police, and a letter

and a form from the ipcc.

 

Because I thought that since I have already contacted the ipcc, regarding

this, that I have maybe

lost a bit of confidence.

Then, I thought that I should maybe wait untill I've heard something

more from the ipcc, rearding

my e-mail, which you sent to the case-worker.

 

And, since I haven't heard anything from the case-worker, then I thought I

could ask you instead,

since you know what this is regarding, about how you think I should go

forward, with these two

new letters, the one form the Merseyside Police, and the one from the

ipcc.

 

I hope I've managed to explain my reasons for asking about this, in an

understandable way,

and if there is something I should explain better, then please just contact

me, and I'll answer

back as soon as possible.

So I hope that this is alright, and thanks again for the help with the

last e-mail!

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Erik Ribsskog

 

On 11/21/07, Joanne

Fitzgerald <Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>

wrote:

Dear Mr

Ribsskog,

 

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints

Commission (IPCC).

 

I forwarded all of your recent emails to Mr

Michael Gibbs, as he is the Casework Manager dealing with your

appeal. I will also forward this email to Mr Gibbs for his attention.

 

Yours

sincerely,

 

Joanne

Joanne

Fitzgerald
Investigator
Independent Police Complaints Commission

90 High Holborn

London


WC1V

6BH
Tel:

020 7166 3178
Mob: 07766 695 577
Fax: 020 7166 5028
Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

---

From: Erik

Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com

]
Sent: 21 November 2007 03:08
To: Joanne

Fitzgerald
Subject: Fwd: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police –

2007/006341

 

Hi,

 

I can't see that I have recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, that's why

I'm sending it again.

 

Hope that this is alright!

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog < eribsskog@gmail.com>
Date: Nov

10, 2007 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police –

2007/006341
To: Joanne Fitzgerald <

Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>

 

Hi,

 

I'm writing to you, to inform you, (like I've already informed the

Norwegian Embassy), that I haven't

got that much confidence left regarding how the Merseyside Police, are

dealing with the complaint/appeal.

 

I was at Walton Lane Police Station, regarding a meeting with Sgt.

Smythe, the day before yesterday.

 

I was harassed in the reception there.

 

Yesterday, I sent an e-mail to Sgt. Smythe and his assistant Rachel,

about some enclosures, that

we had agreed on the meeting Thursday, that I would e-mail them.

I was also asking them, how I should go forward with reporting the

harassment, but when they answered

to my e-mail, they didn't tell me how I should go forward regarding

this.

 

In the meeting on Thursday, Rachel, Sgt. Smyth's assistant, told me that

the e-mail address to the

Liverpool North Standards Unit, was civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk.

(She wrote it on a note).

 

While I was sending the files, as agreed yesterday, I had a look at the

lastest letter I had recieved, from

the Liverpool North Standards Unit, and there it says that their e-mail

address is: civil.litigation.e.@merseyside.police.uk

.

 

(So on their letters, the email address, has got an extra '.').

 

When I wrote the last e-mail to Sgt. Smyth/Rachel yesterday, after

finishing e-mailing all the files, I

asked them to please confirm that they had recieved the documents, due to

this problem with the

e-mail address.

 

Then Rachel, Mr. Smyth's assistant, informed me that it was the e-mail

address that she wrote on

the note, that was the right address, and not the e-mail address on their

letters.

 

I think that this means that eighter Mr. Smyths assistant isn't telling

the thruth, or that the Liverpool

North Standards Unit are so unproffesional, that they are writing

letters, to members of the public,

with the wrong e-mail addresses on the letters.

 

And also, since I think I was harrassed, at the Police Station on

Thursday, and also since the

Liverpool North Standards Unit, weren't answering me about my questions

surrounding the harassment

incident, even if I the e-mail containing these questions, also was

forwarded with the e-mail they

sent me an answer to yesterday.

 

(So they had two oppertunities, to get to read my quesions regarding how

to go forward with reporting

the harassment incident, and still they didn't answer me on this).

 

And I also think that regarding the problem with the e-mail address, that

eighter the PC must have

been lying, or the Police Force and the Standards Unit, are run so

unproffesional (printing the wrong

e-mail address on their letters, that there has to be something

wrong with the Police-force.

 

I don't think that they can have two different e-mail addresses, and

claim both to be the right e-mail

address, that doesn't really make any sense.

 

So I havent got any confidence left in the Merseyside Police's ability to

deal with this case/comlaint and

appeal, so I think I'm going to have to withdraw from the

complaint-process, if not a thustworhty autorothy

from outside of the Merseyside Police, are drawn directly into

this.

 

(I'm enclosing a copy of the mentioned note, and letter, and I'm also

going to forward you three e-mails

containing the e-mail correspondence I was refering to from

yesterday).

 

I hope that this is alright!

 

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

 

On 8/26/07, Erik

Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com

> wrote:

Hi,

 

here is the appeal against the decision not to formally record my

complaint:

 

Please give the name of the police force your complaint was

about:

 

Merseyside Police

 

If you recieved a letter from the police telling you that they will not

be recording your complaint,

please give the date of that letter:

 

10/7/07

 

Mr. Erik Ribsskog

Flat 3

5 Leather Lane

L2 2AE

Liverpool

 

01512363298/07758349954

 

eribsskog@gmail.com

 

Date you made your complaint:

 

3/5/07

 

Who did you make your complaint to:

To the IPCC.

 

How did you make your complaint:

By e-mail.

 

Please provide brief details about the complaint that you made:

 

I had been reporting about some problems that seems clear to me to

involve organised

crime at the place which I worked to the police on several occations

from November

last year.

 

I had been having some problems with the police being supposed to call

me back regarding

this, but they didn't call back, even if contacted the police-station

to inform them about this.

 

So, when I was at the CAB regarding advice on when one needed a

criminal solicitors.

(Since the solicitor that I had met in a duty solicitors meeting at the

CAB had informed me

that Morecrofts couldn't help me if I needed a criminal solicitor. But

it wasn't clear to me

when one would need a criminal solicitor, so I contacted the CAB again,

and was told that

this was if one were being accused of doing something wrong.

 

The Morecrofts solicitor had said that the case was both an

employment-case, and a

criminal-case, so I asked the advisor at the CAB, on how I should go

forward with the

criminal part of the case.

 

And I was ansered that I should bring this up in liasons with the

police.

I had been trying to do this from before, but I had been having

some problems involving the

police not calling me back when they said they would.

 

So I asked the advisor what I should do if I had problems with the

liasons with the police.

 

And the advisor said that I should bring it up with the CPS or the

Law-society.

 

I asked about this as a precaution, so that I knew what to do if the

police still didn't contact

me after the new meeting there.

 

So, some weeks later, when they still hadn't contacted me, then I

contacted the CPS about

the problems with the liasons with the police.

 

The CPS answered that they didn't have the powers to investiagte a

case, and told me to

contact the IPCC.

 

Which I did on 3/5, I sent the IPCC a complaint regarding the problems

I've been having with the

liasons with the police. (Or 'the contact with the police', like I

wrote in the e-mail I sent you on 3/5).

 

In the complaint, I had listed up 18 individual complaints about thing

I though were dealt with wrongly

by the police in relation to my contact with them.

 

I'll try to specify how I thought the police conducted wrongly:

 

1. The police-constable wouldn't let me report a crime.

 

2. The police adviced me to go back to work, even if I had told them

that the company was

infiltradet/taken over by a criminal organisation. I think that this

was irresponsible by the police.

 

3. On 16/1/07 Sergant Camel told me to take the case to the CAB, even

if he knew I was

unemployed, and couldn't afford to pay a solicitor £140/hour to deal

with the case.

I though that this was irresponsible by the Sergant. (The police

should have investigated the

case themselves).

 

(Also, I remember from the meeting on 16/1, that Sgt. Camel wanted me

to take the case to

the CAB, and then to a solicitor and the Crowns Court.

 

I haven't been living in Britain that long, so I wasn't sure what the

CAB was. But I remember 

I asked the Sergant if the CAB were government. And the sergant said

'yes'. 

 

Later (maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago), I have been browsing the CAB

website looking for some

information there, and I've seen on the CAB website, that CAB

is actually a charity.

 

So, it's now clear to me that Sgt. Camel actually lied to me about this

in the meeting 

at the policestation on 16/1.

 

If he had told me that the CAB was a charity, then I would

have objected much stronger

on brining the case to them, I would have insisting stronger

on the right department of

the police to deal with it.

But that the Sergant told me that the CAB were government, and that

the solicitor I would

get to speak with there, would send the case back to the police if they

thought it was 

a matter for the police, confused me, and since I hadn't

been living that long in Britain,

and I'm not so used to dealing with the police, and I wasn't sure

if I as a Norwegian,

could demand what the police should do, so thats why I

after contacting the police 

a number of more times trying to get them to deal with the

case, (but they still 

insited on me going to the CAB with it), thats why I ended up

at the CAB with it,

beliving the CAB was a government organisation.

 

4. The police didn't want to investigate the case, even if I told them

I had documents

that would show that it was a crime-case.

 

(And I also told the police on 16/1, that I was worried about my

collegues that were

still working in the complany, that they were under control by the

criminals).

 

5. The police didn't want to look at the evidence/documents on my

laptop on 22/1,

saying it was a breach of the data protection act. Even if I

think it must be obvious that

since I myself let them look at the documents, then this couldn't have

been a data

protection issue.

 

6. That constable Keith Holmes didn't call me back, even if

constable Victoria Steele

told me on 22/1 that she would ask Holmes to call me back.

 

This happened a lot of times, that the police said they would

call me back, but they 

didn't. It's difficult for me to say what happened in this

situation. If Holmes got the

message or not. There could be some problems with the routines at the

police-station,

or it could have been a mistake from eighter Steele or

Holmes. 

 

7. The constable who was in the 'reception' on 24/1 and 25/1 didn't

wear collar-number-

tags. I think police should be expected to wear their tag-numbers,

because I know

there are rules about things like this, even eg. shop-assistants are

instructed to

wear their name-tags, so I think the police, having an important

funciton in society,

also should wear some kind of indification, so that it's possible for

members of the

public to identify the serviceman/woman they have been talking with.

(In case

something wrong is being said or done by the constable/officer).

 

8. The constable that didn't wear number-tags on 24/1 and 25/1,

promised me that

she would get Victoria Steele to call me back regarding the case.

But Steele didn't call. This is a similar problem I think to

complaint 6, and this happened

a lot of times, I was promised maybe 10 times by different

officers/constables that the

police would call me back, but I wasn't called back by the police a

single time in 2007.

I was only called back once in November 2006.

 

(And I was promised to be called back about ten times or more in 2007,

and they didn't

call a single time).

 

9. I went to the police in January, and gave them copies of the

documents in which I

thought that it would be possible to find evidence about the problem

with a criminal

organisation of some kind having infiltrated/taking over the company I

had worked in.

 

I gave the documents (many hundred sheets) to Steele, who gave it to

Holmes.

 

When I spoke with Holmes two or three weeks later, he said he had only

read a bit

on the top of the pile, a bit in the middle, and a bit on the bottom of

the pile.

 

And he still said it was an employment-case, and that I should go to

the CAB.

By then I had 'argued' so much with the police about this, that I

didn't know if it

would be right for me as a Norwegian to continue arguing with the

British police about

this.

 

But, I remebered Sgt. Camel had said earlier that the CAB would send it

back to the

police if they thought it was right.

 

And thought that maybe it was because I was from another country that

they wouldn't

listen to me at the police-station, and maybe they weren't used to

dealing that much

with documents for all that I knew.

 

So I thought that it would maybe be just as smart to have a lawyer at

the CAB have a

look at it, and send it back, maybe this would convince the police to

have a look at, and

investigate the case.

 

(It could be of couse, that the police investigated it, but didn't tell

me about this. I had

been at the police-station several times in November and later

explaining about the case.

 

I'm not an expert in police-methods, but I guessed that it could be

that the police investigated

without telling me, for some reason, I wasn't sure, but I reackoned

that this could be the case,

since I would have thought that the British Police would deal with a

matter like this in a

responsible way.)

 

But in the complaint about the liasons with the police, I could only

relate to what I knew for

sure, and I knew for sure that Constable Holmes didn't look properly

through the documents

I delivered to the police-station for him to give to an

investigator.

 

So I thought that it was irresponsible by constable Holmes to not read

throught the documents

proberly, and to not give them to an investigator.

 

10. The police sent me a letter on 16/2, where they called me 'Miss

Erik Ribsskog'. I think, like

the British representative on the Norwegian Consulate in the India

Building said, that it should

be obvious to Brits that Erik and Eric is the same name, and it

therefore must be someone

making jokes and not taking their job serious.

 

Like I had explained in meetings at the police-station, it seemed to me

that some of my collegues

in the complany, probably must have been under control by criminals. So

I thought this was an important

case, and then to start making jokes like this in an important case. I

think thats irresponsible and

it seems like a joke that small kids could have made. So this makes me

worried that things could be

out of control at the police-station.

 

11. In the meeting on 1/2, Sergant O'Brian told me to move from the

chair I sat down with at the

table, (even if I sat in the same chair in the meeting there with Sgt.

Camel and the constable on

16/1).

 

So I had to move to another chair, at the other side of the table, I

think that Sgt. O'Brian was acting

patronising towards me when he 'ordered' me to sit in the other

chair.

 

12. In the meeting at the St. Ann's police-station on 1/3, the 'ginger'

police-constable, wouldn't let

me present the issues about which I had contacted the police-station to

the Sergant O'Brian, but

insisted on presenting the things I wanted to bring up in the meeting

to the Sergant himself.

 

So this made me lose a bit control on how the issues were presented,

and it seemed to me that

I was being patronised by the police-constable.

 

And this made it diffucult for me to present the things I wanted to

bring up, in the way I intended

to present it, and also it made me more of a spectator than a

participant in the meeting.

 

I guess it could be that it was O'Brian who should have told the

constable to let me explain myself,

because I think they should have let me explain my concerns

myself.

 

13. So in the meeting on 1/3, I was a bit confused if I was supposed to

exlain about my concerns

to Sgt. O'Brian myself, or if this was the job of the constable.

So this made me a bit confused about how they meant the meeting to

be conducted, and what they

wanted my role in the meeting to be.

 

14. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian said that he thought the

problem with the case not having any

progress with being dealt with by the police, was due to the case

having being dealt with by a large

number of police servicemen.

 

So, he suggested, that to find out exactly what had been going on, they

would ask constable Steele

to call me, and tell me what she had been doing with the documents

after I gave them to her.

 

I think this was irresponsible by the Sergant. He must have understood

that to find out what the police

had been doing, would be a job for the police.

 

So I think that he should have taken the job of finding out what the

police had been doing, that he should

have taken the responsibility of finding this out himself.

 

And of course, investigate the case himself, instead of not doing

anything, other that saying I had to find

out what the police had been doing so far.

 

So I thought this was very irresponsible by Sgt. O'Brian.

 

15. This is connected with point 14. That I think Sgt. O'Brian should

have investigated himself:

 

1. What the police had done regarding the case so far. (And not telling

me to find out about this.)

 

2. Investigate the case further.

 

Sgt. O'Brian didn't do eighter of these actions, and I think that this

was very irresponsible.

 

16. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian was very un-calm, and this

together with the patronising

I was subjected to (which is explained in point 11 and 12), made it

difficult for me to bring up

the issues I wanted to bring up in the way I had intended.

 

So I think that (especially since I haven't been living in Britain that

long, and had to 'compete'

with to British police-servicemen who were patronising me in the

meeting), because of this,

I think that the Sergant should have tryed to remain calm in the

meeting, since I think when

one have a job as a public serviceman, then it's important that one are

capable of comunicating

with the public.

 

And then to be so un-calm in the meeting, can make it difficult for the

meeting and the comunication

to be conducted in a meaningful way, since the things the Sergant said

had marks of not being

very thorowly considered. (Like he told me that I had to make sure that

my former employer and

the job-agency got in touch about the letter I had brought there, even

if it was obvious from that

letter that they already were in touch, and the Sergant was reading the

letter explaining about

this).

 

So I think the Sergant must have been so un-calm that he didn't get the

meaning of the letter.

And I didn't want to aggrivate or make the Sergant even more un-calm,

so I just had to pretend

to agree with him.

 

I though that I would rather call the Sergant later, and explain about

this later, when he was in

a calmer state.

 

An I think that when one as a member of the public, contacts the

police, about important things

like this, then one should expect to be treated in professional way by

the police.

 

So when the police are patronising you, and like I mention in this

individual complaint, the police

Sergant in charge of the meeting, isn't capable to keep control of

himself and remain calm, in

a way that the meeting could be conducted in a professional and

meaningful way.

I think that if the Sergant in charge of the meeting isn't capable

of doing this, then this is a reason

to complain. (Because I don't think members of the public should be

treated in an unprofessional

and unpolite way when they are contacting the police).

 

17. Sgt. O'Brian said in the meeting on 1/3, that they would get

constable Steele to call me back

about what the police had been doing with the case so far.

 

Victoria Steele didn't call, and I called back to the police-station

several times, and was told that

she was on holiday.

I also called back several times after she should have been back,

but she was never present.

 

The people I talked with at the police-station, told me several times

that they would get Steele

to call, yet she never called.

 

This problem happened very often. (That I was promised someone from the

police would call

me back, but that they didn't call at all in 2007).

 

18. The same in this individual complaint.

 

When I tryed calling Steele, but didn't suceed in getting in contact

with her at all.

 

Then I tried to call Sgt. O'Brian on several phone-numbers I was given

by the central, and

by St. Ann's police-station.

 

I didn't manage to get hold of Sgt. O'Brian eighter, and after trying

to get in contact with

Constable Steele and Sergant O'Brian for weeks, without getting hold of

them, and without

any of them returning my calls.

 

Then I went to the Norwegian Consulat in the India Building, asking The

Consulate if they

had any advice for me, on how to get in contact with Constable Steele

or Sgt. Obrian.

 

The Consulate-representative, Liz Hurley, went and called Sgt. O'Brian,

while I was at

the Consulate on 19/3.

 

Liz Hurley said, that she had been talking with O'Brian, and that

O'Brian had told her that

'he remembered the case'.

 

Yet, Sgt. O'Brian still didn't call me back, even after recieving this

reminder by the Norwegian

Consulate representative.

 

Sgt. O'Brian still hadn't called me back when I sent you the complaint

on 3/5, and he still

haven't called me back when I'm writing this appeal now on 26/8.

 

I think this is very unprofessional of the Sergant. On the meeting on

1/3, I showed the

constable and Sergant O'Brian the explanation I had written were I

explain about

my concern about what was going on in the company, and I remember the

Sergant

was reading the explanation, he got it from the constable.

 

And I had written that it was clear to me that some of my collages in

the company was

under control by criminals.

 

(I had written it in capital letters, because I was a bit tired of the

police not taking any

actions after I had gone to the police-station reporting about this

several times in

November, then in the meeting with Sgt. Cambel in January, and then in

the talks

with Constable Holmes also in January.

 

I wasn't sure if the police was taking this as serious as they should,

so I tryed to

write it in a document, why I think they should act. I even wrote some

of it in capital

letters, so to show that I meant this seriously, and to maybe get them

to wake up).

 

And it was this document that I remember O'Brian read, and still they

didn't even return

my calls, even after reading that document, and having seen how

important I thought

the case was.

 

And in the meeting on 1/3, I also showed the Constable and the Sergant

the letter from

the Solicitor from 27/2, where the Solicitor writes that:

 

'As I explained, Morecrofts do not deal with criminal law and would not

be able to advise you

on this aspect although some further perusal of your papers may reveal

some information that

will assist the police.'

 

Even if I showed the Sergant this letter from the Solicitor, still the

Sergant didn't want to investigate/

look at the papers/documents I had. And even if he had read this letter

and the the letter where

I explain that I'm worried about some of my collueges being under

control by criminals in the

company I used to work, and also even if he got a call about this from

the Norwegian Consulate,

still he didn't even return my calls.

 

I think this was very irresponsible and unprofessional by the Sergant.

And it was this behaviour from

the Sergant that I thought was the 'final drop', so to speak, and lead

me to complain about the

police to the CPS.

 

And then, after recieving my complaint, the CPS adviced me to contact

you, so thats why 

I sent you the e-mail with the complaint on 3/5.

 

 

Please tell us why you would like to appeal about the way your

complaint was handled:

 

The police force didn't record my complaint.

 

Please explain why you want to appeal:

 

Well, like I exlained above, I think that the police force should deal

with members of the

public in a professional and aproriate way.

 

All of the 18 individual complaint I have mentioned, are situations,

where I think the police

have acted in a way which I think is below the standard you could

expect from a responsible

police force.

 

And when I complain about the police not letting me report a crime

(like in complaint 1), and

the police acting irresponsible with sending me back to work even if

the complany was

controled by criminals (complaint 2), lying to me about the CAB being a

government

organisation (even if I discovered the lying later, complaint 3), the

police refusing to

investgate a serious criminal case, involiving people being held under

control, seemingly

like slaves, by criminals (complaint 4),  the police lying to me

again, saying that

it would be a breach on the data protection act if they looked at some

documents

on my laptop. (complaint 5), that the police acted irresponsible, on

numerous occations,

when I was promised the police would call me back, but they didn't. I

would think that

this happened to many times to it being coincidental, I would think

that some type of

misconduct is the reason for this way of treatment by the police

(numerous complaints, eg.

complaint 6, 8, 17 and 18).

 

That the police constable didn't give the documents I gave him

regarding a serious crime-

case to an investigator (complaint 9), that the police insulted me,

calling me 'Miss Erik

Ribsskog', in their letter from 16/2, when it should be obvious, as I

have got confirmed by

a British representative working for the Norwegian Consulate, that it

should be obvious

for Brits that Erik and Eric is the same name, and due to this, the

police were inpolite

towards me, since they called me 'Miss', even if they should know that

my name isn't

a girls name.

 

That Sgt. O'Brian was, I would go as far as to say he was harassing me,

and were

patronising towards me in the meeting on the police-station on 1/3,

described in

complaint 11-18.

 

That Sgt. O'Brian was acting irresponsible in not investigating a

serious crime-case,

even if the Solicitor had written in the letter that she thought this

could be a matter

for the police, and even if he was called by the Norwegian Consulate,

and still didn't

return my calls.

 

And also that he left it to me, a member of the public, to find out how

the police had

been dealing with the case, instead of dealing with it himself.

 

And also that he was 'in a state' in the meeting, not giving me a

chance to explain

about the issues in the way I had intended, due to having to focus on

not trying

to aggrivate the Sergant any more, that is to try to get him calm down,

taking

the focus away from presenting the actual issues I had gone there to

present.

 

I think the harassment, patronisment, unprofesionalism from the Sergant

in the

meeting on 1/3 certainly qualifyes to problems with the liasons with

the police, like

I initialy complained about, but also to beind misconduct like I see

now that it has

to be, for the police to deal with the complaint.

 

Also the other issues I've mentioned under this section 'Why you want

to appeal',

I think they also must be misconduct, like when the Constable didn't

want to let

me report a crime in complaint 1, and the refusal to investigate a

serious crime-case

in complaint 2, the later discovered lying in complain 3 etc. (see

section above).

 

So when I read in your e-mail from 14/8, that 'I was informed

by
Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be

concerned
with allegations of misconduct against individual police

officers and
therefore decided not to formally record your complaint

under the Police
Reform Act 2002.', then I can't agree with the

Merseyside Police that my

complaint isn't being deemed as being concerd with allegations of

misconduct against individual police officers.

 

I can't see that the lying, the harrasment, the insults, the not

alowing a member

of the public to report a crime case, the refusal to investigate a

serious crime-case,

and the other mentioned issues (see above).

 

I cant see that these things shouldn't be considered as

misconduct.

 

Thats my view, I'm not sure how police are expected to conduct

themselves in this

country, but if I use my head and think by myself how I would have

thought that

the police were meant to conduct themselves, and then think about the

way the

police-officers have conducted themselves, which I have described in

this complaint,

then I'd say that the police-officers have misconducted.

 

Also, while I'm dealing with this, I thought I'd mention some points

from the complaint-

procedure:

 

The police called me a week before the meeting at Walton Lane

police station on 22/6.

 

The police-woman that called on 15/6, didn't tell me her name, even if

I asked who I should

say that I had spoken with.

 

She just instructed me to report at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6

at a certain time,

and ask to speak with Sgt. Smithe.

 

I thought that they would probably ask me who had called me and told me

to meet there,

so I asked her who I should tell them that I had been speaking

with.

 

But she didn't say her name, she just said that I should say that I had

been called by

the police.

 

And she didn't tell me at all what the meeting was about.

 

I used to live in Walton about a year ago, and I'd also been in contact

with the police in

Walton (and also the St. Ann's police-station), about some problems I

had been having

org. criminals in Oslo and Liverpool.

 

And also when I lived in Walton, I rented a room in a shared house, and

there were also

problems going on in the house which I have reported to the Walton Lane

police.

And also when I was living in the shared house, due to reasons

unknown to me, and I

hadn't been living in Britain long enough then to understand about all

the things

surounding Council-tax.

But for some reason, I don't think any of the tenants revieved

council-tax bills (or tv-licensing

bills), when they were living in the shared house in Mandeville St. in

Walton.

 

So I wasn't completly sure about why it was that the police had called

me and instructed

me to meet at the Walton Lane police-station.

 

I thought, of course, that it could be to do with the complaint. But I

wasn't completly sure,

I thought it also could be with the cases I had reported about earlier

regarding problems with

org. criminials in Oslo and Liverpool.

 

I also thought there could be a chance it was regarding the problem

with the missing council

tax and tv-licensing bills from the Mandeville shared house. (Problems

which I had intended

to bring up togheter with a lot of other problems, once I'd got set up

a dialog with the police,

once I'd got a contact-person and a dialog at the police, and could

start to focus on trying

to explain all details with the earlier reported problems in Norway and

Liverpool).

 

And I wanted the police to deal with the things I had brought up

seriously. And I was a bit

afraid to 'make a fool of myself', if I called the Walton Lane

police-station, and asked to

speak with Sgt. Smithe, to ask what the meeting was about.

Because then I reackoned that I had to explain who had called me

about the meeting, and

I couldn't really be sure that the Sergant was working on Walton Lane

police-station

permanently. He could be in a specialised police-department for all

that I know, who dealt

with police complaint cases, and who was stationed somewhere else,

maybe even out of

town, for all that I knew. And only was supposed to be at the Walton

Lane police-station

for the meeting regarding the complaint-case.

 

So, since I didn't want to make a bad impression, (makine a fool of

myself), since I'm a

bit clumsy sometimes with my manners etc, since I haven't been living

in Britain that

long, due to this, I found it best to just show for the meeting, and

not call to ask any

questions regarding the agenda.

 

I also guessed that if it was meant for me to contact them back

regarding things surrounding

the meeting, then I would have got a contact-name there, like the

police-woman calling

would have told me her name, and told me that if I had any questions,

then I could contact

this and this person.

But since no such contact-name was given to me, then I guessed that

I wasn't meant to

know what the meeting was about, before the meeting.

 

So I didn't know exactly how to prepare for the meeting.

 

And when the meeting started, I had to ask the Sergant if the meeting

was about the complaint,

to be sure.

 

In the meeting, we didn't discuss the issues regarding problems with

the liasons with the

police at all.

 

Somehow, we ended up discussing the cases that I had complained about

to the Walton

Lane police-station before. (The problems with org. criminals in Oslo

and Liverpool).

 

I wrote some notes down when I got home from the meeting, here are some

of the points.

 

– Core of case: Followed by mafia in Norway, and this has continued in

England (Ppl. from

work etc).

 

(This is about some problems I had in Norway, and which I have reported

about to the police

in Norway and England.

 

It was on my workplace in Oslo. I was working as an

assistant shop-manager, while I was studying.

And then I got some problems with the my face being more or less

distroyed (its a long story), and

I still went to work a few days (I didn't think it was so serious, so I

thought the problems with the

face-skin would pass), and then I overheard a couple of

conversations about me behind my back so to

speak, eg. one conversation I overheard I heard it being said (they

were talking  about my face which

was more or less distroyed), and I head them say: 'I've heard that he's

also followed by the mafia'.

 

And also I heard other customers say, about me, 'he isn't afraid (eg.

he goes to work as normal

I think they must have meant) even if he's being followed by the

mafia'.

 

This was just some of what happened, I've tryed to explain about these

things to the police in

Norway and Britain, but I haven't been able to find someone who want's

to deal with and investigate

this, and let me explain all I know about this.

 

But I mentioned it to the Sergant in the meeting on 22/6.

 

But he writes in the answer-letter that 'I have since had the

oppertunity to examine the issues you

raised in terms of organised criminality and the Norwegian

Mafia.'.

 

Well, I haven't actually menioned anything about a 'Norwegian Mafia'. I

have never heard of, or

menioned a 'Norwegian mafia'.

 

I always thought that the people I overheard at my old workplace in

Oslo, was refering to the

Albanian mafia, since this was the only mafia I had heard that were

being present in Oslo.

 

So, when the Sergant is writing about 'the Norwegian Mafia' in his

letter, then I get a bit

concerned that maybe there have been some misunderstanings in the

comunications,

since I've never used the term 'Norwegian mafia', and I've never heard

of or refered to

any Norwegian Mafia, so I think we must have been speaking past

eachother a bit

in the meeting.

 

We were also taling a bit of the Arvato company which I had reported

the problems

with being infiltrated by org. criminals.

(I said I thought the problems with org. criminals in Liverpool

probably had to be connected

with the problems in Oslo, since I found it unlikly that the lightening

would strike at the

same place twice so to speak).

 

I can see in my notes that the Sergant thought that Arvato had a

Swedish parent-company,

but I told him that it wasn't Swedish, but German. (Bertelsman).

 

I also told him that I thought it would be very fine to have a contact

person at the police,

since the police didn't return my calls, and also since I had a lot of

information regarding

the different cases which I still hadn't got an oppertunity to report

to the police, yet this

haven't been addressed in the answering-letter.

 

Like I've explained above, the police have been suposed to call me on

more than ten occations,

but they haven't called me in 2007 at all.

 

So I think they should take this problem a bit more serious. They are

ignoring this problem

in their answering-letter, and I can't really say that I'm sure what to

do if some incidents

happens now, for which I would have needed the assitance of the police.

I'm not sure what

I should do if this happens, I don't really want to call the police,

just to be ignored even

more.

 

So I think they should have brought up this issue in their

answering-letter.

 

In the meeting, the Sergant asked me what I wanted the police to do,

and I answered that I

wanted the police to investigate the case with the problems with the

Arvato-company

having problems with infiltration by org. criminals.

I explained to the Sergant that I had a lot of documents that

helped showing this, and that

I think he should maybe have a look at these documents, in concetion

with his investigation.

 

Yet, I wasn't contacted back by the Sergant at all, before I got the

letter that he couldn't

find any evidence to substantiatie my claims.

So, I think that the Sergant should maybe have had a look at the

documents then, like I

suggested to him in the meeting. Maybe this could have helped him. He

says he haven't

found any evidence to substantiate my claims. But when he didn't even

have a look at

the documents, which I explained about to him that I had in the

meeting, then it's seems

a bit to me that he didn't really try that hard to find any

evidence.

Because in the meeting I told him that he could just contact me if

he wanted to have at

the documents I had from working in the company, but the Sergant didn't

contact me

back about this.

 

I've also been in contact with the Norwegian Embassy in London,

regarding the problems

with org. crime in Oslo and in Arvato-company and elsewhere in

Liverpool.

 

The Embassy, told me that if I wanted the British and Norwegian police

to cooperate

on these issues, then I had to tell the Brisish and Norwegian police

myself that I

wanted them to cooperate about this.

 

So, I aslo see this in my notes, I made sure to tell the Sergant that I

wanted the British

police to cooperate with the Norwegian police about these issues. (I've

also earlier told

the Norwegian police the same, that I want them, like the Embassy

adviced, to cooperate

with the British police on this.)

 

I also gave the Sergant the name of the Norwegian police-officer who

knew most about

the case in Norway. (Who was working in a similar Norwegian

Department, that is the

department that investigates the regular police). This because Sgt.

Smithe asked who

in Norway he could contact about this, and I didn't really know who

else that knew

enough about this.

 

Yet, in the answering letter, there is no mention about this, if the

British police have

been in contact with the Norwegian police or not, so I would have to

asume that

they haven't been in contact then, even if I asked them to do this, on

advice from

the Embassy, in the meeting.

 

I told the Sergant that I had even contacted the Norwegian Consulate,

and that the

Consulate-representative contacted Sgt. O'Brian, reminding him that I

had tryed to

get in contact with him regarding the case, but still, Sgt. O'Brian

didn't call me back.

 

And this is neigther addressed in the answering-letter.

 

I gave Sgt. Smithe some copies of explanations about the further

problems with

criminals in Norway, that they tried to kill me on the farm belonging

to the woman

my uncle lived with there, in the summer of 2005, and thats why I went

away from

Norway again and settled in Liverpool.

 

And I gave the Sergant the log-number from when I reported about the

problems

with criminals in Oslo and Liverpool to the Walton Lane police-station

in the

Automn of 2005.

 

(I've also been in contact with the Merseyside police regarding these

problems

several times before this, and also after this, in the spring and

summer of 2006.

 

And then also again with the frequent contact about the problems in the

Arvato

company from November 2006).

 

I told the Sergant that it seemed to me, and that this was supported by

the

documents I had, that all the different departments on Arvato was

involved in

this problem, with being taken over/infiltraded by org.

criminals.

 

But the Sergant still didn't contact me back to have a look at the

documents.

 

I see from my notes that I told Sgt. Smithe that I had been in contact

with

a Norwegian Police-officer, in the special department that investigates

the

regular police, earlier the same week, about that had been surrounding

this

in Oslo.e problems in Oslo.

 

Further from my notes, I see that I told the Sergant that it seemed to

me that

the police were worried, when they called me in the night, around

midnight,

in late Novemeber 2006, and asked me to contact higher management

at Arvato, regarding the problems I had been having with certain

persons

working there. (It seemed to me that she was worried do to who

these

people I had been having problems with were).

 

–

 

I'll try to summarise the problems surrounding the complaint-process

and the meeting on 22/6:

– The police didn't tell me was calling when they called me on 15/6

instructing me
to met at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6.

– The police didn't tell me the agenda for the meeting on 22/6,

before the meeting.

– The police didn't address the individual complaints from the complaint

from 3/5, neighter
in the meeting on 22/6, or in their letter from

10/7.

– The police didn't investigate the documents I told them I had, which I

told them in the
meetin on 22/6, could help explain what went on at

Arvato while I was working there.

– The police says in their letter from 10/7, that I have been raising

issues in terms of
'The Norwegian Mafia'. But I have never heard about or

refered to the term 'the Norwegian
mafia', so the police must have been

misunderstanding what I said in the meeting on 10/7.

– In their answering-letter, the police haven't addressed the issue I

brought up in the
meeting on 10/7, that I had been adviced by the

Embassy to tell the British and Norwegian
police to cooperate on the

case. But in the letter from 10/7, it isn't mentioned at all,
if there

has been any contact at all with the Norwegian police regarding this.

– In the meeting on 22/6, I mentioned to Sgt. Smite, that I had been

having problems
with the Merseyside Police, on repeted occations, having

promised to call me back,
but then not having called. I explained that

this procedure made it difficult to me,
to report about what I knew

about the cases, and to get any meaningful dialog.

I threfore expressed in the meeting, a request, if I please could get a

contact-person,
in the Merseyside Police, which I could contact, and get

a dialog with, and tell about
the things I knew regarding the different

crime-cases that had been going on.

Yet, in the letter from the police from 10/7, this isn't brought up at

all, and I have
so far in 2007, not recieved a single call from the

Merseyside Police about this, or
about anything else.

So these problems from the meeting/complaint process, together with

the 18 individual complaints
from the complaint from 3/5, which I have

exlained about above, and which haven't been dealt
with at all in the

Merseyside Police letter from 10/7, are the reasons for which I am

appealing.

Also, my complaint from 3/5, is like I have explained above, regarding

problems with the
liasons, or contact, with the police.

Like I've also explained earlier, I'm not an expert on police methods,

and I've been a bit
confused about why the police seemingly don't want to

cooperate with me.

I've looked at it as certain, that maybe even if the Merseyside police

haven't seemed to want
to cooperate with me about the problems at Arvato

etc., I've taken it as certain, that the
Merseyside police, like any

responsilbe Police-unit, would investigate the things that have
been

going on at Arvato, when I've been telling them when I've met up at the

police-station
in Novemeber last year, on several occations telling them

about my concerns about org. criminal
activity in the company.

When I've in the meetings with Sgt. Camel on 16/1, in the several talks

with Constable Holmes,
and in the meeting with Sgt. O'Brian on 1/3.

When I've in these expressed my concern about what has been going on in

the Arvato company, and
also explained to them that I'm worried about my

former collegues that were still working there,
because it seemed to me

that some of them must have been under control by criminals.

And when I also mention to the Merseyside Police that I have been in

contact with the Embassy,
and later also the Consulate, and I give a

larger number, several hundred, documents, that
helps show that there

has been something goving on there.

And when I've also sent e-mails, on my last day working at Arvato, to a

number of British and
Norwegian newspapers and tv-stations, and also to

the parent-company, that it's clear to me
that there is a problem with

organised criminal activity in the company.

If the fact, that the police are still ignoring my plea to get a

contact-person and a dialog
with the police, to get a chance to tell them

everything I know about the problems at Arvato,
(and also about the other

problems from Liverpool and Norway).

If the fact that they are still ignoring this request, means that they

haven't been investigating
the problems at Arvato at all, then I off

course think that this is serious. And I guess, since
I haven't been

reading about the problems at Arvato in the newspapers or otherwere, and

since
I see from the letter the Merseyside police sent me on 10/7, that

the police doesn't seem to be
interested in letting me tell them what I

know about (since they haven't commented on the problems
I have been

having with the contact with the police at all).

Due to this I have to presume that nothing has been done about the

problems at Arvato then.
Problems which to me seems like they are

serious, and it seems to me that some of the people
that were working

there, at the same time I was working there, was under control by criminals.

(This got clear to me at the end of the time I worked there, thats why I

sent the e-mails to
the newspapers etc., and this is also why I went to

the police and told them about this all
those times from November

2006.).

I've also explained about what it seems to me must have been going on at

Arvato, to the Norwegian
Embassy, and the Norwegian Police, since there

were many Norwegians and Scandinavians working
at the Arvato campaign

which I was working on.

But if it even, after I've tryed to tell all of these about the problems,

if there still hasn't
been investigating what has been going on at

Arvato (Which I find highly unlikly, since I think
any responsible

police-force of course would have investigated serious cases like this. But

I mention this anyway, due to the ignorance from the police regarding my

plea to tell the police
what I know about what has been going on).

Because then, since it also hasn't been about this in the news, then I

have to presume that the
problems at Arvato haven't been investigated by

the Merseyiside Police at all, or by anyone
else, so then I think the

only responsible think would be to try get advice on how this problem,

with the semingly organised crime activity at the Arvato company, should

addressed, when the
police are igonring the problem.

So if you at the IPCC have any idea on how to go forward then. I guess

thats a complaint about
the Merseyside Police as a police-force, as well

as a complaint against individual police-
officers, like it is in the

complaints you are dealing with.

But I reackoned that I might as well ask you now then, how I should go

forward, to get the police
to investigate the problems with the organised

criminal activity at Arvato, which seeems clear
to me from working there,

and which I also have documents that supports the occurance of.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself a bit at the end here, but I think that

these problems should
be dealt with in a responsilbe way.

And it doesn't seem to me that the complaint with the problems with the

liasons is being dealt
with in a responsible way from the Merseyside

Police.

And this makes a bit worried about if the problems with my former

collegues from Arvoto which
it seemed to me must have been under control

by criminal, also is being dealt with in an
irresponsible way.

Thats why I'm bringing this up now, even if I'm not sure if it's the

right time and place, but
I hope that maybe you could maybe give some

advice on how to go forward with this problem as
well, with the org.

criminal activity at Arvato, and the problems with the people working

there seeming to be under control by criminals.

Even if this complaint originaly only was regarding the problems with the

contact with the
police, because I was sure that the police would deal

with a case like that responsible,
no matter what they inform me about

what they are doing.

But I must admit that the way the police have been dealing with my

complaint from 3/5, with the
problems surrounding the meeting on 22/6,

and the answering-letter from 10/7.

I think issues have been dealt with a bit unprofessional by the police,

so the unprofessionalism
from them surrounding these issues, has made me

a bit uncertain as to if they are dealing with
the problems at Arvato in

a responsible way at all.

So thats why I thought I'd bring this up now, while I was dealing with

the relating issues
in the appeal.

So I hope that this is alright, and that it's possible for you have a

look at the issues I've
brought up in this appeal.

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/15/07, Joanne

Fitzgerald <Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

> wrote:

Dear Mr

Ribsskog,

 

Thank you for contacting the

Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

 

The information we require,

should you wish to appeal the police's decision to not formally record

your complaint, is set out in the Appeal Form that I have posted to you.

I have also now attached the

relevant appeal form with this email for your consideration – this

electronic version can be printed out, completed and returned by

post. You may complete an Appeal Form or provide the same required

information in an email.

 

Please be aware that if you

wish to submit an appeal we must receive your appeal within 28 days

of the date of me informing you of your right to appeal.

 

I hope this information has

assisted you.

 

Please contact me if you

have any further questions,

 

Yours

sincerely,

 

Joanne

 

Joanne

Fitzgerald
Casework

Manager
Independent Police

Complaints Commission
90

High Holborn
London


WC1V 6BH

Tel: 020 7166 3182

Fax: 020 7166 3642

Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

---

From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]

Sent: 15 August 2007 00:24
To: Joanne

Fitzgerald
Subject: Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police

– 2007/006341

 

Hi,

 

thank you very much for your e-mail!

 

I will definatly appeal against the decision not to investigate the

complaint.

 

I'm just a bit busy with work and other issues at the moment, but I'm

going

to look up in the letter about how one should appeal

formally, one of the next

days, and then I'll send a more formal appeal if thats needed.

 

Or else, please tell me if you think this e-mail can be considered as

a formal

appeal, if not, then I'll send a new e-mail one of the next

days.

 

Hope that this is alright!

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Erik Ribsskog

 

On 8/14/07, Joanne

Fitzgerald <Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

> wrote:

Dear

Mr Ribsskog,

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police

Complaints Commission
(IPCC).

I have contacted Merseyside

Professional Standards Department to
establish the current status of

your complaint. I was informed by
Merseyside Police that they did not

deem your complaint to be concerned
with allegations of misconduct

against individual police officers and
therefore decided not to

formally record your complaint under the Police
Reform Act

2002.

If you disagree with the decision by Merseyside Police to

not formally
record your complaint, then you have a right to appeal

to the IPCC to
independently review the police's decision. I have

sent you the relevant
appeal form today in the post (Appealing

Against a Complaint Not Being
Recorded) and this form is also

available online at our website
(www.ipcc.gov.uk), should this assist

you further. Please note, should
you wish to appeal, we must receive

your appeal form within 28 days.

If you have any further

questions then please do not hesitate to contact
me.

Yours

sincerely,

Joanne

Joanne Fitzgerald
Casework

Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn

London
WC1V 6BH
Tel: 020 7166 3182
Fax: 020 7166

3642
Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

******************************************************************************
The

information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.

It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended

recipient
please notify the sender and delete this email; any

disclosure, copying or
distribution of this email is prohibited and

may be unlawful. The content of
this email represents the views of

the individual and not necessarily those
of IPCC. IPCC reserves the

right to monitor the content of all emails in
accordance with lawful

business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
computer viruses

but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
receipt of

this email.

Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High

Holborn
London,
WC1V

6BH.
******************************************************************************

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the

Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by

Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate

Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus

free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged,

monitored and/or recorded for legal

purposes.

This email was

received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet

Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with

MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems,

please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via

the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal

purposes.

 

 

 

******************************************************************************
The

information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.

It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended

recipient
please notify the sender and delete this email; any

disclosure, copying or
distribution of this email is prohibited and

may be unlawful. The content of
this email represents the views of the

individual and not necessarily those
of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right

to monitor the content of all emails in
accordance with lawful

business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
computer viruses but

IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
receipt of this

email.

 

Independent

Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London,

WC1V

6BH.
******************************************************************************
 

The

original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure

Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership

with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the

GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi

may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal

purposes.

This

email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure

Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with

MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems,

please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi

may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal

purposes.

 

 

 

******************************************************************************
The

information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.

It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended

recipient
please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure,

copying or
distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful.

The content of
this email represents the views of the individual and not

necessarily those
of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content

of all emails in
accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has

been swept for
computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in

respect of your
receipt of this email.

 

Independent

Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London,

WC1V

6BH.
******************************************************************************
 

The

original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure

Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with

MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this

email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be

automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal

purposes.

******************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient
please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content of
this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily those
of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
receipt of this email.

 

Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London,

WC1V 6BH.
******************************************************************************