johncons
  • SUMMARY UNSHEDULED MEETING 28/11/06

    Aidan Tippins, Senior Team-leader, Arvato Services.

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

    A couple of hours before the main meeting at 11.30, Mr. Tippins asked me to log
    ‘meeting’ and follow him.

    I did so, and Mr. Tippins asked:

    Aidan: ‘We are having a meeting today regarding some complaints you have against
    a team-leader, right?’

    Erik: ‘Yes.’

    Adian: ‘Whats the name of this team-leader?’

    Erik: ‘Chris Baines.’

    Aidain: ‘Are you sure?’

    Erik: ‘Yes.’

    Aidan: ‘But we havent got a team-leader with the name of Chris Baines.’

    Erik: ‘Thats what Line [my line-manager] told me.’

    Aidan: ‘Line told you his name was Chris Baines?’

    Erik: ‘Yes.’

    Aidan: ‘Have you seen this team-leader here today?’

    Erik: ‘No.’

    Then Mr. Tippins pointed at a person and asked if this was Mr. Baines.

    I wasnt, so I said no.

    (End of meeting.)

  • SUMMARY MEETING 29/11/06

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

    Sarah Rushby, HR, Arvato Services.

    Ian Carrel, Managing Director, Arvato Services.

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

    About four hours before the meeting, I had sent an e-mail to Managing Directot Ian
    Carrel regarding a serious harassment-incident and other very serious problems that
    had been going on in the company.

    I also sent him a copy of the summary from the meeting with Line Sletvold 26/11/06,
    where I discribed the problems with the harassment-incidents involving Team-leader
    at the Bon Prix campaign Chris Baines.

    I also sent a copy of the the summary from the meeting with Senior Team-leader
    Aidan Tippins from 28/11/06, where Mr. Tippins is clearly lying.

    I also descibed in the e-mail how Sarah Rushby (HR), Aidan Tippins (STL Arvato),
    and Chris Baines, clearly co-operated in covering the harassment episodes up
    in the other meeting regarding this on 28/11/06.

    These episodes were only the tip of the iceberg, and from all the other things that
    were going on in the company, it was clear to me, that most or all of these
    harassment-problems and other problems were organised.

    After the meetings on 28/11/06, I contacted the police again regarding these
    problems, and I got telephone-call back later from the police. The police sounded
    concerned, and because of the nature of the problems Id been having with these
    persons, the police adviced me to report to higher management about these
    problems.

    And because of the seriousity regarding the problems in the company, I found that
    it was important to act fast regarding this, and I decided I also contact the owner-
    company Bertelsmann, and some newspapers etc.

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

    So Mr Carrol said he had got some phone-calls from Bertelsmann head of PR, and
    a newspaper regarding this.

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

    Sarah Rushby said that she admited to having interupted me a couple of times in
    the meeting the day before, an apologised for this.

    I said that I had been thinking more about what happened on the meeting the day
    before, and said that she was also talking very fast and not taking any concern
    to me not having English as my first language.

    She said that she had never heard this being said before [that she talked very fast],
    and asked me about an example on how they had been taking things out of context,
    like I had mentioned that they did in the e-mail to Ian Carrol.

    I explained that I hadnt prepared that much for this meeting, (because the reason I
    was working that day, was that I was working on writing on the finished version on
    the summary from the meeting with Line Sletvold 30/10/06 and 11/11/06).

    But I remembered an example of this in my head: Mr. Baines appoligesed in the
    meeting 28/11/06 about him not saying bye in an earlier incident.

    Mr. Tippins said (in the second meeting 28/11/06), that I shouldnt have needed to
    be concerned about this (Mr. Baines acting impolite/ignoring me in that earlier incident).

    Mr Tippins said that I shouldnt have needed to be concerned about this (have this in the
    back on my head) on 25/11/06, since Mr. Baines had appologised about this earlier
    in the meeting on 28/11/06.

    Rushby said that I hadnt given Mr. Tippins any chance to explain [about the lying-
    episode in the first meeting 28/11/06].

    I said that I normally would have done this, but that this situation was so serious,
    that the only thing responisble would be to act fast.

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

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

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

    ‘The harassment cases, the lies, the covering up and breaching of agreements, are so
    serious, that the only thing responsible, would be to have a meeting about this
    as soon as possible.’

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

    I said that it would have been irresponsible.

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

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

    I said that in any other case, I would never have done it like this, but that this situation
    was so serious, that it would have been irresponsible not to do it.

    I explained that I had contacted him about this, before I contacted anyone else
    about this. [Even if this was only a technicalty].

    It seemed clear to me that this was organised.

    Mr. Carrol wondered what I wanted from the investigation.

    I explained that i wasnt an expert on this, an that the way I normally would have tried
    to deal with problems that I didnt have any competence in myself, would be to contact
    people that have competence in dealing with these kinds of problems.

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

    I said that in the meeting with Line Sletvold 26/11/06, I said that we had to inform the
    people responsible for security and operations in the company about the situation.

    I was offered a meeting with the two Senior team-leaders for the two campaigns
    involved, the team-leader involved, my line-manager and myself.

    I agreed to this, because I thought it was important that we came to an agreement
    about how we should deal with the problems.

    I thought it was important to get my line-managers support in this. And I thought
    that I could escalate it later, if I didnt think the problems were taken seriously
    enough. [This was before I found out about my Senior team-leader lying, and the
    cover-up and the lyes in the scheduled meeting 28/11/06].

    [Line sent me an e-mail, it must have been on 27/11/06, where she asked me
    if it was ok that also HR participated on the meeting 28/11/06.

    (For some reason the Senior team-leader for the Bon Prix-campaign, wasnt
    going to participate in the meeting, and neighter would my line-manager.

    She said, when I talked to her about this, I think on the same day, that she had
    a rest-day on 28/11/06, and wouldnt participate because of this.

    I thought she looked afraid when we spoke about this, so I didnt insist that she
    should participate on the meeting.)

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

    I also reminded her about what I had said in the meeting with her on 26/11/06,
    that I thought that this was so serious, that I thought that it was important that
    also the people responsible for security and operations in the company was
    informed.]

    I continued to ask if there was a department responsible for securtiy in the company,
    and Mr. Carrol said that there wasnt.

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

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

    I explained that when I worked in one of Norways biggest companies, a grocery-
    store chain called Ica-gruppen (former Hakon-gruppen/Rimi).

    Ica-gruppen (Rimi) had their own security-department [who worked with clearing
    up cases with robberies, dishonest employees etc. etc]. They were a kind of
    Rimi-police, you could call them.

    So I wondered if Bertelsmann could have a similar department like this, and if
    then I thought they should be informed.

    Because then I thought they would be able to give advice in how to deal with
    the situation. Eg. advice on how to conduct the investigation etc.

    I wanted to make sure that Mr. Carrol understood how important I thougt it was
    that this was dealt with as professional as possible, so I went on with explaining
    something from the sheduled meeting 28/11/06.

    I told him that in the beginning of the meeting on 28/11/06, I had handed out a
    summary from the meeting with Line Sletvold on 26/11/06, where I explained
    about the harassment-incidents.

    I told everyone on the sheduled meeting 28/11/06 (Rushby, Tippins, Baines), that
    if everyone could read through the summary, then everyone would have the
    details from the incidents fresh in their head.

    And I said that I though everyone on that meeting had also been sent the summary
    from the meeting 26/11/06, well in front of the meeting on 28/11/06.

    Line confirmed that Rushby and Tippins had been sent an email with the summary
    from the meeting between Line and me on 26/11/06 (where I explaied about the
    harassment-incidents), but Baines hadnt.

    I continued to say that Baines at least read it at the beginning of the meeting
    28/11/06.

    My point was, that what was said in that summary, and would have made me
    myself very much raise my eyebrows if it was me who read the summary
    under similar circomstances was this:

    On page 6 in the summary (from the meeting between Line Sletvold and myself
    on Sunday 26/11/06), that was handed out on the meeting on 28/11/06, it says:

    ‘And because I found this behaviour very uncomfortalbe, and because Ive earlier
    had problems with organised criminals in Oslo and Liverpool (problems which
    I have reported to the police in Norway and England), I decided to take a taxi
    to the police-station to report this.’

    Neighter my senior team-leader Aidan Tippins (who said he didnt need to read
    this document at the meeting, since he had recieved it on email and read it
    before), or Sarah Rushby, from HR (who recieved the document on email, and
    also read it at meeting), reacted in any way to this information.

    None of them mentioned this at all.

    How could this be?

    I would have found information like this very unusual, yet no-one asked about
    this or seemed scared [or concerned], about this.

    They seemed to be comfortable and relaxed.

    I explained this to Ian Carrol.

    Sarah Rushby didnt comment on this.

    I continued to say to Ian Carrol, that since hed asked what I wanted that should
    be done regarding this.

    I continued to explain that I hadnt done anything wrong, and that I had reported
    about these problems to the police in Norway and England.

    But that I hadnt managed to get any help, or even advice, from the police about
    regarding how to deal with this.

    So when you (Ian Carrol) ask what I want the company to do about this, then
    I wonder if it maybe is possible to get help, with advice on how to deal with this.

    Mr. Carrol said that the company could only help with advice on how to deal
    with organised crime, if it was within the company.

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

    Erik accepted this, and continued to say that he think that it is important that
    these problems should be dealt with, and not hidden under the carpet.

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

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

    ‘It seems clear to me that most of, or all of, there harassment-cases and other
    cases, are organised.’

    Ian Carrol: ‘If its organised crime within the company, then you should email me
    me about it.’

    Erik: ‘I thought that was what I did this morning.’

    Mr. Carrol doesnt answer.

    Erik (reads from the email again): ‘It seems clear to me that most of, or all of,
    there harassment-cases and other cases, are organised.’

    Erik: ‘And its not organised by Arvato.’

    Sarah Rushby: ‘I think what Erik is trying to say is that this is organised crime,
    that we all are criminals.’

    Erik continues to say to Ian Carrol: ‘I think its important that everyone act responisble
    about this, and that expertise outside of the organisation should be contacted about
    this.’

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

    Mr. Carrol: ‘Have you got a log-number.’

    Erik: ‘Yes.’

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

    Erik: ‘Yes, of course.’

    Sarah Rushby: ‘Erik, here is a copy of the companys harassment-policy copied from
    the employee-handbook.’

    [I had read the harassment-policy earlier, and had also got the employee-manual at
    home, but I didnt want to be inpolite.]

    Erik: ‘Ok, thank you very much.’

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

    Mr. Carrol: ‘Yes’.

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

    (I had the log-number written on a note in my wallet, I write the log-nr on the piece
    of paper, and gives it to Mr. Carrol.)

    (Meeting ended).

    OTHER THINGS THAT WAS SAID IN THE MEETING #1

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

    Erik hadnt got to write all the summaries from the meetings, since there had been many
    meetings the last days and weeks, and would have liked it, if he could go to work and
    write the summaries at work, without being interupted by the phones.

    Mr. Carrol said that because it was an harassment-case (‘given the aligations’ + ‘duty
    of care’, was the words he used that i wrote down on the meeting).

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

    #2

    Rusby said: at the meeting [sheduled meeting 28/11/06], we agreed that the way we
    would go forward with this, was that we would find out some information, and then
    have a later meeting about this.

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

    Erik said that he started to think about the things that had happend on the meetings on
    Tuesday 28/11/06, and the more I thought about it, it got clear to me that something was
    seriously wrong. [the lies and the covering up etc.]

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

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

    I said that I would continue to seek advice from indipendent institutions/organisations,
    to make sure that I dealt with the situation as responsible as possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They seemed concerned, and continued to say that I should contact higher management
    about the problems id been having with these persons.

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

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

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

    I said it was no need to hurry for my sake. I thought it was more important that one used the
    necessarty time to make sure that the investigation was contucted in an apropriate manner.

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

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

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

    I asked Line what ‘sannsynligvis’ was in English again.

    Most likely, Line said.

    #4 (HOW I TRY TO EXPLAIN TO MR. CARROL HOW I THOUGHT THE PROBLEM SHOULD
    BE DEALT WITH)

    It should be put light on this problem.

    It should not be put under the carpet.

    If it isnt dealt with, then the problem could grow bigger and bigger, until it gets to big to
    be [easily] dealt with.

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

    #5 WHO WOULD LEAD THE INVESTIGATION

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

  • SUMMARY MEETING 28/11/06

    Sarah Rushby, HR, Arvato Services.

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

    Aidan Tippins, Senior Team-leader, Arvato Services.

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

    When the meeting started, I asked Mr. Tippins if it was me that should lead the meeting
    since it was me who wanted to have a meeting regarding this.

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

    I started with handing out an agenda for the presentation, and also copies of the
    summary from my meeting with Line Sletvold on Sunday 26/11/06.

    I suggested that everybody started with reading the summary from that meeting,
    because then everybody would have the details fresh in their head.

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

    When they were finished reading, Rushby asked if she could ask a question, and
    I answered that it was ok.

    Rushby asked me to confirm that the person who had been harassing me in the
    episode surrounding the extra headphones, was wearing a white hooded sweater.

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

    Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines most often was wearing black t-shirts, Mr. Tippins
    had himself noticed this, so he didnt think it could have been Mr. Baines.

    I confirmed that I had seen Mr. Baines sit down by a workstation situated on a row
    two rows from the workstation I was sitting with.

    Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines was working on the Bon Prix campaign, who were
    situated furter away from our campaign, by the exit-door, so it couldnt have been
    Mr. Baines.

    They said that I must have been mistaken Mr. Baines with another team-leader, a
    team-leader who was working on a campaign closer to our campaign.

    I said that I was sorry if I had made a mistake, but that I would still like to use my
    own judgement regarding this. By that I mean waiting til I had seen what this other
    team-leader looked like, before I would decide if I thought I could have made a
    mistake.

    [After this first episode, I started noticing Mr. Baines, and recognized him on several
    occations every week, so I meant that I had been keeping good track of who he
    was, and before this I hadnt been in any doubt about that it really was him that
    was involved in this episode.

    (From Mr. Tippins unsheduled meeting, earlier on the same day as this meeting, I
    could remember that I got a bit uncertain, but really more confused, because I
    didnt understand what the purpose of this unsheduled meeting really was.)

    This other team-leader must have recembeled Mr. Baines very much. I was 100%
    certain that the person had been wearing a white hooded sweater, with a Nike
    logo on it, so when they told me that Mr. Baines didnt own a sweater like this,
    then this made me a bit uncertain, but I still wanted to trust my own judgement,
    and see with my own eyes how this other team-leader looked, before I said
    anything more about this].

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

    I answered yes, but he was standing quite far away and was wearing office-clothes.
    The persons Mr. Tippins were showing me, one a quite heavily built person, and
    another much less heavily built, was standing with their backs towards us, and
    was about 10-12 meters away.

    I was tired on this meeting, but I could see that they both had short hair, and their
    body-types/(Norwegian ‘holdning’) didnt match eighter.

    I didnt want to acuse the people on this meeting of lying. I thought that the only
    possibilty that it wasnt Mr. Baines, was if it was a person looking almost excactly
    like him that was working there. A relative of Mr. Baines or something like that.

    When Mr. Tippins said that they were thinking of [I asumed] the least heavily built
    of the persons he had been showing me, then I at once was certain that it couldnt
    have been this person, but I wouldnt acuse the people on the meeting of lying.

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

    But when I understood that it was one of the two persons (and then probably the
    less heavily built person) that they were thinking about, then I got suspicious
    that something could be wrong.

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

    I noticed that Rushby and Tippins was looking “tellingly” at eachother, after they
    saw that I got uncertain when they told me that Mr. Baines didnt own a white
    hooded sweater.

    Like they were having a ‘battleplan’, and that they now had reached a ‘milestone’,
    and that they after this would continue to follow a certain pattern.

    From the beginning of the meeting:

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

    Ribsskog: ‘Yes’.

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

    Baines: ‘No’.

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

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

    – The other three persons seemed like they were co-operating, and like they had
    planned a strategy on how they were going to go through with the meeting.

    – Baines almost didnt say anything at all. It seemed clear that he let Tippins
    and Rushby control the meeting. It was like they were defending him.

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

    – Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines mostly was wearing black t-shirts, so he
    couldnt have been wearing a white hooded sweater (Mr. Tippins meant
    that wearing a white hooded sweater wouldnt be Mr. Baines style).

    But it could have been that Mr. Baines owned a white hooded sweater, but that
    he only had used it one or two times at work, eg. when Mr. Tippins had been having
    a rest-day etc.

    On the meeting earlier this day, the one Mr. Tippins asked for, I was tired. I almost
    never had any conversations with Mr. Tippins. I had been having 3 or 4 conversations
    with Mr. Tippins during a years time.

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

    2. When Mr. Tippins asked me if I knew a particular computer-programme, and later
    on the same day when Mr. Tippins didnt say hi when I walked past him.

    3. The meeting when I asked Mr. Tippins about the reasons for why I didnt get to get
    a job-interview etc. [regarding the team-leader position I applied for].

    4. The episode when I got back from my rest-days, and Mr. Tippins had stolen the
    place I used to sit at by the campaign-table.

    He didnt use to say hi when we met [I thought that this could maybe be because of
    some English tradition, because it was a quite big step in status between our positions
    in the company].

    One day, the day of the second episode, I walked past Mr. Tippins on the sidewalk
    outside of the Cunard building. (I was on my way back from my lunch-break). I went
    passed him on the sidewalk, maybe a meter away, turned my head to say hi, but
    he only looked away/down. He didnt want to say hi.

    Recently there had been an episode (episode 4), where Mr. Tippins stole my place
    by the campaign-table while I had some rest-days, about a week before this meeting
    [28/11/06].

    [When I got back after my rest-days, I sat down at my usual place, and when Mr.
    Tippins got to work a couple of hours later.]

    He gave me an ultimatum. He said I had to move within five minutes, or else. (He
    didnt say what would happen, but I feared that I could get fired, so I thought it best
    to move to another workstation).

    And it also was an episode with the newspaper.

    And also a meeting regarding why I hadnt got any feedback on my application for
    the team-leader job.

    I was tired on the unsheduled meeting. But even I was tired, I still was focused and
    aware, because of the episodes earlier [involving Mr. Tippins,. I wasnt used to speak
    much with Mr. Tippins, so the fact that Mr. Tippins asked for an unsheduled meeting
    woke me up]. So I still remember every word from this meeting.

    When Mr. Tippins said that we didnt have a team-leader with the name of Chris
    Baines, then I at first thought that he meant that it must have been a typo
    surrounding a letter in the name, or something like that. That he was picking on
    a detail.

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

    I didnt ask any questions on this meeting, to make things more clear, because I
    had things like the problems surrounding episode three and four in the back of
    my mind.

    I thought that I had better watch out so that I didnt get even more on bad terms
    with Mr. Tippins, because I didnt want to loose my job or anything like that.

    I thought that the reasons for these questions would seem clearer to me after we
    had been having the sheduled meeting at 11.30.

    So then, when he in the meeting at 11.30 says that the team-leader in the episode
    with the extra headphones, was the same guy (I asumed the one that was least
    heavily built), then I understood that this couldnt be right.

    I thought back on the uncheduled meeting with Mr. Tippins at around 10 am, and
    remember what Mr. Tippins had been saying then, that we didnt have a team-leader
    with the name of Chris Baines.

    I hadnt taken what he said to be very important earlier, because I reconed that the
    reason of why he brought up this with the name, was because there was a problem
    regarding a technicality with the name. And I asumed that the reason for why he
    asked me if it was the small guy standing next to the big guy, would be made
    clear later.

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

    I now understood that Mr. Tippins wanted me to think that there wasnt any team-
    leader with the name of Chris Baines employed in the company.

    And when I told Mr. Tippins, that [my team-leader] Line Sletvold had told me that his
    name was Chris Baines, then Mr. Tippins must have changed strategy, it seemed,
    and wanted me then to belive that the team-leader was one of the two guys he was
    showing me.

    This was how it seemed to me.

    It was clear to me that something was wrong, but I was still uncertain because of
    the fact that they were saying that Mr. Baines didnt own a white hooded sweater.

    So later, when we were discussing the next incident, and they claimed that Mr.
    Baines behaviour when he didnt say bye, was acceptable and usual, then I
    accepted the appology from Mr. Baines regarding this, even if I thought that
    this behaviour wasnt acceptable for a team-leader.

    Tippins said that in a hectic work environment, it was often that these things
    happened. (That one ignored people and didnt say hi or bye).

    I was a bit afraid that I would end up loosing my job the way the meeting was
    going, so I therefore accepted the appology and we went on.

    Baines said that he had said bye to me once.

    I couldnt remeber this at the meeting, [but I later remembered that it must have
    been probably the Sunday, the first day after the first incident, when I sayd
    load and clear: ‘Bye’, and Baines answered: ‘See you’].

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

    [Baines, by the way, mixed up all the incidents all the time. For instance he
    mixed up the situation when he didnt say bye to me [when I was alone], with the
    incident when Osman and I finished work, and went out at the same time.

    Baines seemed unfocused and disinterested. He let Tippins and Rushby take
    charge in sorting the situation.

    Mr. Tippins and me had to all the time help Mr. Baines, and explain which
    incidents we were discussing.

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

    I noticed that he was working with the mail-bags on Sunday [26/11]. On Monday
    [27/11] he had the day off. On Tuesday[28/11], I tryed to notice if he was working,
    when I passed the Bon Prix campaign area, on the way to the toilet.

    And I also tryed to look around and see if I could see him (inbetween the phone-
    calls), butI didnt see him untill about 5 or 10 minutes before the meeting was
    starting, when he was standing [together with Tippins I think] not far from our
    campaign area.

    (Im writing this because Mr. Tippins was asking me in the unsheduled meeting
    if I had been seeing Mr. Baines at work that day.)]

    Then we started talking about the episode surrounding Mr. Baines following me
    on my way home after work.

    Baines said that he hadnt seen me turn around, even if I turned around a lot of
    times, and looked straight at him each time.

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

    How Rushby acted in the meeting:

    – Was jumping from point to point.

    – Was talking fast.

    – Was interupting.

    – Was having long, fast-speaking summaries, where she mixed together several
    things (Norwegian word: ‘Vas’), to then sneak in a conclusion that was meant
    to be a conclusion that we both agreed on.

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

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

    Time after time, I had to ask her to let me finish, to not interupt, to talk clearly
    [so that I could understand what she was saying even if Im Norwegian], and ask
    her to talk about one subject at a time.

    She was trying to confuse me, to get me out of track. All the time I had to try
    to backtrack the discusion, to try to find out what I was really trying to say,
    since she all the interupted me, and tryed to get me out of track.

    Rushby didnt take any consideration to the fact that English is only my second
    language, but was talking fast and tryed to get me out of track.

    I think it would be difficult for someone to follow her, even if they had been living
    in England all their life.

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

    And none of them brought up the point surrounding me been having problems with
    organised criminals in Oslo and Liverpool.

    Noone mentioned this.

    They seemed like they were in balance and acted naturally.

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

    And also Rushby seemed to act natural, even if she got tears in her eyes a couple
    of times, when she didnt sucseed in confusing me/getting me out of track.

    They said that Mr. Baines hadnt seen me, and was only walking the usual way
    he used to walk to the bus.

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

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

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

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

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

    He didnt need to remove any headphones. He put up a ‘stone-face’, he was looking
    unshaven, with long ‘fjones’/hair in his face, and looked a bit unrested.

    He didnt look like he recongnized me at all.

    But I recongnized him. And when I asked him if it was him that was working at
    Arvato, then he said yes.

    I again recognized, like I did when he was passing Leather Lane [the Lane where
    my flat is], that he was wearing a dark coloured parkas with a many-coloured
    (Norwegian: ‘Spraglete’) fur-colar.

    He was also wearing this jacket to work the day after, on Sunday, when he showed
    up at work at Arvato a bit before 12 oclock.]

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

    I continued to explain another reason why I found it not likely that Mr. Baines hadnt
    noticed me, people skills.

    When I was working as a store manager in Norway, and was closing the store, then
    I always tryed to remember whom I had said bye to, which way people used to
    walk home etc.

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

    Because when you are working with people, then you should have a certain amount
    of social intelligence.

    [better: one would asume that to have at least a certain amount of people skills/
    sosial inteligence would be a prerequisite to get a job as a manager.]

    [And its clear that Mr. Baines have got social inteligence/people skills. He smiles,
    has got charm/charisma, it seems to me when his speaking with other people.

    Its seems to me that other people treats him with respect, that hes seem smart,
    that hes aware. And it seems like hes got inteligence from how the look in his
    eyes look.

    It seems clear to me that he doesnt lack eighter regular or social intelligence,
    in other words, he would know how to act if he wants to [it isnt like hes challenged
    when it comes to social or regular inteligence].

    When Mr. Baines is ignoring people, and when hes not acting polite, then his
    doing this on purpose. [he isnt doing this because his challenged when it
    comes to social intelligence].

    So that Mr. Baines shouldnt be aware of the fact that it is me that is walking in
    front of him on the other side of the street, when he a minute or two earlier have
    turned off the lights at Arvato. (Been responsible for ending the shift).

    (To end the shift he needs to know things like that everybody has left the Arvato
    company area, he probably have to check that everyone has written them self
    out on the timesheet, and things like managers have to do when they close
    the Arvato work area.)

    So at this time, he has got the overview of the company-area, and knows that
    Osman and me are the last employees to leave the company-area.

    He refered to Osman in the meeting, so he knew who Osman is, and its no
    doubt that he also knows who I am.

    [Since I have been worked there much longer than Osman, and because of
    the several incidents surrounding him and me earlier, and because he from
    time to time, like this day, is the shift-leader for our campaign, when our
    campaign havent got any team-leader working on a particular shift.]
    So I dont find it probable at all that he doesnt know that its me that is walking
    in front of him.

    Its clear to me that he must know that its me that walks a bit infront of him
    when he walks out of the Cunard builidng.

    Hes walking on the other side of the street. He sees that it is me that turns
    around several times. Hes ignoring me as usual. He puts up a stone-face.

    On purpose he continues to follow me into Dale St, even it must be obvious
    to him, that I dont like that he is following me.]

    The reason that I start to turn around to see if he was walking the same way
    as me, is that I had the previous incidents with him in the back of my head.

    [I think he acted so cold in the incident when he didnt say bye, and from
    the other incident on the same day as he followed me (25/11), when Mr.
    Baines kept starring at me, without any reason, and for a long time, while
    I was working on translating to English the summary from the meeting with
    Line Sletvold 31/10/06 and 11/11/06 on the computer at my workstation by
    our campaign-table.]

    Mr. Tippins says that Mr. Baines have appologised for not saying bye, so I
    didnt have any reason to worry about this incident.

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

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

    What Mr. Baines says in the meeting today, didnt have any influence on how
    threatened I felt by the situation on Saturday, three days earlier.

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

    I also explain that even if I personaly acepted Mr. Baines’ appology [for not
    saying bye] in the beginning of the meeting, I [looking at the incident in a
    stricly professional way] thinks that Mr. Baines behaviour [in this incident]
    was unaceptable [for a team-leader].

    I explained that the manager (who works with people), is the person who is
    responsible for the communication, who is the professional in this interaction.

    So for a manager, in this very inpolite way, ignoring an employee, and dont
    want to say bye, I find unaceptable.

    Mr. Baines was also my shift-leader on this shift (since our campaign didnt
    have a team-leader on this shift) [and this makes it even less aceptable].

    Noone gives any answer to this.

    We agree that well find out if its probable that the person Mr. Tippins noded
    towards [in the unsheduled meeting 28/11/06], could be the team-leader
    in the first incident.

    The shift-plans would be studied to find out who was working on this
    specific day (the day that incident with the extra headphones happened).

    Then we were going to have a new meeting.

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

    I answered that I would continue to seek advice from indipendent
    organisations/institutions regarding how to deal with this matter.

    The meeting is over, Im writing down what we were agreeing. The other
    participants at the meeting is leaving the room while Im writing.

    Rushby enters the room again for some reason.

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

    Then we enter the hall in the 2nd floor.

    I waited to see if she would head for the stairs or the elevator. She head
    for the stairs, so I chose to take the elevator.

    Because it became a bit akward when she entered the meeting-room
    again, and I held open one or two doors for her.

    So I found it best to take the elevator, since I thought the situation
    became a bit to social-like, and I thought the situation lacked a bit of
    the distance you’d expect situations at work to have.

    I didnt quite understand the reason for why Rushby went back into the
    meeting-room again.

    She didnt say anything. She didnt explain the reason. And I couldnt see
    that she picked up anything, like something she had forgotten, eighter.

    She also used very long time, and walked very slowly in front of me,
    before it was possible for me to see if she headed for the stairs or
    the elevator.

    So I remember I found the way she behaved a bit peculiar. [thats why
    I chose to include it in the summary].

  • CONTENCE OF E-MAIL SENT TO MANAGING DIRECTOR IAN CARROL, ARVATO SERVICES
    LIVERPOOL 29/11/06

    Advice from police regarding harassment case

    Hi,

    I went to the St. Annes police office yesterday, regarding a harassment issue that
    has been happening at work and after work, involving Chris Baines, team-leader
    Bon Prix, and me.

    After I got home, the police called me, and adviced me to contact higher management
    because of the obvious problems Ive been having with this person.

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

    We had two meetings about this case at work yesterday. In one meeting, involving
    Senior team-leader Aidan Tippins and me, it seems clear to me that Mr Tippins
    was lying.

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

    I’ll send a summary from this meeting ASAP.

    In the other meeting about this harassment-case, involving Sarah Rushby, Aidan
    Tippins and Chris Baines, it seemed clear to me that they were trying to help
    him covering up.

    It was really three against one. They kept interupting me and bringing things out
    of context. They showed no interest in helping me, or see the case from my
    side. They seemed more interested in what Ive told the police.

    I’ll write a summary from this meeting aswell.

    In another harassment case, which I have contacted core-care about, Mr. Tippins
    have said that he wants to bypass the sequence of events which my line-manager
    and I had agreed on. He wanted to have a meeting about this in the near future.

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

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

    2. Line (my line-manager) and I, where to have a meeting deciding how we
    should deal with this issue further.

    Mr. Tippins is not paying regards to this agreed schedule, but wants to have the
    meeting when it suits him.

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

    Im going to translate to English a summary from a meeting with my line-manager,
    where I address several other cases.

    These issues seems clear to be serious cases of harassment and breach of
    company-policy.

    I’ll send a copy of the summary ASAP.

    I think these harassment-cases, lies, covering-up and breaching of agreements,
    are so serious, that the only responsible thing to do would be to have a meeting
    about this as soon as possible.

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

    I’ll keep being in contact with the police, core-care, and other relevant institutions,
    to get advice on how to deal with this as professional as possible.

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

    Thanks in advance and regards,

    Erik Ribsskog, MSPA.

  • Re: Re: Trenering fra myndighetene.

    Er der ingen debatsider i Norske aviser?
    Svar på dette indlæg Citér dette indlæg
    [Ikke bedømt]

    Af: ib carl d. 02/10/2007 Kl. 11:38
    Tilføj til venne-listen Send privat besked
    Klag over dette indlæg

    ib carl skrev:
    Er der ingen debatsider i Norske aviser?

    Joda, det er nok.

    Jeg har postet om det på to debattforum i Norge.

    Men jeg har ikke klart å få noe råd.

    Så men hvis det er mangelvare på plass for de nye tråder, så skal jeg se om jeg klarer å begrense med litt med den postingen.

    Så beklager det.
    Svar på dette indlæg Citér dette indlæg
    [Ikke bedømt]

    Af: johncons d. 02/10/2007 Kl. 17:08
    Tilføj til venne-listen Send privat besked
    Klag over dette indlæg

    Forresten, grunnen til at jeg dukket opp på jeres forum nå, var at jeg tenkte jeg skulle ta med en oppdatering til.

    Fordi, jeg glemte å ta med, at det også ser ut som om det er snakk om trenering/uttrekking når det gjelder en anmeldelse sent til Spesialenheten for Poltisaker.

    Dette har jeg skrevet om på et norsk debattforum, men jeg tenkte jeg kanskje kunne lenke til det forum, siden dette også er snakk om trenering/uttrekking fra myndighetene.

    Det gjelder forresten en anmeldelse av medarbeidere i Kripos (Kriminalpolitisentralen).

    Og det er denne anmeldelse, som brukes som begrunnelse, for at ikke Kripos kunne hjelpe meg å svare på de spørsmål. (Som korrespondansen med Kripos, Norge.no og Politidirektoratet i de linker tidligere i tråden omhandler).

    Så dette er vel også da forbundet med den annen trenering/uttrekking, som er forklaret mer nøyaktig tidligere i tråden.

    Her er i allefall den link:

    http://forum.tv2.no/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=189&threadid=37965

    Jeg tenkte jeg kunne poste den alikevel, selv om jeg fikk klage fordi jeg poster på dansk forum.

    Så håper det går greit!
    Svar på dette indlæg Citér dette indlæg
    [Ikke bedømt]

    Af: johncons d. 02/10/2007 Kl. 17:23
    Tilføj til venne-listen Send privat besked
    Klag over dette indlæg

    Hvis ikke præsentaton af din sag på tre blogs i to lande har lokket et sagkyndigt svar frem, må du nok vurdere, om sagen har så stor betydning i dit liv, at du vil søge en advokats hjælp.

    Hvis sagen har principiel karakter, eller det er sandsynligt, at væsentlige retssikkerhedsprincipper er krænket, kunne du henvende dig direkte til en journalist.
    Svar på dette indlæg Citér dette indlæg
    [Ikke bedømt]

    Af: Jan Kristensen d. 03/10/2007 Kl. 19:56
    Tilføj til venne-listen Send privat besked
    Klag over dette indlæg

    Jan Kristensen skrev:
    Hvis ikke præsentaton af din sag på tre blogs i to lande har lokket et sagkyndigt svar frem, må du nok vurdere, om sagen har så stor betydning i dit liv, at du vil søge en advokats hjælp.

    Hvis sagen har principiel karakter, eller det er sandsynligt, at væsentlige retssikkerhedsprincipper er krænket, kunne du henvende dig direkte til en journalist.

    Jo, det hørtes smart ut det.

    Jeg har tidligere vært i kontakt med både britiske og norske media angående en sak som ambassaden har anbefalt meg å be det britiske og norske politi samarbeide om.

    Men jeg har ikke klart å få noen interesse fra de journalister.

    Men jeg skal forsøke på nytt i forbindelse med den trenering/uttrekking.

    Det hørtes også ut som et godt råd å kontakte en advokat.

    Så jeg skal høre med den fri rettshjelp ordning, som jeg har hørt om tidligere, om de kan hjelpe.

    Så det hørtes ut som veldig bra råd.

    Så det er bra at noen vet hvordan man skal gå frem i situasjoner som dette, så det var veldig bra å få tilbakemelding.

    Og også, hvis noen har noen tips om hvordan rent praktisk går frem for å kontakte de journalister.

    Det er vel bare å ringe avisen å be om å få tale med en journalist med jus som fældt da.

    Det skal se om jeg klarer.

    Hvis det er noen som har noen tips i forbindelse så er det også kjempebra.

    Jeg skal nok klare å ringe avisen, det er ikke det jeg mener, men jeg er ikke vant til å drive med slikt som å kontakte journalister osv.

    Så hvis det er noen som har tips om dette, så på forhånd takk for hjelp i forbindelse med det.

  • Tittel på tema: Personangrep.
    Tema-Sammendrag: Fokusering på person og ikke sak.
    Skrevet: 01/10/2007 15:06
    Trådrating:
    Linjær : Trådet : Enkel : Grenet

    << 1 2 3 Forrige Siste uleste
    Trådverktøy
    Hurtigsvar
    Bli varslet på dette temaet
    Send temaet på e-post
    Legg temate til i favoritter
    Skriv ut dette temaet.

    03/10/2007 04:24

    cons
    Vikar

    Innlegg: 101
    Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

    Vi tar med enda en oppdatering mens jeg er i farta:

    Her er en annen definisjon på trakassering (harassment):

    ‘Unsolicited words or conduct which tend to annoy, alarm or abuse another person. An excellent alternate definition can be found in Canadian human rights legislation as: “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” Name-calling (“stupid”, “retard” or “dummy”) is a common form of harassment.’.

    link

    Skal vi prøve å oversette den.

    Jeg synes på slutten av setningen så enkel ut, når det gjelder bruk av definisjonen i praksis.

    Så jeg forsøker meg litt på den:

    “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” Name-calling (“stupid”, “retard” or “dummy”) is a common form of harassment.’.

    Ordet ‘vexatious’ var litt vrient, så jeg fant en definisjon: link

    ‘Plagsomme/irriterende/ergende/ondskapsfulle komentarer eller oppførsel, som er kjent, eller rimeligvis burde være kjent, for å være uvelkomne.

    Navn-kalling: (‘dumming’, ‘sinke, tilbakestående’ eller ‘teiting’) er en vanlig form for trakassering.’.

    Sånn, da fikk vi med enda mer på trakassering, så det er jo greit å ha flere definisjoner tenkte jeg.

    Det er vel ofte man lærer mer om ting, hvis man ser på dem fra forskjellige synsvinkler, eller hva man skal kalle det.

    Så jeg tenkte det var greit å ta med.

    Redigert: 03/10/2007 kl 05:59 av cons

    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn : Rediger

    03/10/2007 11:09

    thorsteinar
    Heltidsansatt

    Innlegg: 242
    Ble medlem: 02/09/2007

    Her på forumet er det forumreglene som gjelder og admin som bestemmer hva som skal slettes. Forumreglene skulle du ha lest igjennom da du registrerte deg som medlem her. Gjorde du ikke det, cons?

    ————————-
    De røde kaller meg rasist. Det stemmer ikke. Jeg er realist. Er sosialister og antirasister unntatt fra å vise folkeskikk?
    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn

    03/10/2007 11:16

    Fatale
    Avdelingssjef

    Innlegg: 1651
    Ble medlem: 26/01/2007

    Originally posted by: cons

    Så glemte kanskje å skrive at fra nå av, så skal jeg begynne å raportere innlegg hvis jeg finner at de bryter mot definisjonen av trakassering i posten ovenfor.

    Fint. Ta det direkte med admin, så slipper vi andre å høre på.

    Takk!
    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn

    03/10/2007 12:46

    cons
    Vikar

    Innlegg: 101
    Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

    Originally posted by: Fatale

    Originally posted by: cons

    Så glemte kanskje å skrive at fra nå av, så skal jeg begynne å raportere innlegg hvis jeg finner at de bryter mot definisjonen av trakassering i posten ovenfor.

    Fint. Ta det direkte med admin, så slipper vi andre å høre på.

    Takk!

    Jeg mente det som en ny oppsumering da.

    Temaet i tråden, var jo at jeg spurte om råd, om hvordan man burde takle problemet med fokusering på person istedet for sak.

    Så har jeg prøvd underveis i tråden, å oppsumere, hvilke av rådene jeg har tatt til meg og som jeg ønsker å bruke som rettesnor
    ved lignende episoder.

    Så jeg har egentlig prøvd å oppsumere produktet av de konstruktive bidragene i tråden. Siden jeg er trådstarter mener jeg, så
    burde vel det være greit?
    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn : Rediger

    03/10/2007 12:53

    cons
    Vikar

    Innlegg: 101
    Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

    Originally posted by: thorsteinar

    Her på forumet er det forumreglene som gjelder og admin som bestemmer hva som skal slettes. Forumreglene skulle du ha lest igjennom da du registrerte deg som medlem her. Gjorde du ikke det, cons?

    Jeg gjentar, tema for tråden, var at jeg ba om generelle råd fra andre debattanter, om hvordan man skulle forholde seg til personangrep (fokusering på person istedet for sak) i praksis.

    Om noen hadde noen gode råd på dette punktet.

    Så jeg kan ikke se at det er noe galt i spørre om råd om det.

    Altså praktiske tips, om hvordan man skal forholde seg til ‘plagsomme’ debattanter.

    Debattanter som diskuterer person istedet for sak.

    På samme måte som du gjør selv: ‘Forumreglene skulle du ha lest igjennom da du registrerte deg som medlem her. Gjorde du ikke det, cons?’.

    Det går på person.

    Sånne spørsmål er det vel bare Admin som har lov å spørre.

    Og du spør på en ovenfra og ned aktig måte synes jeg.

    Så du spørr litt som om du var forum-politi, synes jeg.

    Fordi, det er vel strengt tatt ikke din business, om hva jeg har lest eller ikke?

    Det er itte no du har no med.

    Det er jo mulig å ta en kikk på de andre postene i tråden, så burde det være mulig å ting som tema osv. i de postene.

    Men hvis du fortsetter å diskutere sak, så skal jeg fortsatte å svare på postene dine.
    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn : Rediger

    03/10/2007 13:21

    cons
    Vikar

    Innlegg: 101
    Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

    Originally posted by: cons

    Ja for å oppsumere og oppdatere litt til.

    Så glemte kanskje å skrive at fra nå av, så skal jeg begynne å raportere innlegg hvis jeg finner at de bryter mot definisjonen av trakassering i posten ovenfor.

    Så da starter jeg med det fra nå.

    Så da har jeg i hvertfall sagt fra.

    Altså, det jeg mente her, var å forklare at nå hadde jeg fått råd, så nå skulle jeg begynne å følge rådene da.

    Sånn at det ikke var noe tvil om det.

    I tilfelle noen trodde at siden temaet på tråden var ‘Personangrep’, så var tråden en slags frisone.

    Så oppsumerte jeg, bare for å feie vekk all tvil på dette punktet.

    Men jeg skal se om jeg får skrevet en bedre ‘slutt-oppdatering’ eller en slags konklusjon etterhvert.

    Men en ting kom jeg på.

    Hva hvis man vil gi en advarsel til en debattant, er det i orden eller?

    Jeg mener advarsler er jo utenfor saken stort sett i alle tråder.

    Så det er kanskje en dårlig ide å gi advarsler?

    Er det for eksempel lov å skrive: ‘Nå gikk du over streken for personangrep/trakassering, så hvis det gjentar
    seg, så rapporterer jeg det neste gang.’

    Så får vi se om det kommer mange konstruktive bidrag om dette.
    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn : Rediger

    03/10/2007 13:23

    Fatale
    Avdelingssjef

    Innlegg: 1651
    Ble medlem: 26/01/2007

    Du kjeder folk til døde. Ta det direkte med admin heller, du.
    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn

    03/10/2007 13:25

    cons
    Vikar

    Innlegg: 101
    Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

    Originally posted by: Fatale

    Du kjeder folk til døde. Ta det direkte med admin heller, du.

    Ja, nå sier du at jeg er kjedelig.

    Det er en negativ karateristikk.

    Det er trakassering.

    I vente av råd om hvordan man bør gjøre det med advarsler, så gir jeg deg en advarsel nå, om at neste gang jeg synes du går over streken, så rapporterer jeg deg, og setter deg på ignore.

  • Tittel på tema: Personangrep.
    Tema-Sammendrag: Fokusering på person og ikke sak.
    Skrevet: 01/10/2007 15:06
    Trådrating:
    Linjær : Trådet : Enkel : Grenet

    << 1 2 3 Forrige Siste uleste
    Trådverktøy
    Hurtigsvar
    Bli varslet på dette temaet
    Send temaet på e-post
    Legg temate til i favoritter
    Skriv ut dette temaet.

    03/10/2007 04:24

    cons
    Vikar

    Innlegg: 99
    Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

    Vi tar med enda en oppdatering mens jeg er i farta:

    Her er en annen definisjon på trakassering (harassment):

    ‘Unsolicited words or conduct which tend to annoy, alarm or abuse another person. An excellent alternate definition can be found in Canadian human rights legislation as: “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” Name-calling (“stupid”, “retard” or “dummy”) is a common form of harassment.’.

    link

    Skal vi prøve å oversette den.

    Jeg synes på slutten av setningen så enkel ut, når det gjelder bruk av definisjonen i praksis.

    Så jeg forsøker meg litt på den:

    “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” Name-calling (“stupid”, “retard” or “dummy”) is a common form of harassment.’.

    Ordet ‘vexatious’ var litt vrient, så jeg fant en definisjon: link

    ‘Plagsomme/irriterende/ergende/ondskapsfulle komentarer eller oppførsel, som er kjent, eller rimeligvis burde være kjent, for å være uvelkomne.

    Navn-kalling: (‘dumming’, ‘sinke, tilbakestående’ eller ‘teiting’) er en vanlig form for trakassering.’.

    Sånn, da fikk vi med enda mer på trakassering, så det er jo greit å ha flere definisjoner tenkte jeg.

    Det er vel ofte man lærer mer om ting, hvis man ser på dem fra forskjellige synsvinkler, eller hva man skal kalle det.

    Så jeg tenkte det var greit å ta med.

    Redigert: 03/10/2007 kl 05:59 av cons

    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn : Rediger

    03/10/2007 11:09

    thorsteinar
    Heltidsansatt

    Innlegg: 242
    Ble medlem: 02/09/2007

    Her på forumet er det forumreglene som gjelder og admin som bestemmer hva som skal slettes. Forumreglene skulle du ha lest igjennom da du registrerte deg som medlem her. Gjorde du ikke det, cons?

    ————————-
    De røde kaller meg rasist. Det stemmer ikke. Jeg er realist. Er sosialister og antirasister unntatt fra å vise folkeskikk?
    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn

    03/10/2007 11:16

    Fatale
    Avdelingssjef

    Innlegg: 1650
    Ble medlem: 26/01/2007

    Originally posted by: cons

    Så glemte kanskje å skrive at fra nå av, så skal jeg begynne å raportere innlegg hvis jeg finner at de bryter mot definisjonen av trakassering i posten ovenfor.

    Fint. Ta det direkte med admin, så slipper vi andre å høre på.

    Takk!
    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn

    03/10/2007 12:46

    cons
    Vikar

    Innlegg: 99
    Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

    Originally posted by: Fatale

    Originally posted by: cons

    Så glemte kanskje å skrive at fra nå av, så skal jeg begynne å raportere innlegg hvis jeg finner at de bryter mot definisjonen av trakassering i posten ovenfor.

    Fint. Ta det direkte med admin, så slipper vi andre å høre på.

    Takk!

    Jeg mente det som en ny oppsumering da.

    Temaet i tråden, var jo at jeg spurte om råd, om hvordan man burde takle problemet med fokusering på person istedet for sak.

    Så har jeg prøvd underveis i tråden, å oppsumere, hvilke av rådene jeg har tatt til meg og som jeg ønsker å bruke som rettesnor
    ved lignende episoder.

    Så jeg har egentlig prøvd å oppsumere produktet av de konstruktive bidragene i tråden. Siden jeg er trådstarter mener jeg, så
    burde vel det være greit?
    Rapporter dette til en ModeratorSvar : Sitat : Topp : Bunn : Rediger

    03/10/2007 12:53

    cons
    Vikar

    Innlegg: 99
    Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

    Originally posted by: thorsteinar

    Her på forumet er det forumreglene som gjelder og admin som bestemmer hva som skal slettes. Forumreglene skulle du ha lest igjennom da du registrerte deg som medlem her. Gjorde du ikke det, cons?

    Jeg gjentar, tema for tråden, var at jeg ba om generelle råd fra andre debattanter, om hvordan man skulle forholde seg til personangrep (fokusering på person istedet for sak) i praksis.

    Om noen hadde noen gode råd på dette punktet.

    Så jeg kan ikke se at det er noe galt i spørre om råd om det.

    Altså praktiske tips, om hvordan man skal forholde seg til ‘plagsomme’ debattanter.

    Debattanter som diskuterer person istedet for sak.

    På samme måte som du gjør selv: ‘Forumreglene skulle du ha lest igjennom da du registrerte deg som medlem her. Gjorde du ikke det, cons?’.

    Det går på person.

    Sånne spørsmål er det vel bare Admin som har lov å spørre.

    Og du spør på en ovenfra og ned aktig måte synes jeg.

    Så du spørr litt som om du var forum-politi, synes jeg.

    Fordi, det er vel strengt tatt ikke din business, om hva jeg har lest eller ikke?

    Det er itte no du har no med.

    Det er jo mulig å ta en kikk på de andre postene i tråden, så burde det være mulig å ting som tema osv. i de postene.

    Men hvis du fortsetter å diskutere sak, så skal jeg fortsatte å svare på postene dine.

  • Tittel på tema: Er Grunnloven ødelagt?
    Tema-Sammendrag: Har dårlig merking av endringer ødelagt Grunnloven?
    Skrevet: 03/10/2007 12:19
    Linjær : Trådet : Enkel : Grenet

    Trådverktøy
    Hurtigsvar
    Bli varslet på dette temaet
    Send temaet på e-post
    Legg temate til i favoritter
    Skriv ut dette temaet.

    03/10/2007 12:19

    cons
    Vikar

    Innlegg: 97
    Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

    link

    link

    Øverst ser vi et utsnitt fra Grunnloven.

    Nederst fra Wikipedia. (Jeg skal komme tilbake til det senere).

    Hva vi kan se fra utsnittet av grunnloven (eks.: § 12.).

    §12, har blitt endret i 1873, 1891, 1905, 1916, 1919, 1975 og i 2006.

    (Hvis jeg har skønt systemet som brukes for angi oppdateringer riktig).

    Men problemet som jeg ser det, er at hvordan kan man se hva som er endret i f.eks. 1873?

    Hva er det som er igjen, som er orginalt fra 1814?

    Hva er fra 2006?

    Hva er fra 1975?

    Ja dere skjønner sikkert poenget.

    Fordi, i tillegg til, (såvidt jeg skjønner det), at det ikke er merket på noen måte, hvilken tekst som er orginal fra 1814, hva av teksten som er fra 1916, og 1975 osv.

    I tillegg til dette ikke er merket.

    Så har man, for å gjøre forvirringen komplett, tatt i bruk et prinsipp kalt ‘Grunnlovskonservatisme’.

    (Jeg søkte på Google nå, og da fikk jeg opp en artikkel som en kar som heter Rasch har skrevet i Aftenposten i år 2000, som vel går mye på samme tema, så jeg tar med en link til den artikkelen: link).

    Jeg søkte egentlig på ‘Grunnlovskonservatisme’, men når jeg skumleste i den artikkelen, så så jeg at Grunnlovskonservatisme betyr at man endrer minst mulig på Grunnloven.

    Og hvis vi kikker på eksempelet øverst på siden, så ser vi at §12, har blitt endret syv ganger siden 1814.

    Og jeg så i den artikkelen, at Grunnloven total har blitt endret ca. 200 ganger siden 1814.

    Og disse endringene kan man ikke, (såvidt jeg har forstått), skille ut fra orginal teksten fra 1814.

    Grunnen er at man i alle oppdateringene, har brukt noe som i den artikkelen ble kalt ‘antikvert språk’.

    Det betyr, at selv om oppdateringen, er utført i f.eks. 1975, eller 2006, så bruker man fortsatt et 1814-aktig språk, når man skriver inn endringene.

    Så, for en person, sånn som jeg gjorde, som kikker over grunnloven f.eks. på nettet.

    Også begynner man å lure, hva er nytt og hva er gammelt her da?

    Er den linjen fra 2006, eller er den fra 1814?

    Ikke mulig å finne ut. (Såvidt meg bekjent).

    I allefall ikke ved å lese loven på nettet, f.eks. fra linken under eksempelet-bilde fra §12.

    Hvis man ser på bildet fra Wikipedia, så virker det som om endringene som foretas der, er bedre dokumenter enn endringene i Grunnloven.

    Fordi, på Wikipedia, så kan man se nøyaktig hvilke ord som er forrandret, man kan se hvem som forrandret det, og man kan se tidpunktet for når de bestemte ordene ble endret.

    Dette, er meg bekjent, ikke mulig i Grunnloven. (Hvis det ikke finnes en spesiell versjon, som er bedre dokumentert, et eller annet sted. Men da burde den vel egentlig ha vært mulig å finne på nettet skulle man tro).

    Så da er spørsmålet, har alle de 200 endringene, den manglende forklaringen over hva som er endret når, samt den gammeldagse 1814-språkstilen, som er brukt i alle oppdateringene, har de ødelagt Grunnloven?

    I den artikkelen jeg har linket til over, så skrev han artikkelforfatteren at han syntes Grunnloven burde være mer enn et symbol.

    Så det virker som om han redd for at den var i ferd med å miste sin reelle betydning, og kun har symbol-verdien tilbake.

    Men det er sikkert andre som har andre meninger, så det fint hvis mange har bidrag, som kan hjelpe til å klare opp i dette.

  • 03/10/2007 04:24

    cons
    Vikar

    Innlegg: 96
    Ble medlem: 01/09/2007

    Vi tar med enda en oppdatering mens jeg er i farta:

    Her er en annen definisjon på trakassering (harassment):

    ‘Unsolicited words or conduct which tend to annoy, alarm or abuse another person. An excellent alternate definition can be found in Canadian human rights legislation as: “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” Name-calling (“stupid”, “retard” or “dummy”) is a common form of harassment.’.

    link

    Skal vi prøve å oversette den.

    Jeg synes på slutten av setningen så enkel ut, når det gjelder bruk av definisjonen i praksis.

    Så jeg forsøker meg litt på den:

    “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” Name-calling (“stupid”, “retard” or “dummy”) is a common form of harassment.’.

    Ordet ‘vexatious’ var litt vrient, så jeg fant en definisjon: link

    ‘Plagsomme/irriterende/ergende/ondskapsfulle komentarer eller oppførsel, som er kjent, eller burde rimeligvis være kjent, for å være uvelkomne.

    Navn-kalling: (‘dumming’, ‘sinke, tilbakestående’ eller ‘teiting’) er en vanlig form for trakassering.’.

    Sånn, da fikk vi med enda mer på trakassering, så det er jo greit å ha flere definisjoner tenkte jeg.

    Det er vel ofte man lærer mer om ting, hvis man ser på dem fra forskjellige synsvinkler, eller hva man skal kalle det.

    Så jeg tenkte det var greit å ta med.

    Redigert: 03/10/2007 kl 05:06 av cons

'Bokhylla' 70-tallet 80-tallet 90-tallet Anmeldelse Arne Mogan Olsen Berger Bergeråsen Brev Christell Humblen Dagbladet.no Datatilsynet Drammen E-post Facebook Google Haldis Humblen Hm Identitetstyveri Ingeborg Ribsskog irc Jobbsøking i England Johannes Ribsskog johncons-blogg Karen Ribsskog Klage Larvik Liverpool Magne Winnem Mobilbilder Musikk Nettmobbing Online trakassering Oppdatering Oslo Pia Ribsskog Politiet Rimi Slektsforskning StatCounter Svelvik Twitter Wikipedia YouTube Ågot Mogan Olsen