johncons

Stikkord: Citizens Advice Bureau. (CAB).

  • Erik met Illuminati(?)-girl Diana from Lithuania, on town, in Liverpool. It seems to be to do with the hair-colour

    Erik met Illuminati(?)-girl Diana from Lithuania, on town, in Liverpool. It seems to be to do with the hair-colour
































































    I met Diana from Lithuania and her two friends, one boy and one girl, right after Krazy House closed.

    They asked me if I were from Scottland, but I said I was from Oslo in Norway.

    And I asked them if they were form Scottland, but she said they were from England, except her, who was from Lithuania.

    Then she didn’t want to speak with me, since I was from Norway, I think it must have been.

    That she reacted on this, and said bye Mr. Oslo.

    I went down to the Krazy House again, since I had been there.

    And there I chatted with some people.

    And then those three were there as well.

    I was going the same way since I had been at the Krazy House, just before, I was just taking a ‘leak’ so to speak.

    And then she shoke hands with me and a guy called Alex.

    The girl, who said her name was Diana, had blond hair, covered by a hat.

    She said to my face, after we had shook hands, Alex, her and me, that Alex was better than me since he had darker hair.

    I asked her, what hair-colour would you say that this is.

    (Refering to my hair).

    Then she asked me if I was the guy from Oslo.

    Before this we had discussed if Lituania was in the EU, which the girl, who said her name was Diana, said it was.

    Lituania was in the EU.

    But I remember clearly, even if I’ve been drinking, that she said, Alex was better since he had darker hair.

    And she made fun of me, when we shook hands, and wanted to interduce herself twice, with Alex.

    And she didn’t like me, since I was from Norway, and Oslo, like I said, I got the impression of.

    So Norway seems to be a bit surrounded, I’d say, by Illuminati EU(?)-countries.

    That have a war against the people who don’t have dark hair.

    And the blonde-haired women, like the Lituanian girl, Diana, are also involved in this war.

    So it’s the men in Norway, who haven’t got dark hair, against the rest of the world almost, I’d say, that it can seem like sometimes.

    We’ll see.

    PS.

    I think this must be the Lithuanian (Illuminati?) girl, Diana, (and Alex(?):

    PS 2.

    When the Lithuanian girl found out that I was the guy from Oslo.

    Right after that.

    Then this girl appeared and started touching me on the arm etc., even if I hadn’t seen her before.

    As if to distract me or something, almost.

    I said that she looked ‘fruitful’, or something, and then she didn’t say anything more:

    What happened next was that the Lithuanian girl, and her two English friends, went to these girls.

    They supported Everton, they said.

    And the guy on the picture, I think he was the Liverpool-supporter, and he started going on about how much he hated Everton etc.

    I said I was from Norway.

    Then the girls said something, (that I was queer?), and they went away.

    I was really speaking to the girls, about the Lithuanian girl etc., if they had been rude, because I saw them talking with these girls.

    I started mentioning the FA-cup, since he was so rude, later on.

    I explained that I was from Norway.

    And then he said I should have supported Liverpool since most Norwegians do.

    I didn’t want to explain about why I started to support Everton etc.

    (It was to do with football-games being shown on Norwegian television when I was about seven years old.

    So it isn’t that special really, to explain about.

    But my mother agreed that Everton were good, that they were a good/fine team to support, and that I could support them.

    (My mother was at the first floor in our house in Mellomhagen, where the TV was, and also my sister.

    Even if they usually weren’t close to the TV on Saturday afternoons.

    So this was maybe a bit strange, that they hang around, when the football was on the telly.

    Because they never used to care much about sports).

    And Everton beat Coventry 6-0 in that game, in 1977/78, I think, and at that time, some people.

    The nephew of the guy who ownes Grans brewery, I think he was, a guy at my age then, living with his mother in Stavern.

    They asked me if I supported Manchester or Nottingham, I think it was.

    But I was mostly supporting Norway, in skiing, fotball, ice-skayting, etc., that was on TV.

    I wasn’t that into English football.

    But, after the nephew of the brewery owner asked.

    Then I though I also had to have a favourite team, in English football.

    I didn’t want to have the same favorite team, as the guys in Stavern.

    So, when the football was on NRK, on Saturdays, at 4. pm in Norway.

    Then I was really looking for a team to support, that shouldn’t be Manchester or Nottingham.

    And then Everton beat Coventry 6-0, that day, so then I started to support Everton.

    Really from about the first goal, or I liked Everton best, since the game was on Goodison etc., and I remember the commentator on NRK explaining that it was a good day for football at Goodison etc.

    So I didn’t go in to that.

    And I left the group alone, it was the three people on the picture, and a mate of them, with blond hair.

    I just thought I had to mention something about the FA-cup, since I thought the Liverpool-supporter was a bit inpolite, when he explained about his hate of Everton, and he went a bit close, when he wanted me to explain about why I supported Everton.

    And he made a point of that Liverpool did it well in Premiere League, so then I thought I could make a point of that Everton did it quite well at least, in the FA-cup.

    But usually I never discuss fotball, when I’m out.

    Because it’s a bit dumb, I think almost, for me, from Norway, to discus English football.

    But the girls started talking about football, and the guy followed up on that, so it just escalated.

    So that’s how that was.

    PS 3.

    I think what went on in Dale St.

    I heard what the guys who had a meeting or something, in Dale St., by the ambulance said.

    They said he started it.

    Were they a muslim mob or something?

    I went around the block, because I’m a bit restless sometimes, from being unemployed etc.

    And then a taxi showed up.

    And a guy shouted at me, through the right window, I think it must have been.

    ‘Hey you’, or something.

    Several times.

    But I didn’t really understand why they wanted to speak with me.

    I couldn’t see anyone that I knew there.

    But I think the person shouting looked like he was from a muslim country etc., like Pakistan, or something.

    Something like that.

    But I didn’t go to the taxi, since I didn’t know what it was about.

    And I hadn’t ordered a taxi, so I didn’t really understand what it was about.

    The police-men there, they haven’t got the regular uniforms, that the British Police use, which are yellow.

    I wonder if these could be Special Force?

    Beat’s me.

    These have the same uniforms that Sgt. Camel and his collegue had, back in 2007, when I went to the Merseyside police, with the Arvato-case, and when the police lied and said that the CAB were government etc.

    So that’s how this is.

  • Erik met Illuminati(?)-girl Diana from Lithuania, on town, in Liverpool. It seems to be to do with the hair-colour

    Erik met Illuminati(?)-girl Diana from Lithuania, on town, in Liverpool. It seems to be to do with the hair-colour
































































    I met Diana from Lithuania and her two friends, one boy and one girl, right after Krazy House closed.

    They asked me if I were from Scottland, but I said I was from Oslo in Norway.

    And I asked them if they were form Scottland, but she said they were from England, except her, who was from Lithuania.

    Then she didn’t want to speak with me, since I was from Norway, I think it must have been.

    That she reacted on this, and said bye Mr. Oslo.

    I went down to the Krazy House again, since I had been there.

    And there I chatted with some people.

    And then those three were there as well.

    I was going the same way since I had been at the Krazy House, just before, I was just taking a ‘leak’ so to speak.

    And then she shoke hands with me and a guy called Alex.

    The girl, who said her name was Diana, had blond hair, covered by a hat.

    She said to my face, after we had shook hands, Alex, her and me, that Alex was better than me since he had darker hair.

    I asked her, what hair-colour would you say that this is.

    (Refering to my hair).

    Then she asked me if I was the guy from Oslo.

    Before this we had discussed if Lituania was in the EU, which the girl, who said her name was Diana, said it was.

    Lituania was in the EU.

    But I remember clearly, even if I’ve been drinking, that she said, Alex was better since he had darker hair.

    And she made fun of me, when we shook hands, and wanted to interduce herself twice, with Alex.

    And she didn’t like me, since I was from Norway, and Oslo, like I said, I got the impression of.

    So Norway seems to be a bit surrounded, I’d say, by Illuminati EU(?)-countries.

    That have a war against the people who don’t have dark hair.

    And the blonde-haired women, like the Lituanian girl, Diana, are also involved in this war.

    So it’s the men in Norway, who haven’t got dark hair, against the rest of the world almost, I’d say, that it can seem like sometimes.

    We’ll see.

    PS.

    I think this must be the Lithuanian (Illuminati?) girl, Diana, (and Alex(?):

    PS 2.

    When the Lithuanian girl found out that I was the guy from Oslo.

    Right after that.

    Then this girl appeared and started touching me on the arm etc., even if I hadn’t seen her before.

    As if to distract me or something, almost.

    I said that she looked ‘fruitful’, or something, and then she didn’t say anything more:

    What happened next was that the Lithuanian girl, and her two English friends, went to these girls.

    They supported Everton, they said.

    And the guy on the picture, I think he was the Liverpool-supporter, and he started going on about how much he hated Everton etc.

    I said I was from Norway.

    Then the girls said something, (that I was queer?), and they went away.

    I was really speaking to the girls, about the Lithuanian girl etc., if they had been rude, because I saw them talking with these girls.

    I started mentioning the FA-cup, since he was so rude, later on.

    I explained that I was from Norway.

    And then he said I should have supported Liverpool since most Norwegians do.

    I didn’t want to explain about why I started to support Everton etc.

    (It was to do with football-games being shown on Norwegian television when I was about seven years old.

    So it isn’t that special really, to explain about.

    But my mother agreed that Everton were good, that they were a good/fine team to support, and that I could support them.

    (My mother was at the first floor in our house in Mellomhagen, where the TV was, and also my sister.

    Even if they usually weren’t close to the TV on Saturday afternoons.

    So this was maybe a bit strange, that they hang around, when the football was on the telly.

    Because they never used to care much about sports).

    And Everton beat Coventry 6-0 in that game, in 1977/78, I think, and at that time, some people.

    The nephew of the guy who ownes Grans brewery, I think he was, a guy at my age then, living with his mother in Stavern.

    They asked me if I supported Manchester or Nottingham, I think it was.

    But I was mostly supporting Norway, in skiing, fotball, ice-skayting, etc., that was on TV.

    I wasn’t that into English football.

    But, after the nephew of the brewery owner asked.

    Then I though I also had to have a favourite team, in English football.

    I didn’t want to have the same favorite team, as the guys in Stavern.

    So, when the football was on NRK, on Saturdays, at 4. pm in Norway.

    Then I was really looking for a team to support, that shouldn’t be Manchester or Nottingham.

    And then Everton beat Coventry 6-0, that day, so then I started to support Everton.

    Really from about the first goal, or I liked Everton best, since the game was on Goodison etc., and I remember the commentator on NRK explaining that it was a good day for football at Goodison etc.

    So I didn’t go in to that.

    And I left the group alone, it was the three people on the picture, and a mate of them, with blond hair.

    I just thought I had to mention something about the FA-cup, since I thought the Liverpool-supporter was a bit inpolite, when he explained about his hate of Everton, and he went a bit close, when he wanted me to explain about why I supported Everton.

    And he made a point of that Liverpool did it well in Premiere League, so then I thought I could make a point of that Everton did it quite well at least, in the FA-cup.

    But usually I never discuss fotball, when I’m out.

    Because it’s a bit dumb, I think almost, for me, from Norway, to discus English football.

    But the girls started talking about football, and the guy followed up on that, so it just escalated.

    So that’s how that was.

    PS 3.

    I think what went on in Dale St.

    I heard what the guys who had a meeting or something, in Dale St., by the ambulance said.

    They said he started it.

    Were they a muslim mob or something?

    I went around the block, because I’m a bit restless sometimes, from being unemployed etc.

    And then a taxi showed up.

    And a guy shouted at me, through the right window, I think it must have been.

    ‘Hey you’, or something.

    Several times.

    But I didn’t really understand why they wanted to speak with me.

    I couldn’t see anyone that I knew there.

    But I think the person shouting looked like he was from a muslim country etc., like Pakistan, or something.

    Something like that.

    But I didn’t go to the taxi, since I didn’t know what it was about.

    And I hadn’t ordered a taxi, so I didn’t really understand what it was about.

    The police-men there, they haven’t got the regular uniforms, that the British Police use, which are yellow.

    I wonder if these could be Special Force?

    Beat’s me.

    These have the same uniforms that Sgt. Camel and his collegue had, back in 2007, when I went to the Merseyside police, with the Arvato-case, and when the police lied and said that the CAB were government etc.

    So that’s how this is.

  • Reminder to the Citizens Advice Bureau







    Google Mail – Reminder/Fwd: New Complaint







    Google Mail



    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>




    Reminder/Fwd: New Complaint





    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>





    Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:56 AM





    To:

    saffron.follows@citizensadvice.org.uk



    Hi,

    I can’t see that I’ve recieved an answer about this yet, so I’m

    sending this reminder.

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    ———- Forwarded message ———-

    From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

    Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:52 AM

    Subject: New Complaint

    To: "Follows, Saffron" <saffron.follows@citizensadvice.org.uk>

    Hi,

    I’m sending you a new complaint.

    The CAB has set me up with a ‘Duty Solicitior’ and an ‘Employment Duty

    Solicitor’, for meetings.

    But the Legal Services Commission told me today, on the phone, that

    there is no Duty Solicitor scheme for employment-cases.

    On Wikipedia, it says, that Duty Solicitiors are for people being

    accused of a crime.

    But I just wanted to bring up an employment-case, against a former employer.

    I was wondering if you could please help me with making this clear,

    because then I’d know how to go on

    with dealing with the problems with the Solicitors and more.

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    ———- Forwarded message ———-

    From: Kristian Khan <KristianKhan@liverpoolcab.org>

    Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:02 PM

    Subject: RE:

    To: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

    Mr Ribsskog

    Please acept my apologies for the dealy in replying to you – I have

    been out of the office for 2 weeks.

    Should you wish to contact the Chair then you would need to send you

    email to: bureau@liverpoolcab.org

    Regards

    KRISTIAN KHAN

    GENERAL UNIT COORDINATOR

    ________________________________

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

    Sent: 08 October 2007 01:01

    To: Kristian Khan

    Subject: Re:

    Hi,

    I tryed to send your organisation an e-mail, to the e-mail address,

    that is on your website (http://www.liverpoolcab.org/),

    but the e-mail wasn’t working, that’s why I’m sending e-mail.

    I was just wondering, to which e-mail address, I should send to, if I

    wanted to contact the Chair, Liverpool Central CAB.

    Thanks in advance for the reply!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    On 9/6/07, Kristian Khan <KristianKhan@liverpoolcab.org> wrote:

    >

    > Dear Mr Ribsskog.

    >

    > I am contacting you with regard to the complaint that you submitted to Saffron Follows, Citizens Advice complaints and policy officer, on 23rd May 2007.  I have now been able to undertake an investigation into the issues that you raised and my finding are detailed below.

    >

    >

    >

    > I understand that you attended the Bureau on 27th February 2007 and saw our Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool on a free first interview basis about a harassment at work issue.  Ms Pool completed a B ureau Legal Information Service sheet in which she advised you that you possibly may have a claim for harassment but there was insufficient time to obtain full details and you would benefit from speaking to someone who could advise on criminal aspect as well. Ms Pool took the case back to her firm, Morecrofts. You state that on 28th February you received a letter from Eleanor Pool informing  you that they could take on the case at a cost of £140 per hour.  I take the the view that any action taken by a solicitor after we have facilitated a free first 1/2 hour interview is not our concern – these concerns would need to be addressed to the solicitor directly and therefore I do not concede that the Bureau is responsible for this

    >

    >

    >

    > On 5th April 2007 you had an appointment to see an Employment Duty Solicitor from EAD at 1.30pm.  EAD rang shortly before  your appointment to say that unfortunately no one from the firm was available to attend.  As this phonecall was received very close to 1.30pm you arrived minutes later.  (From my recollection the preceding client/s had failed to attend anyway).

    >

    >

    >

    > As is common practice I apologized to you explaining that it was not our fault and provided you with the phone number of EAD so that you could contact them yourself to arrange an appointment with them to replace the cancelled on of 5th April 2007.

    >

    >

    >

    > You state in your complaint that you rang EAD and spoke to Michael Reiner who took details of the case and advised  you that you were outside of the 3-month time limit to commence employment tribunal proceedings and that only in very limited circumstances could this time limit be extended.   You further state that you enquired about Legal Aid over the phone but Mr Reiner advised that he could not provide advice on this over the phone.

    >

    >

    >

    > As far as I am concerned you did received a free initial interview from EAD, ableit in telephone form, so as such I do not feel that  the Bureau was at fault.

    >

    >

    >

    > ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    >

    >

    >

    > Below I have taken each of the individual points that you made (in bold) and offered my response to each.  I have copied and pasted the complainant’s points from the actual email complaint made by you.

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > 1. I think the CAB should have set up a new meeting between the duty

    >

    > solicitor and myself, when the duty solicitor canceled the scheduled

    >

    > meeting there on 05/04/07.

    >

    >

    >

    > I did not set up a new meeting because the next employment duty solicitor slot was not until 24th April and that was fully booked.  Therefore the next appt. would have been at some point in May and I was reluctant to leave things this long as I was aware (without knowing the details of the case) that time limits may have been evident.  Furthermore, when Duty Sols. cancel they invariable see/speak to those clients at our request who were booked either on the same day or shortly after.

    >

    >

    >

    > 2. I think they should have informed me about the name of the duty

    >

    > solicitor that canceled the meeting. They didnt do this even if I asked

    >

    > them about this twice.

    >

    >

    >

    > We did not know the name; indeed we do not habitually know the names – the firms send different people and it was the firm who rang to cancel saying that no one from the firm was available to attend.

    >

    >

    >

    > 3. I dont think the CAB should have adivised me to contact the duty

    >

    > solicitors firm EAD on the phone on 5/4, since one needs to go through

    >

    > the documents of the case in detail, to see if one are eligable for legal

    >

    > aid. Which was what the scheduled meeting was supposed to be about.

    >

    >

    >

    > Please see response to Question 1 – furthermore we do not take responsibility for advising clients on their legal aid entitlements at the Reception desk at the time of booking a Duty Solicitor appt – this is why people are referred to the solicitor if they require specialist advice .

    >

    >

    >

    > 4. I dont think the CAB, like they for the meeting on 5/4, should set

    >

    > me up for a meeting with a Solicitors firms (EAD), that aren’t based

    >

    > in Liverpool.  The Solicitor-firms that they set up to do task of Duty Solicitor

    >

    > representaton, should be based in Liverpool, for practical reasons,

    >

    > if someone wants to go to the Solicitors office to speak with

    >

    > someone there etc.

    >

    >

    >

    > EAD are based in Liverpool.  Their address is: Prospect House, Columbus Quay, Riverside Drive, Liverpool, L3 4DB.

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > 5. I dont think the CAB should have given me the wrong number

    >

    > to the EAD solicitiors firm.

    >

    >

    >

    > Upheld – I accidentally gave you the fax number (708-0606) and for this I apologize.

    >

    >

    >

    > 6. I think the CAB should have the lights on in the parts of their offices

    >

    > where members of the public are recieved, and in their other public

    >

    > areas, during their opening hours.  This to insure that contacts between representatives from the CAB and

    >

    > members of the public are kept in an atmosphare that one would expect

    >

    > from a public place. (And not in an atmosphare that one would think

    >

    > belonged more to a privat place/situation.)  I think they should have the lights on during the opening hours, and that

    >

    > they should not arrange meetings with members of the public to be held

    >

    > with the lights off.  (Like they did when I went there for the Duty Solicitors meeting, and ended

    >

    > up first sitting waiting for several minutes in the dark, and then speaking with

    >

    > the CAB representative for several minutes in the dark, on 5/4).

    >

    >

    >

    > The lights were partially switched off as we were closed for lunch.  I switched them on again when I began speaking to you and I admit that they perhaps should have been left on fully in order to create a professional atmosphere.

    >

    >

    >

    > 7. I think that the CAB should have informed before the meeting with the

    >

    > Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts on 27/2, that the Morecrofts Solicitors firm

    >

    > only accepted payment from private founds.  And that Morecrofts didn’t accept founding founded by the legal aid-

    >

    > programme, like the Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts, Eleanor Pool, informed

    >

    > me of on 22/3.

    >

    >

    >

    > Please see response to Question 3.

    >

    >

    >

    > 8. I think that the CAB should have informed me before the meeting with

    >

    > Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2, that the

    >

    > meeting only was scheduled to last for thirty minutes.   I wasnt made aware of this, untill Eleanor Pool first informed me of this when

    >

    > the thirty minutes had passed.

    >

    >

    >

    > As far as I am aware, clients are advised that the Duty Solicitor service is a "free first 1/2.  I can confirm that both Reception staff and myself make clients aware of this at the time of booking the appointment.

    >

    >

    >

    > 9. I think the CAB should have explained to me about the legal aid system,

    >

    > and how it works, before they set me up for the meeting with Duty Solicitor

    >

    > Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2.  Especially since this was an employment-case (like I told them that the

    >

    > police had told me to tell them that it was).

    >

    >

    >

    > Please see response to Question 3.

    >

    >

    >

    > 10. I also think that the solicitor I got to speak with on the phone (about when

    >

    > one would need a criminal solicitor), when I was at the CAB on 20/3, should

    >

    > have explained to me what her name was, and which solicitors firm she was

    >

    > calling from.  I was put in a room at the CAB, and told to wait untill the solicitor called me.

    >

    > But when I answered, I picked up the phone and said ‘yes hello this is Erik

    >

    > Ribsskog speaking’, but the solicitor didnt say eighter what her name was

    >

    > or the name of her company was, she just asked what my questions were.

    >

    >  Also, when I had finished speaking with the solicitor on the phone, then

    >

    > the CAB advisor had starting speaking with another member of the public

    >

    > there, without informing me that our meeting was finished, and without

    >

    > me being alowed to finish explaining why I had gone there.

    >

    > I had gone there to ask about two things.

    >

    > 1. About when one needs a criminal advisor, and 2. how the legal aid system works.

    >

    >

    >

    > But I only got to tell about the first point, before I was put in the room to

    >

    > wait for the phone from the solicitor. Without me first being informed that

    >

    > my meeting with the CAB advisor had finished.

    >

    >

    >

    > If the solicitor failed to give her name then I am afraid that I do not see how the Bureau was to blame for that.  We cannot be held responsible for what a solicitor does or does not do.   You state that you attended CAB on 20th March 2007 and spoke to a criminal solicitor by phone, and then asked us about Legal Aid and was advised to check the CLS Eligibility calculator. If the Bureau was fully booked on that day then you may well have been advised to check this calculator as we like to offer some "signposting" advice that will enable the client to undertake some work/research on this case prior to their appointment at the Bureau.  The CLS calculator advised that it could not assist you as you were self-employed and so you returned to the CAB and was given the appt. 5th April 2007.

    >

    >

    >

    > 11. So I think that the CAB advisor should have told me that the meeting

    >

    > there on 20/3 was finished, before ending the meeting.

    >

    > Since this would have given me the chance to explain that there were more

    >

    > things that I wanted to bring up in the meeting.

    >

    >

    >

    > It would seem that there was no availabilty for you to see an adviser on 20th March 2007 and this may explain why you were only given "signposting" advice i.e. be allowed to talk to a solicitor on the phone and then be given the CLS calculator website.

    >

    >

    >

    > ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

    >

    >

    >

    > In conclusion I have investigated your concerns and I hope that you are satisfied with this response, however you should remain dissatisfied then you can contact the following:

    >

    >

    >

    > THE CHAIR

    >

    > LIVERPOOL CENTRAL CAB

    >

    > 1ST FLOOR

    >

    > STATE HOUSE

    >

    > 22 DALE STREET

    >

    > LIVERPOOL

    >

    > L2 4TR

    >

    >

    >

    > Yours Sincerley

    >

    >

    >

    > KRISTIAN KHAN

    >

    > GENERAL UNIT COORDINATOR.

    >

    >






  • New complaint to the CAB.







    Google Mail – New Complaint







    Google Mail



    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>




    New Complaint





    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>





    Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:52 AM





    To:

    "Follows, Saffron" <saffron.follows@citizensadvice.org.uk>



    Hi,

    I’m sending you a new complaint.

    The CAB has set me up with a ‘Duty Solicitior’ and an ‘Employment Duty

    Solicitor’, for meetings.

    But the Legal Services Commission told me today, on the phone, that

    there is no Duty Solicitor scheme for employment-cases.

    On Wikipedia, it says, that Duty Solicitiors are for people being

    accused of a crime.

    But I just wanted to bring up an employment-case, against a former employer.

    I was wondering if you could please help me with making this clear,

    because then I’d know how to go on

    with dealing with the problems with the Solicitors and more.

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    ———- Forwarded message ———-

    From: Kristian Khan <KristianKhan@liverpoolcab.org>

    Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:02 PM

    Subject: RE:

    To: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

    Mr Ribsskog

    Please acept my apologies for the dealy in replying to you – I have

    been out of the office for 2 weeks.

    Should you wish to contact the Chair then you would need to send you

    email to: bureau@liverpoolcab.org

    Regards

    KRISTIAN KHAN

    GENERAL UNIT COORDINATOR

    ________________________________

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

    Sent: 08 October 2007 01:01

    To: Kristian Khan

    Subject: Re:

    Hi,

    I tryed to send your organisation an e-mail, to the e-mail address,

    that is on your website (http://www.liverpoolcab.org/),

    but the e-mail wasn’t working, that’s why I’m sending e-mail.

    I was just wondering, to which e-mail address, I should send to, if I

    wanted to contact the Chair, Liverpool Central CAB.

    Thanks in advance for the reply!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    On 9/6/07, Kristian Khan <KristianKhan@liverpoolcab.org> wrote:

    >

    > Dear Mr Ribsskog.

    >

    > I am contacting you with regard to the complaint that you submitted to Saffron Follows, Citizens Advice complaints and policy officer, on 23rd May 2007.  I have now been able to undertake an investigation into the issues that you raised and my finding are detailed below.

    >

    >

    >

    > I understand that you attended the Bureau on 27th February 2007 and saw our Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool on a free first interview basis about a harassment at work issue.  Ms Pool completed a B ureau Legal Information Service sheet in which she advised you that you possibly may have a claim for harassment but there was insufficient time to obtain full details and you would benefit from speaking to someone who could advise on criminal aspect as well. Ms Pool took the case back to her firm, Morecrofts. You state that on 28th February you received a letter from Eleanor Pool informing  you that they could take on the case at a cost of £140 per hour.  I take the the view that any action taken by a solicitor after we have facilitated a free first 1/2 hour interview is not our concern – these concerns would need to be addressed to the solicitor directly and therefore I do not concede that the Bureau is responsible for this

    >

    >

    >

    > On 5th April 2007 you had an appointment to see an Employment Duty Solicitor from EAD at 1.30pm.  EAD rang shortly before  your appointment to say that unfortunately no one from the firm was available to attend.  As this phonecall was received very close to 1.30pm you arrived minutes later.  (From my recollection the preceding client/s had failed to attend anyway).

    >

    >

    >

    > As is common practice I apologized to you explaining that it was not our fault and provided you with the phone number of EAD so that you could contact them yourself to arrange an appointment with them to replace the cancelled on of 5th April 2007.

    >

    >

    >

    > You state in your complaint that you rang EAD and spoke to Michael Reiner who took details of the case and advised  you that you were outside of the 3-month time limit to commence employment tribunal proceedings and that only in very limited circumstances could this time limit be extended.   You further state that you enquired about Legal Aid over the phone but Mr Reiner advised that he could not provide advice on this over the phone.

    >

    >

    >

    > As far as I am concerned you did received a free initial interview from EAD, ableit in telephone form, so as such I do not feel that  the Bureau was at fault.

    >

    >

    >

    > ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    >

    >

    >

    > Below I have taken each of the individual points that you made (in bold) and offered my response to each.  I have copied and pasted the complainant’s points from the actual email complaint made by you.

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > 1. I think the CAB should have set up a new meeting between the duty

    >

    > solicitor and myself, when the duty solicitor canceled the scheduled

    >

    > meeting there on 05/04/07.

    >

    >

    >

    > I did not set up a new meeting because the next employment duty solicitor slot was not until 24th April and that was fully booked.  Therefore the next appt. would have been at some point in May and I was reluctant to leave things this long as I was aware (without knowing the details of the case) that time limits may have been evident.  Furthermore, when Duty Sols. cancel they invariable see/speak to those clients at our request who were booked either on the same day or shortly after.

    >

    >

    >

    > 2. I think they should have informed me about the name of the duty

    >

    > solicitor that canceled the meeting. They didnt do this even if I asked

    >

    > them about this twice.

    >

    >

    >

    > We did not know the name; indeed we do not habitually know the names – the firms send different people and it was the firm who rang to cancel saying that no one from the firm was available to attend.

    >

    >

    >

    > 3. I dont think the CAB should have adivised me to contact the duty

    >

    > solicitors firm EAD on the phone on 5/4, since one needs to go through

    >

    > the documents of the case in detail, to see if one are eligable for legal

    >

    > aid. Which was what the scheduled meeting was supposed to be about.

    >

    >

    >

    > Please see response to Question 1 – furthermore we do not take responsibility for advising clients on their legal aid entitlements at the Reception desk at the time of booking a Duty Solicitor appt – this is why people are referred to the solicitor if they require specialist advice .

    >

    >

    >

    > 4. I dont think the CAB, like they for the meeting on 5/4, should set

    >

    > me up for a meeting with a Solicitors firms (EAD), that aren’t based

    >

    > in Liverpool.  The Solicitor-firms that they set up to do task of Duty Solicitor

    >

    > representaton, should be based in Liverpool, for practical reasons,

    >

    > if someone wants to go to the Solicitors office to speak with

    >

    > someone there etc.

    >

    >

    >

    > EAD are based in Liverpool.  Their address is: Prospect House, Columbus Quay, Riverside Drive, Liverpool, L3 4DB.

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > 5. I dont think the CAB should have given me the wrong number

    >

    > to the EAD solicitiors firm.

    >

    >

    >

    > Upheld – I accidentally gave you the fax number (708-0606) and for this I apologize.

    >

    >

    >

    > 6. I think the CAB should have the lights on in the parts of their offices

    >

    > where members of the public are recieved, and in their other public

    >

    > areas, during their opening hours.  This to insure that contacts between representatives from the CAB and

    >

    > members of the public are kept in an atmosphare that one would expect

    >

    > from a public place. (And not in an atmosphare that one would think

    >

    > belonged more to a privat place/situation.)  I think they should have the lights on during the opening hours, and that

    >

    > they should not arrange meetings with members of the public to be held

    >

    > with the lights off.  (Like they did when I went there for the Duty Solicitors meeting, and ended

    >

    > up first sitting waiting for several minutes in the dark, and then speaking with

    >

    > the CAB representative for several minutes in the dark, on 5/4).

    >

    >

    >

    > The lights were partially switched off as we were closed for lunch.  I switched them on again when I began speaking to you and I admit that they perhaps should have been left on fully in order to create a professional atmosphere.

    >

    >

    >

    > 7. I think that the CAB should have informed before the meeting with the

    >

    > Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts on 27/2, that the Morecrofts Solicitors firm

    >

    > only accepted payment from private founds.  And that Morecrofts didn’t accept founding founded by the legal aid-

    >

    > programme, like the Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts, Eleanor Pool, informed

    >

    > me of on 22/3.

    >

    >

    >

    > Please see response to Question 3.

    >

    >

    >

    > 8. I think that the CAB should have informed me before the meeting with

    >

    > Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2, that the

    >

    > meeting only was scheduled to last for thirty minutes.   I wasnt made aware of this, untill Eleanor Pool first informed me of this when

    >

    > the thirty minutes had passed.

    >

    >

    >

    > As far as I am aware, clients are advised that the Duty Solicitor service is a "free first 1/2.  I can confirm that both Reception staff and myself make clients aware of this at the time of booking the appointment.

    >

    >

    >

    > 9. I think the CAB should have explained to me about the legal aid system,

    >

    > and how it works, before they set me up for the meeting with Duty Solicitor

    >

    > Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2.  Especially since this was an employment-case (like I told them that the

    >

    > police had told me to tell them that it was).

    >

    >

    >

    > Please see response to Question 3.

    >

    >

    >

    > 10. I also think that the solicitor I got to speak with on the phone (about when

    >

    > one would need a criminal solicitor), when I was at the CAB on 20/3, should

    >

    > have explained to me what her name was, and which solicitors firm she was

    >

    > calling from.  I was put in a room at the CAB, and told to wait untill the solicitor called me.

    >

    > But when I answered, I picked up the phone and said ‘yes hello this is Erik

    >

    > Ribsskog speaking’, but the solicitor didnt say eighter what her name was

    >

    > or the name of her company was, she just asked what my questions were.

    >

    >  Also, when I had finished speaking with the solicitor on the phone, then

    >

    > the CAB advisor had starting speaking with another member of the public

    >

    > there, without informing me that our meeting was finished, and without

    >

    > me being alowed to finish explaining why I had gone there.

    >

    > I had gone there to ask about two things.

    >

    > 1. About when one needs a criminal advisor, and 2. how the legal aid system works.

    >

    >

    >

    > But I only got to tell about the first point, before I was put in the room to

    >

    > wait for the phone from the solicitor. Without me first being informed that

    >

    > my meeting with the CAB advisor had finished.

    >

    >

    >

    > If the solicitor failed to give her name then I am afraid that I do not see how the Bureau was to blame for that.  We cannot be held responsible for what a solicitor does or does not do.   You state that you attended CAB on 20th March 2007 and spoke to a criminal solicitor by phone, and then asked us about Legal Aid and was advised to check the CLS Eligibility calculator. If the Bureau was fully booked on that day then you may well have been advised to check this calculator as we like to offer some "signposting" advice that will enable the client to undertake some work/research on this case prior to their appointment at the Bureau.  The CLS calculator advised that it could not assist you as you were self-employed and so you returned to the CAB and was given the appt. 5th April 2007.

    >

    >

    >

    > 11. So I think that the CAB advisor should have told me that the meeting

    >

    > there on 20/3 was finished, before ending the meeting.

    >

    > Since this would have given me the chance to explain that there were more

    >

    > things that I wanted to bring up in the meeting.

    >

    >

    >

    > It would seem that there was no availabilty for you to see an adviser on 20th March 2007 and this may explain why you were only given "signposting" advice i.e. be allowed to talk to a solicitor on the phone and then be given the CLS calculator website.

    >

    >

    >

    > ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

    >

    >

    >

    > In conclusion I have investigated your concerns and I hope that you are satisfied with this response, however you should remain dissatisfied then you can contact the following:

    >

    >

    >

    > THE CHAIR

    >

    > LIVERPOOL CENTRAL CAB

    >

    > 1ST FLOOR

    >

    > STATE HOUSE

    >

    > 22 DALE STREET

    >

    > LIVERPOOL

    >

    > L2 4TR

    >

    >

    >

    > Yours Sincerley

    >

    >

    >

    > KRISTIAN KHAN

    >

    > GENERAL UNIT COORDINATOR.

    >

    >






  • Flashback til januar 2007. (In Norwegian).

    I november 2006, så rapporterte jeg jo Arvato, her i Liverpool.

    Som drev den skandinaviske Microsoft-produktaktiveringen, til politiet og også til pressen.

    For jeg synes det virka som at problemene i firma, skyldtes at noen organiserte kriminelle, noe mob eller mafia, hadde infiltrert firmaet.

    Så hadde jeg møte med Managing Director, hos Arvato.

    Og han sa at han kunne ikke garantere min sikkerhet der, så jeg måtte være hjemme, sa han.

    Så skulle Arvato ringe, og også politiet ringe.

    Men jeg venta i en uke ca., og ingen ringte.

    Så da dro jeg til den norske ambassaden i London, og pratet med en dame der, en ambassaderåd, og forklarte det, at jeg mistenkte at det var noe mob/mafia i firma, og ga de masse dokumenter, og sa at jeg mistenkte at noen av de nordiske kollegaene mine der, kunne være under kontroll av disse.

    Så venta jeg i flere uker til.

    Over jul.

    Men politiet ringte ikke.

    Og Arvato ringte ikke.

    Arvato slutta å sende lønn.

    I disse ukene, så hadde jeg egentlig ferie, og jeg var overarbeidet, fra Arvato, men jeg skrev alikevel masse referater ferdig, fra møter som var de siste dagene jeg jobbet på Arvato.

    (Disse dokumentene kan man finne, hvis man trykker på det bilde med Microsoft-sommerfugl, og det bilde Arvato/Microsoft-team leader Vivian Steinsland sendte av en rompe på e-post, mens jeg jobbet der.

    Så sånn er det.).

    Så da jeg var ferdig å skrive alle referatene, i midten av januar i fjor.

    Da bestemte jeg meg, for at jeg måtte få meg ny jobb.

    For jeg trengte jo penger.

    Jeg tenkte, at det var noe organiserte kriminelle i firmaet, som var blitt avslørt da.

    Så jeg trodde det skulle være noe rettsak antagelig.

    Så jeg visste ikke hvor mye jeg kunne fortelle om problemene i firmaet, på ‘the jobcenter’.

    For, jeg regnet med at de ville spørre hvorfor jeg sluttet i firmaet.

    Så jeg tenkte jeg kunne gå til politiet, og spørre de, hvor mye jeg kunne eventuellt fortelle, på the jobcenter.

    Og da fikk de en ny sjangse, til å fortelle meg hva som foregikk også, siden de ikke hadde ringt.

    Så sånn var det.

    Men han Sgt. Camel der, som måtte ringes, for å komme dit.

    Han, han begynte å bla i en notatbok eller syvende sans jeg hadde, som for å se om jeg hadde noen avtaler.

    De var særs interessert i å høre, om jeg ville dra tilbake til Arvato.

    Noe jeg sa at jeg ikke ville, så lenge problemene der, ikke var tatt tak i.

    (For jeg kunne jo ikke si at noe mob/mafia hadde infiltrert firmaet, og så dra tilbake dit, som om ingenting hadde skjedd, etter firmaet bare fortsatte å tulle.

    Nå tror jeg at det er politiet som begynte å tulle med meg muligens, for å dekke over hva som foregikk der.

    At det er de som kan ha skrevet det rare brevet fra Arvato, og sørget for at de ikke ringte.

    Noe sånt).

    Og politiet ville ikke se på de dokumentene jeg hadde fra Arvato.

    Eller Camel ville ikke det.

    Han gikk ut for å ringe.

    Og da avtalte jeg med kollegaen hans, at jeg skulle dra opp dit dagen etter, med alle papirene fra Arvato.

    Så kunne de la noen eksperter se på det, og da skjønne at det nok var noen organiserte kriminelle e.l., som hadde infiltrert firmaet, pga. alle problemene osv.

    Mistenkte jeg i hvertfall.

    Og da avtalte jeg med Camel’s kollega, som ikke introduserte seg, at jeg skulle ta med papirene.

    Men Camel, kom tilbake, etter å ha ringt, og overstyrte dette.

    Enda vi hadde avtalt det.

    Så ville han ikke at jeg skulle ta med papirene.

    Han sa jeg måtte gå til CAB. (Citizens Advice Bureau).

    Siden dette hadde med jobb å gjøre.

    Jeg syntes det hørtes rart ut, og spurte om politiet ikke hadde noen som kunne arbeidsrett f.eks., som kunne se på papirene.

    Men det hadde de da ikke, sa Camel.

    Selv om det hørtes rart ut.

    Så spurte jeg om CAB var ‘Government’, siden han sendte meg dit.

    Og det sa Camel, at det var.

    Men det var løgn, fant jeg ut senere, de er en ‘charity’, en veldedig organisasjon.

    Så det sa nok Sgt. Camel, bare for å bli kvitt meg.

    Så her har nok bare politiet løyet, for meg, og gjort noe gæernt, vil jeg tro.

    Og ambassaden, de ringer meg nå ikke, selv om UD har instruert de å gjøre det, tre ganger.

    Så ambassaden har nok også gjort noe galt.

    Og IPCC, tilsvarende Spesialenheten i Norge, de svarer ikke på e-post og returnerer ikke telefoner.

    Så de nekter å undersøke Merseyside-politiet da.

    Eller om Camel og de kan ha vært noe spesialpoliti, siden de måtte ringes.

    At de var noe Special Force, eller noe.

    Hvem vet.

    Det har i hvertfall virka som for meg, hele tida, at de her har gjort noe gæernt da.

    F.eks. begynte han å skrike ‘no’, da jeg fortalte han, at jeg hadde vært og snakka med folk hos den norske ambassaden, i London, om problemene i firma osv.

    Så her har dem drivi og lurt meg, og så blitt desperate fordi jeg kontaktet ambassaden og hadde referater og papirer, eller noe sånt, vil jeg si.

    Det lukter ihvertfall råttent av han Camel og det møtet, synes jeg det virker som.

    Så hva de driver å kødder med, det vet ikke jeg.

    Men både politiet og IPCC og CAB og Law Society og Legal Services Ombudsman, og the Local Government Ombudsman, og den norske ambassden, og UD, og Kripos, og justisdepartementet, og Fylkesmannen i Oslo og Akershus, og Sivilombudsmannen også, vil jeg si.

    Alle disse driver å tuller og kødder.

    Så hva de dekker over, det er vanskelig å si.

    Men kan det være at politiet, f.eks. Special Force, har brukt de nordiske damene på Arvato som horer?

    Hva skjedde med hun Emelie Wallin, som forsvant fra jobben?

    Jeg har lest avisa i 30 år, men jeg har aldri lest at det har stått noe om, at politiet bruker horer.

    Hva er det politet har gjort som dem må dekke over, lurer jeg på.

    Også Amnesty tuller.

    Hvorfor er ikke folks rettigheter verdt fem øre lengre?

    Folk er ment å ha universelle rettigheter.

    Rettigheter som gjelder overalt og alltid.

    Hvorfor skal jeg bli kødda med, av 10-15 instanser/etater, innenfor myndighetene og andre, i Norge og England.

    Og jeg har skrevet om det, på blogg, i over et år.

    Alikevel så reagerer ingen på det, at vanlige folks rettigheter blir ignorert av myndighetene.

    Hva er det her, spørr jeg.

    Hva faen er det som foregår.

    Hvorfor skal ‘alle’ kødde med mine rettigheter.

    Hvis dem absolutt skal kødde med noens rettigheter, så kan dem kødde med sine egne.

    Ingen har noe rett å kødde med mine rettigheter.

    Hvis jeg får kontroll, så skal de faen meg få angre.

    Man har rett til å drepe folk som kødder med ens rettigheter.

    Bare i tilfelle disse drittsekkene ikke visste det fra før av.

    Så sånn er det.

    Med vennlig hilsen

    Erik Ribsskog

  • Todays StatCounter-log: Someone in Canada are reading about the ‘magic automated reply’, from the CAB Chief Executive, on my blog.

    Todays StatCounter-log: Someone in Canada are reading about the ‘magic automated reply’, from the CAB Chief Executive, on my blog.

    http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:odNXsqdrrwwJ:johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008_04_24_archive.html%20%22gang%20stalking%22%20%22truman%20show%22%20matrix&hl=

    PS.

    They are also searching on ‘”gang stalking” “truman show” matrix’, on Google, so I’m wondering if there could be something similar, New World Order-ish, going on in Canada, like it seems has been going on against me, here in Britain and in Norway.

    http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22gang%20stalking%22%20%22truman%20show%22%20matrix&start=10&sa=N

    Who knows.

    Sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

  • More StatCounter-logs from today.

    Magnify User (blogger)

    8th August 2008 11:19:44


    Magnify User (blogger)

    8th August 2008 11:19:44

    VISITOR ANALYSIS

    Referring Link

    No referring link

    Host Name

    IP Address

    212.62.245.194 [Label IP Address]

    Country

    France

    Region

    Provence-alpes-cote D’azur

    City

    Nice

    ISP

    Dg-knatterudfjellet-trelast-net

    Returning Visits

    0

    Visit Length

    1 min 3 secs

    VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS

    Browser

    MSIE 7.0

    Operating System

    Windows 2003

    Resolution

    1024×768

    Javascript

    Enabled

    Navigation Path

    Date

    Time

    WebPage

    8th August 2008

    08:23:41

    No referring link
    johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/06/e-postpurring-til-sidsel-rydland-i.html

    8th August 2008

    08:24:44

    johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/06/e-postpurring-til-sidsel-rydland-i.html
    johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/06/e-postpurring-til-sidsel-rydland-i.html

    Top of Form

    Display Page URL not Title

    Bottom of Form

    Magnify User (blogger)

    8th August 2008 11:21:04

    VISITOR ANALYSIS

    Referring Link

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=kristian khan&meta=

    Host Name

    outbound.citizensadvice.org.uk

    IP Address

    80.40.144.68 [Label IP Address]

    Country

    United Kingdom

    Region

    City

    ISP

    Provider Local Registry

    Returning Visits

    0

    Visit Length

    1 min 37 secs

    VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS

    Browser

    MSIE 7.0

    Operating System

    Windows XP

    Resolution

    1024×768

    Javascript

    Enabled

    Navigation Path

    Date

    Time

    WebPage

    8th August 2008

    10:26:01

    www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=kristian khan&meta=
    johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2007/12/dear-mr-ribsskog-i-am-writing-further.html

    8th August 2008

    10:27:32

    johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2007/12/dear-mr-ribsskog-i-am-writing-further.html
    johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008_08_08_archive.html

    8th August 2008

    10:27:38

    www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=kristian khan&meta=
    johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2007/12/dear-mr-ribsskog-i-am-writing-further.html

    Top of Form

    Display Page URL not Title

    Bottom of Form


    VISITOR ANALYSIS

    Referring Link

    No referring link

    Host Name

    IP Address

    212.62.245.194 [Label IP Address]

    Country

    France

    Region

    Provence-alpes-cote D’azur

    City

    Nice

    ISP

    Dg-knatterudfjellet-trelast-net

    Returning Visits

    0

    Visit Length

    1 min 3 secs

    VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS

    Browser

    MSIE 7.0

    Operating System

    Windows 2003

    Resolution

    1024×768

    Javascript

    Enabled

    Navigation Path

    Date

    Time

    WebPage

    8th August 2008

    08:23:41

    No referring link
    johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/06/e-postpurring-til-sidsel-rydland-i.html

    8th August 2008

    08:24:44

    johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/06/e-postpurring-til-sidsel-rydland-i.html
    johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/06/e-postpurring-til-sidsel-rydland-i.html

    Top of Form

    Display Page URL not Title

    Bottom of Form

    Bottom of Form

  • Det Amnesty osv. driver med. (Og bruker politiet horer?) (In Norwegian).

    Nå er det jo sånn, at man ikke har rett, til å hjelp, av organisasjoner.

    Man har rett til å få hjelp, hvis man trenger det, av myndighetene.

    Men av veldedige og andre organisasjoner, så kan man ikke kreve sin rett, og si at jeg har rett til å få hjelp av dere.

    Så også med Amnesty.

    Det er en uavhengig organisasjon.

    Nå vet jo ikke jeg hva som har foregått.

    Men jeg kan jo gjette.

    For eksempel, da jeg var på møte, hos politiet i Liverpool, i januar i fjor, fordi jeg dreiv og skreiv de filene, i den arbeidssaken mot Arvato/Microsoft, mens at jeg ventet på at Arvato og/eller politiet skulle ringe, og fortelle hva som skjedde, etter at jeg kontaktet politiet, og sendte e-poster til the Times osv.

    Men ingen ringte.

    Og til slutt, så var jeg ferdig å skrive de filene.

    Og da hadde jeg ikke så mye penger igjen.

    Avtalen, var at Arvato skulle betale lønnen min, mens jeg var hjemme, til de ringte, men det gjorde de ikke.

    Det var Managing Director, hos Aravato, Ian Carrel, eller noe, som sa at han ikke kunne ta ansvaret for min sikkerhet, på jobben, så jeg ble sendt hjem, for permisjon.

    Så skulle Arvato ringe meg, når de var ferdig med å undersøke om det var mafia/mob i firma.

    Men de ringte aldri.

    (Det dukket kun opp et ‘phoney’ brev).

    Så dro jeg til politiet da, fordi jeg regnet med at det skulle være en rettsak, mot firma.

    Eller det mob/mafia-greiene som jeg synes det virka som infiltrerte firma.

    Så jeg lurte på hvor mye jeg kunne fortelle på the jobcenter, for jeg måtte registrere meg arbeidsledig, siden Arvato sa meg opp, i mellomtiden.

    (De satt en dame som var innvolvert i å dekke over at en team-leader der fulgte etter meg hjem.

    I et møte om problemene med denne team-leaderen, så forsøkte en dame fra HR, blant annet, å dekke over dette, sammen med en senior team-leader.

    De hadde fabrikert noen løgner og bortforklaringer, på forhånd, må man vel kunne si.

    Så jeg klagde på denne damen, til Managing Director).

    Men Arvato, satt den samme damen, til å lede undersøkelsen av problemene.

    Og jeg synes ikke jeg kunne gå tilbake til, på jobb, som om ingenting hadde skjedd, når de ikke tok min henvendelse om problemene alvorlig.

    De gjorde jo ikke noe med disse problemene.

    De bare beskyldte meg for å ha misbrukt e-post systemet til privat bruk, da jeg sendte e-postene om problemene i firma til the Times osv.

    Selv om dette var i forbindelse med jobb, jeg prøvde å få oppmerksomhet på problemene i firma, og sendte det til pressen, for jeg synes det var mest ansvarlig, siden jeg regnet med at da ble problemene vanskeligere å dekke over.

    Så det var ikke noe privat med de e-postene, det var i forbindelse med jobb.

    Så Arvato løy, det er bare å slå fast, da de sa at jeg hadde misbrukt e-post systemet, til å sende private e-poster, det har jeg ikke gjort.

    Jeg ville ha gjort det, fordi det var så mye angrep/mobbing/hersjing, mot meg der, fra ledere osv., så jeg regnet med at de bare leita etter en grunn til å gi meg sparken.

    Uten at jeg hadde gjort noe galt, så hva det kom av, vet jeg ikke.

    Men jeg ville ikke ha sendt noen private e-poster fra, eller til Arvato, fordi de e-post reglene var strenge når det gjaldt private e-poster.

    Man fikk ikke lov å sende eller motta, tror jeg også det var, private e-poster fra våre Arvato mail-adresser.

    Så det tok jeg ikke sjangsen på å gjøre, fordi jeg kunne tenke meg at det kunne bli brukt som unnskyldning for å gi noen sparken eventuellt.

    Så det tok jeg ikke sjangsen på, i det arbeids-mijøet/arbeids-kulturen som var der, som var veldig lukket og autoritær, må man vel kunne si.

    Men jeg pratet med Sgt. Camel da, og en annen konstabel, på møte i januar i fjor.

    For jeg ville vite hvor mye jeg kunne fortelle om problemene i firma, på the jobcenter, i tilfelle det skulle være en rettsak osv., om problemene i Arvato, så tenkte jeg, at det kanskje var ting om Arvato, som man kanskje ikke burde nevne på the Jobcenter, i tilfelle dette skulle være del av noe rettsak eller noe, som jeg så for meg da.

    Og jeg ventet fremdeles på telefonen deres.

    Politiet skulle ringe meg, etter at de hadde pratet med team-leader Baines, hos Arvato, som fulgte etter meg hjem fra jobben.

    Og jeg hadde da, etter at jeg ble permitert, skrevet skrevet ferdig en del dokumenter, om problemene i firma, for å bygge opp en arbeidssak, for å ta for meg problemene i firma, å prøve å få kontroll, sånn at jeg kanskje også i tillegg fikk vite hva som hadde foregått i byen og i Norge f.eks.

    Derfor ville jeg gjerne skrive ferdig filene, før jeg begynte i ny jobb, eller annet, for da tenkte jeg, at det ville være enklere for meg å få kontroll, på hva det nå enn var, som foregikk.

    Sgt. Camel, var først hyggelig, og skulle hilse osv.

    Men jeg visste ikke om jeg kunne stole på politiet, de hadde ikke hjulpet meg, på de 7-8 gangene, som jeg hadde kontaktet de tidligere, jeg ble for de meste bare avvist, og nesten hivd ut av lokalet.

    Og første gang jeg var hos det britiske politiet, i Liverpool da, i august 2005, så sa det, ‘dont he understand, that noone wants to be involved’, da jeg fortalte at jeg var forfulgt av noe mafia eller noe.

    Så jeg fortalte at jeg hadde kontaktet den norske ambassaden.

    Og jeg forklarte, at jeg var utsatt for en konstruert oppsigelse, hos Arvato, ved å forklare med de referatene fra møter, og brev osv., som jeg hadde med.

    Men politiet ville ikke se gjennom dokumentene mine, om det var noe der, som kunne brukes osv, mot firma.

    Så jeg visste ikke om politiet var innvolvert i noe mob/mafia, på noen måte.

    For jeg synes det virka som at jeg ble spionert på her i byen, og jeg visste ikke om politiet kunne være infiltrert av noe mob/mafia, på samme måte som Arvato f.eks., som det virka som hadde skjedd der.

    Så derfor dro jeg til den norske ambassaden i London, siden hverken politiet eller Arvato ringte, som de begge skulle ha gjort.

    Så da begynte jeg å lure på, om det var mob greier med Arvato og/eller politiet, og tenkte at det var kanskje smart å kontakte ambasseden i London, i tilfelle både arvato og politiet var korrupt.

    Siden de ikke ringte og forklarte hva som foregikk, mener jeg.

    Så ingen, hverken arvato eller politiet eller noen andre, ringte, etter at jeg sendte e-post til the Times, VG, NRK osv.

    Så jeg visste ikke hva som hadde skjedd, siden den siste dagen på Arvato, når jeg sendte e-postene, og hadde møte med Managing Director osv.

    Jeg hadde også vært hos politiet, tre ganger sammen uken, og rapportert om problemene.

    Men da jeg fortalte at jeg hadde vært på ambassaden i London, da reagerte han Sgt. Camel.

    Han likte ikke det da.

    Så jeg trodde kanskje det betydde at dem var mob, eller noe, siden han ble sur for det.

    De hadde jo ikke ringt og forklart, og de forklarte ikke noe i møtet heller.

    Så vi ble enige om at jeg skulle gå til jobcenteret da, og melde meg arbeidsledig, noe jeg gjorde.

    Og, at politiet ikke ville ha dokumentene mine, men at jeg måtte gå til CAB med de, siden det var om jobb.

    Sa Sgt. Camel.

    Enda jeg avtalte med kollegaen hans, mens Sgt. Camel var ute av møterommet en del minutter, at jeg skulle gå til politiet med dokumentene.

    Dette tok jeg opp senere og, fordi jeg visste ikke om politiet hadde gjort det riktig, så jeg gikk dit igjen, med dokumentene, noen dager senere, siden jeg var bekymret for kollegaene mine i firma, og ville at politiet skulle finne ut av hva som foregikk.

    Men kan det ha vært, at politiet har fått ned noe mafia, og at bare ingen har sagt fra til meg.

    Siden Sgt. Camel, smilte, og hilste pent, i starten av møtet.

    Men ikke var så hyggelig, på slutten av møtet.

    Så kanskje han ikke likte, at jeg ikke visste hva som foregikk.

    Men det var det jo politiet som skulle ha ringt meg og fortalt.

    Så om det kan være noe, at de bare driver å lurer meg, at de egentlig har fått ned noe mob/mafia, eller hva det kan ha vært, i firma.

    Men at også organisasjoner som Amnesty, er med å dekker over dette.

    Her i fjor, så var det to folk, som det virka som prøvde å henrette meg på gata omtrent.

    En dag jeg var ute og fikk litt luft i parken, i en pause med jobbinga.

    Så om politiet driver å skal avlive meg, det kunne nesten virke sånn.

    Selv om jeg må ta noe forbehold om det siste, men det virket klart sånn for meg.

    Det var klart at jeg var anspent, da jeg gikk til politiet, i januar i fjor.

    Siden ingen hadde fortalt meg noe, om hva som hadde skjedd, etter at jeg sendte e-postene til media, gikk til politiet, og tok opp problemene i firma med Managing Director.

    Jeg forestilte meg, at jeg hadde kanskje tirret noe lokal mob, eller noe, sånn at alle de kriminelle i byen, bare ønsket å plaffe meg ned, hvis jeg gikk til politiet.

    For jeg visste fra før, at jeg ble spionert på, det hadde jeg merket flere ganger.

    Og det var også en bil, en mørk sportsbil, noen år gammel, som stoppet på bussholdeplassen i St. Annes Street, mens jeg gikk til politiet, for å få råd om hvor mye jeg kunne fortelle, på the jobcenter.

    Og da jeg kom inn på politistasjonen, så skreik han konstabelen i skranken mot meg, om jeg var der angående ‘the harassment case’ igjen.

    Enda jeg ikke hadde sett han før, såvidt jeg kunne huske.

    Så noe var ikke helt som det burde være.

    Politiet hadde heller ikke ringt meg, som de skulle ha gjort.

    Så hva som foregikk, er vanskelig å si.

    Men det er vel antegelig noe dekkoperasjon da, angående problemene i firma.

    At nordiske damer har systematisk misbrukt der, høyst sannsynelig.

    Og det er jo sånn som mange helst vil skjule, kan jeg tenke meg.

    Noe sånt.

    Men at jeg da blir tullet med, av myndigheter osv., for å dekke over feil som politiet har gjort.

    Kanskje de også har misbrukt noen nordiske damer der, for alt hva jeg vet.

    Fordi jeg har nok vært under overvåkning av politiet, pga. de her problemene i Norge, med at jeg overhørte, at jeg var forfulgt, av ‘mafian’.

    Så det har nok vært undercover politi hos Arvato.

    Jeg vet ikke om hvor mange som var mob, og hvor mange som var undercover politi.

    Eller om alle var mob, av disse som oppførte seg rart.

    Eller om alle var undercover politi.

    Kan det være, at politiet, jobber undercover, en dag i uka, e.l., for å da kunne tulle med f.eks. nordiske damer, som har vært under mafia/mob-kontroll, på f.eks. Arvato/Microsoft.

    At disse damene, som politiet har befridd, f.eks. fra noe mafia i norden (albansk mafia f.eks.).

    At disse damene da, må eller ønsker, å takke politiet, ved å jobbe i en sånn halvveis tullejobb, og da ha ‘dater’ med undercover politi, på toalettene i second floor f.eks., hvor det ikke var noen som leide lokaler vel, i the Cunard.

    Nå spekulerer jeg fælt her.

    Men kan det ha vært noe sånt, at politiet bruker horer.

    Og at dette er grunnen til at jeg blir så motarbeidet, at de ikke vil at dette skal bli kjent?

    Og når Amnesty, er med på dette, så gjør de noe straffbart, for politiet vil vel bare at noen skal plaffe meg ned.

    Så Amnesty er med å dekker over dette, virker det klart som, for meg.

    Og det er straffbart, og krimnielt, å ikke hjelpe folk som man vet er i livsfare.

    Så selv om Amnesty er en organisasjon, og man ikke har rett til å få hjelp fra dem.

    På tross av dette, så er det straffbart av de, å ikke hjelpe, hvis de vet hva som foregår, og at jeg er i livsfare, som jeg synes det virker som, at politiet vil bli kvitt meg.

    Så jeg lurer på om jeg også kan gå til rettsak mot organisasjoner som Amnesty, som man egentlig ikke har rettigheter hos.

    Men at de gjør noe straffbart alikevel, når de ikke hjelper, hvis de vet hva som foregår.

    Så om jeg kan også gå til rettsak mot organisasjoner som Amnesty, som ikke har hjulpet, hvis jeg får kontroll.

    Så tror jeg at de i Amnesty, som er ansvarlige for dette, denne delaktigheten, i cover-operasjonen, som jeg vil tro det er, for hva som har foregått hos Arvato/Microsoft, og vel også i Norge.

    Da tror jeg at de også kan dømmes til fengsel osv.

    Hvis jeg får kontroll, og jeg får tatt de til retten, og hvis ikke retten er korrupt da.

    Da ser jeg ikke bort fra, at også organisasjoner som Amnesty, og CAB, og de ansvarlige der, kan dømmes, til fengsel osv., hvis jeg får kontroll.

    Jeg skal i hvertfall prøve så godt jeg kan, hvis jeg får kontroll.

    Vi får se.

    Med vennlig hilsen

    Erik Ribsskog

    PS.

    I denne posten, så kan man se det, at Arvato klagde på, til jobcenteret, og vel oppga som grunn, til at jeg ble oppsagt, at jeg hadde ‘tullet med’ epost-systemet, enda det eneste jeg gjorde, var å prøve å opptre ansvarlig, siden jeg trodde firmaet var infiltrert, og sendte e-post til Arvato i Tyskland, Bertelsmann i Tyskland, og også the Times og VG og NRK osv., siden jeg tenkte det var smartest, siden jeg mistenkte at det var mob/mafia i firmaet.

    (Jeg prøvde å tenke selv, og ta ansvar, sånn som vi hadde lært på Rimi, at sånne medarbeidere ønsket Rimi. Og jeg hadde også lest ‘Bertelsmann Essentials’, om bedriftskulturen i Bertelsmann, og den sa noe av det samme, at de ville ha medarbeidere som tok ansvar, såvidt jeg kunne skjønne det, så jeg prøvde å opptre ansvarlig, som vel er det som jeg synes var riktig å gjøre også uavhengig av ting som Bertelsmann Essentials osv):

    https://johncons-blogg.net/2008/06/enclosure-new.html

  • Rare ting i England. (In Norwegian).

    I England, så er det sånn, som det også er i Norge, at klager på politiet, går til en klageinstans, som heter IPCC.

    Som står for the Independent Police Complaints Commission, tror jeg.

    Det er noe lignende av Spesialenheten i Norge.

    Og der skal liksom klagene stoppe opp(?)

    Det er bare tullball, mener jeg.

    For man må se hvor pengene kommer fra, til politiet.

    Og de kommer vel fra finansdepartementet, og blir gitt til justisdepartementet, som gir penger til politiet.

    Så her, burde også klager på politiet gå, i hvertfall hvis det er annet en rene rutine-klager da.

    Men hvis det er spesielle klager, så burde de gå tjenesteveien, synes jeg, som alle andre steder.

    Hvis ikke, så betyr det, at politiet kan bare gjøre hva de vil.

    Eller, det betyr at myndighetene gir penger til politiet, men de har ikke ansvar for hva politiet gjør.

    Enda, at myndighetene, vel er den som ansetter politisjefer og ministere.

    Altså regjeringen da, eller statsministeren.

    Så dette systemet med IPCC og Spesialenheten, det virker litt som lureri, synes jeg.

    Som en måte for politikerne og embedsverket, å avskrive seg ansvaret for hva politiet gjør, enda de gir de penger, og ansetter lederne.

    Så dette får jeg ikke til å høres riktig ut, dessverre.

    Her er det noe lureri.

    Og muligheter for å utnytte politiet, til å gjøre politiske motiverte ting, f.eks., uten at politikerne/embedsverket, må ta ansvaret for dette.

    For politiet må være politisk styrt, vil jeg tro, siden politisjefer osv., utnevnes av poltikere.

    Så her er det helt klart noe lureri, vil jeg si.

    En annen ting i England, som også er noe lureri.

    Det er dette Citizens Advice Buraux.

    Dette er formellt en veldedig organisasjon, men de får nesten alle pengene fra myndighetene.

    Så egentlig så er nok disse politisk styrt.

    Men politikerne har ikke noe ansvar.

    Hvis noe går galt, så er de med en gang, kun en veldedig organisasjon, som man ikke har noen rettigheter fra.

    Dette gjør det mulig, å eventuelt, for politikerne, bruke pengestøtten som pressmiddel, f.eks., å eventuelt blande seg inn i enkeltsaker f.eks.

    Uten å måtte ta noe ansvar, for dette.

    Så CAB (Citizens Advice Buraux), er litt underfundig, vil jeg si.

    Den er ‘Government’, når det passer den.

    Og den er en ‘Charity’, når det passer den.

    Så den CAB, burde man helst ikke ha noe med å gjøre, den er veldig sleip.

    Så sånn er det.

    Og CAB, sendte politiet meg til, og sa de var ‘Government’.

    Så politiet er nok minst like sleipe.

    Så hvem man kan stole på, som nordmann, av myndighetene i Storbritannia, det vil ikke jeg si noe sikkert om, men hvis jeg skulle gjette, så ville jeg tippe, at det nok ikke var så veldig mange av de.

    Så sånn er det.

    Med vennlig hilsen

    Erik Ribsskog