johncons

Stikkord: E-post

  • At least the University of Sunderland seems to be acting responsible

    University of Sunderland

  • Correspondence with the IPCC about appealing against the decision not to investigate (Appeal e-mail 4)







    Google Mail – Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police – 2007/006341







    Google Mail


    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>



    Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police – 2007/006341




    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>


    Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 3:22 AM





    To:

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



    Hi,

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

    Please give the name of the police force your complaint was about:

    Merseyside Police

    If you recieved a letter from the police telling you that they will not be recording your complaint,

    please give the date of that letter:

    10/7/07

    Mr. Erik Ribsskog

    Flat 3

    5 Leather Lane

    L2 2AE

    Liverpool

    01512363298/07758349954

    Date you made your complaint:

    3/5/07

    Who did you make your complaint to:

    To the IPCC.

    How did you make your complaint:

    By e-mail.

    Please provide brief details about the complaint that you made:

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

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

    last year.

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

    this, but they didn't call back, even if contacted the police-station to inform them about this.

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

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

    that Morecrofts couldn't help me if I needed a criminal solicitor. But it wasn't clear to me

    when one would need a criminal solicitor, so I contacted the CAB again, and was told that

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

    The Morecrofts solicitor had said that the case was both an employment-case, and a

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

    criminal part of the case.

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

    I had been trying to do this from before, but I had been having some problems involving the

    police not calling me back when they said they would.

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

    And the advisor said that I should bring it up with the CPS or the Law-society.

    I asked about this as a precaution, so that I knew what to do if the police still didn't contact

    me after the new meeting there.

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

    the problems with the liasons with the police.

    The CPS answered that they didn't have the powers to investiagte a case, and told me to

    contact the IPCC.

    Which I did on 3/5, I sent the IPCC a complaint regarding the problems I've been having with the

    liasons with the police. (Or 'the contact with the police', like I wrote in the e-mail I sent you on 3/5).

    In the complaint, I had listed up 18 individual complaints about thing I though were dealt with wrongly

    by the police in relation to my contact with them.

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

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

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

    infiltradet/taken over by a criminal organisation. I think that this was irresponsible by the police.

    3. On 16/1/07 Sergant Camel told me to take the case to the CAB, even if he knew I was

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

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

    case themselves).

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

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

    I haven't been living in Britain that long, so I wasn't sure what the CAB was. But I remember

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

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

    information there, and I've seen on the CAB website, that CAB is actually a charity.

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

    at the policestation on 16/1.

    If he had told me that the CAB was a charity, then I would have objected much stronger

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

    the police to deal with it.

    But that the Sergant told me that the CAB were government, and that the solicitor I would

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

    a matter for the police, confused me, and since I hadn't been living that long in Britain,

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

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

    a number of more times trying to get them to deal with the case, (but they still

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

    beliving the CAB was a government organisation.

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

    that would show that it was a crime-case.

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

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

    5. The police didn't want to look at the evidence/documents on my laptop on 22/1,

    saying it was a breach of the data protection act. Even if I think it must be obvious that

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

    protection issue.

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

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

    This happened a lot of times, that the police said they would call me back, but they

    didn't. It's difficult for me to say what happened in this situation. If Holmes got the

    message or not. There could be some problems with the routines at the police-station,

    or it could have been a mistake from eighter Steele or Holmes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But Steele didn't call. This is a similar problem I think to complaint 6, and this happened

    a lot of times, I was promised maybe 10 times by different officers/constables that the

    police would call me back, but I wasn't called back by the police a single time in 2007.

    I was only called back once in November 2006.

    (And I was promised to be called back about ten times or more in 2007, and they didn't

    call a single time).

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

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

    organisation of some kind having infiltrated/taking over the company I had worked in.

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

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

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

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

    By then I had 'argued' so much with the police about this, that I didn't know if it

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

    this.

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

    police if they thought it was right.

    And thought that maybe it was because I was from another country that they wouldn't

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

    with documents for all that I knew.

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

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

    investigate the case.

    (It could be of couse, that the police investigated it, but didn't tell me about this. I had

    been at the police-station several times in November and later explaining about the case.

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

    without telling me, for some reason, I wasn't sure, but I reackoned that this could be the case,

    since I would have thought that the British Police would deal with a matter like this in a

    responsible way.)

    But in the complaint about the liasons with the police, I could only relate to what I knew for

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

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

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

    proberly, and to not give them to an investigator.

    10. The police sent me a letter on 16/2, where they called me 'Miss Erik Ribsskog'. I think, like

    the British representative on the Norwegian Consulate in the India Building said, that it should

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

    making jokes and not taking their job serious.

    Like I had explained in meetings at the police-station, it seemed to me that some of my collegues

    in the complany, probably must have been under control by criminals. So I thought this was an important

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

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

    out of control at the police-station.

    11. In the meeting on 1/2, Sergant O'Brian told me to move from the chair I sat down with at the

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

    16/1).

    So I had to move to another chair, at the other side of the table, I think that Sgt. O'Brian was acting

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

    12. In the meeting at the St. Ann's police-station on 1/3, the 'ginger' police-constable, wouldn't let

    me present the issues about which I had contacted the police-station to the Sergant O'Brian, but

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

    So this made me lose a bit control on how the issues were presented, and it seemed to me that

    I was being patronised by the police-constable.

    And this made it diffucult for me to present the things I wanted to bring up, in the way I intended

    to present it, and also it made me more of a spectator than a participant in the meeting.

    I guess it could be that it was O'Brian who should have told the constable to let me explain myself,

    because I think they should have let me explain my concerns myself.

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

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

    So this made me a bit confused about how they meant the meeting to be conducted, and what they

    wanted my role in the meeting to be.

    14. In the meeting on 1/3, Sgt. O'Brian said that he thought the problem with the case not having any

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

    number of police servicemen.

    So, he suggested, that to find out exactly what had been going on, they would ask constable Steele

    to call me, and tell me what she had been doing with the documents after I gave them to her.

    I think this was irresponsible by the Sergant. He must have understood that to find out what the police

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

    So I think that he should have taken the job of finding out what the police had been doing, that he should

    have taken the responsibility of finding this out himself.

    And of course, investigate the case himself, instead of not doing anything, other that saying I had to find

    out what the police had been doing so far.

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

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

    1. What the police had done regarding the case so far. (And not telling me to find out about this.)

    2. Investigate the case further.

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

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

    I was subjected to (which is explained in point 11 and 12), made it difficult for me to bring up

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

    So I think that (especially since I haven't been living in Britain that long, and had to 'compete'

    with to British police-servicemen who were patronising me in the meeting), because of this,

    I think that the Sergant should have tryed to remain calm in the meeting, since I think when

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

    with the public.

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

    to be conducted in a meaningful way, since the things the Sergant said had marks of not being

    very thorowly considered. (Like he told me that I had to make sure that my former employer and

    the job-agency got in touch about the letter I had brought there, even if it was obvious from that

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

    this).

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

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

    to agree with him.

    I though that I would rather call the Sergant later, and explain about this later, when he was in

    a calmer state.

    An I think that when one as a member of the public, contacts the police, about important things

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

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

    Sergant in charge of the meeting, isn't capable to keep control of himself and remain calm, in

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

    I think that if the Sergant in charge of the meeting isn't capable of doing this, then this is a reason

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

    and unpolite way when they are contacting the police).

    17. Sgt. O'Brian said in the meeting on 1/3, that they would get constable Steele to call me back

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

    Victoria Steele didn't call, and I called back to the police-station several times, and was told that

    she was on holiday.

    I also called back several times after she should have been back, but she was never present.

    The people I talked with at the police-station, told me several times that they would get Steele

    to call, yet she never called.

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

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

    18. The same in this individual complaint.

    When I tryed calling Steele, but didn't suceed in getting in contact with her at all.

    Then I tried to call Sgt. O'Brian on several phone-numbers I was given by the central, and

    by St. Ann's police-station.

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

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

    any of them returning my calls.

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

    had any advice for me, on how to get in contact with Constable Steele or Sgt. Obrian.

    The Consulate-representative, Liz Hurley, went and called Sgt. O'Brian, while I was at

    the Consulate on 19/3.

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

    'he remembered the case'.

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

    Consulate representative.

    Sgt. O'Brian still hadn't called me back when I sent you the complaint on 3/5, and he still

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

    I think this is very unprofessional of the Sergant. On the meeting on 1/3, I showed the

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

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

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

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

    under control by criminals.

    (I had written it in capital letters, because I was a bit tired of the police not taking any

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

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

    with Constable Holmes also in January.

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

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

    letters, so to show that I meant this seriously, and to maybe get them to wake up).

    And it was this document that I remember O'Brian read, and still they didn't even return

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

    the case was.

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

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

    'As I explained, Morecrofts do not deal with criminal law and would not be able to advise you

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

    will assist the police.'

    Even if I showed the Sergant this letter from the Solicitor, still the Sergant didn't want to investigate/

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

    I explain that I'm worried about some of my collueges being under control by criminals in the

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

    still he didn't even return my calls.

    I think this was very irresponsible and unprofessional by the Sergant. And it was this behaviour from

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

    police to the CPS.

    And then, after recieving my complaint, the CPS adviced me to contact you, so thats why

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

    Please tell us why you would like to appeal about the way your complaint was handled:

    The police force didn't record my complaint.

    Please explain why you want to appeal:

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

    public in a professional and aproriate way.

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

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

    police force.

    And when I complain about the police not letting me report a crime (like in complaint 1), and

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

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

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

    investgate a serious criminal case, involiving people being held under control, seemingly

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

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

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

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

    this happened to many times to it being coincidental, I would think that some type of

    misconduct is the reason for this way of treatment by the police (numerous complaints, eg.

    complaint 6, 8, 17 and 18).

    That the police constable didn't give the documents I gave him regarding a serious crime-

    case to an investigator (complaint 9), that the police insulted me, calling me 'Miss Erik

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

    a British representative working for the Norwegian Consulate, that it should be obvious

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

    towards me, since they called me 'Miss', even if they should know that my name isn't

    a girls name.

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

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

    complaint 11-18.

    That Sgt. O'Brian was acting irresponsible in not investigating a serious crime-case,

    even if the Solicitor had written in the letter that she thought this could be a matter

    for the police, and even if he was called by the Norwegian Consulate, and still didn't

    return my calls.

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

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

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

    about the issues in the way I had intended, due to having to focus on not trying

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

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

    I think the harassment, patronisment, unprofesionalism from the Sergant in the

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

    I initialy complained about, but also to beind misconduct like I see now that it has

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

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

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

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

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

    So when I read in your e-mail from 14/8, that 'I was informed by
    Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be concerned
    with allegations of misconduct against individual police officers and

    therefore decided not to formally record your complaint under the Police
    Reform Act 2002.', then I can't agree with the Merseyside Police that my

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

    misconduct against individual police officers.

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

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

    and the other mentioned issues (see above).

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Also, while I'm dealing with this, I thought I'd mention some points from the complaint-

    procedure:

    The police called me a week before the meeting at Walton Lane police station on 22/6.

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

    say that I had spoken with.

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

    and ask to speak with Sgt. Smithe.

    I thought that they would probably ask me who had called me and told me to meet there,

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

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

    the police.

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

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

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

    org. criminals in Oslo and Liverpool.

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

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

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

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

    surounding Council-tax.

    But for some reason, I don't think any of the tenants revieved council-tax bills (or tv-licensing

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

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

    me to meet at the Walton Lane police-station.

    I thought, of course, that it could be to do with the complaint. But I wasn't completly sure,

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

    org. criminials in Oslo and Liverpool.

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

    tax and tv-licensing bills from the Mandeville shared house. (Problems which I had intended

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

    once I'd got a contact-person and a dialog at the police, and could start to focus on trying

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

    And I wanted the police to deal with the things I had brought up seriously. And I was a bit

    afraid to 'make a fool of myself', if I called the Walton Lane police-station, and asked to

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

    Because then I reackoned that I had to explain who had called me about the meeting, and

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

    permanently. He could be in a specialised police-department for all that I know, who dealt

    with police complaint cases, and who was stationed somewhere else, maybe even out of

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

    for the meeting regarding the complaint-case.

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

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

    long, due to this, I found it best to just show for the meeting, and not call to ask any

    questions regarding the agenda.

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

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

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

    this and this person.

    But since no such contact-name was given to me, then I guessed that I wasn't meant to

    know what the meeting was about, before the meeting.

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

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

    to be sure.

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

    police at all.

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

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

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

    – Core of case: Followed by mafia in Norway, and this has continued in England (Ppl. from

    work etc).

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

    in Norway and England.

    It was on my workplace in Oslo. I was working as an assistant shop-manager, while I was studying.

    And then I got some problems with the my face being more or less distroyed (its a long story), and

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

    face-skin would pass), and then I overheard a couple of conversations about me behind my back so to

    speak, eg. one conversation I overheard I heard it being said (they were talking about my face which

    was more or less distroyed), and I head them say: 'I've heard that he's also followed by the mafia'.

    And also I heard other customers say, about me, 'he isn't afraid (eg. he goes to work as normal

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

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

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

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

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

    But he writes in the answer-letter that 'I have since had the oppertunity to examine the issues you

    raised in terms of organised criminality and the Norwegian Mafia.'.

    Well, I haven't actually menioned anything about a 'Norwegian Mafia'. I have never heard of, or

    menioned a 'Norwegian mafia'.

    I always thought that the people I overheard at my old workplace in Oslo, was refering to the

    Albanian mafia, since this was the only mafia I had heard that were being present in Oslo.

    So, when the Sergant is writing about 'the Norwegian Mafia' in his letter, then I get a bit

    concerned that maybe there have been some misunderstanings in the comunications,

    since I've never used the term 'Norwegian mafia', and I've never heard of or refered to

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

    in the meeting.

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

    with being infiltrated by org. criminals.

    (I said I thought the problems with org. criminals in Liverpool probably had to be connected

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

    same place twice so to speak).

    I can see in my notes that the Sergant thought that Arvato had a Swedish parent-company,

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

    I also told him that I thought it would be very fine to have a contact person at the police,

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

    the different cases which I still hadn't got an oppertunity to report to the police, yet this

    haven't been addressed in the answering-letter.

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

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

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

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

    happens now, for which I would have needed the assitance of the police. I'm not sure what

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

    more.

    So I think they should have brought up this issue in their answering-letter.

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

    wanted the police to investigate the case with the problems with the Arvato-company

    having problems with infiltration by org. criminals.

    I explained to the Sergant that I had a lot of documents that helped showing this, and that

    I think he should maybe have a look at these documents, in concetion with his investigation.

    Yet, I wasn't contacted back by the Sergant at all, before I got the letter that he couldn't

    find any evidence to substantiatie my claims.

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

    suggested to him in the meeting. Maybe this could have helped him. He says he haven't

    found any evidence to substantiate my claims. But when he didn't even have a look at

    the documents, which I explained about to him that I had in the meeting, then it's seems

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

    Because in the meeting I told him that he could just contact me if he wanted to have at

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

    back about this.

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

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

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

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

    wanted them to cooperate about this.

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

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

    the Norwegian police the same, that I want them, like the Embassy adviced, to cooperate

    with the British police on this.)

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

    the case in Norway. (Who was working in a similar Norwegian Department, that is the

    department that investigates the regular police). This because Sgt. Smithe asked who

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

    enough about this.

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

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

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

    the Embassy, in the meeting.

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

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

    get in contact with him regarding the case, but still, Sgt. O'Brian didn't call me back.

    And this is neigther addressed in the answering-letter.

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

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

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

    Norway again and settled in Liverpool.

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

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

    Automn of 2005.

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

    several times before this, and also after this, in the spring and summer of 2006.

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

    company from November 2006).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    in Oslo.e problems in Oslo.

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

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

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

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

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

    people I had been having problems with were).

    –

    I'll try to summarise the problems surrounding the complaint-process and the meeting on 22/6:

    – The police didn't tell me was calling when they called me on 15/6 instructing me
    to met at Walton Lane police-station on 22/6.

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

    – The police didn't address the individual complaints from the complaint from 3/5, neighter
    in the meeting on 22/6, or in their letter from 10/7.

    – The police didn't investigate the documents I told them I had, which I told them in the
    meetin on 22/6, could help explain what went on at Arvato while I was working there.

    – The police says in their letter from 10/7, that I have been raising issues in terms of
    'The Norwegian Mafia'. But I have never heard about or refered to the term 'the Norwegian
    mafia', so the police must have been misunderstanding what I said in the meeting on 10/7.

    – In their answering-letter, the police haven't addressed the issue I brought up in the
    meeting on 10/7, that I had been adviced by the Embassy to tell the British and Norwegian
    police to cooperate on the case. But in the letter from 10/7, it isn't mentioned at all,

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

    – In the meeting on 22/6, I mentioned to Sgt. Smite, that I had been having problems
    with the Merseyside Police, on repeted occations, having promised to call me back,
    but then not having called. I explained that this procedure made it difficult to me,

    to report about what I knew about the cases, and to get any meaningful dialog.

    I threfore expressed in the meeting, a request, if I please could get a contact-person,
    in the Merseyside Police, which I could contact, and get a dialog with, and tell about
    the things I knew regarding the different crime-cases that had been going on.

    Yet, in the letter from the police from 10/7, this isn't brought up at all, and I have
    so far in 2007, not recieved a single call from the Merseyside Police about this, or
    about anything else.

    So these problems from the meeting/complaint process, together with the 18 individual complaints
    from the complaint from 3/5, which I have exlained about above, and which haven't been dealt
    with at all in the Merseyside Police letter from 10/7, are the reasons for which I am appealing.

    Also, my complaint from 3/5, is like I have explained above, regarding problems with the
    liasons, or contact, with the police.

    Like I've also explained earlier, I'm not an expert on police methods, and I've been a bit
    confused about why the police seemingly don't want to cooperate with me.

    I've looked at it as certain, that maybe even if the Merseyside police haven't seemed to want
    to cooperate with me about the problems at Arvato etc., I've taken it as certain, that the
    Merseyside police, like any responsilbe Police-unit, would investigate the things that have

    been going on at Arvato, when I've been telling them when I've met up at the police-station
    in Novemeber last year, on several occations telling them about my concerns about org. criminal
    activity in the company.

    When I've in the meetings with Sgt. Camel on 16/1, in the several talks with Constable Holmes,
    and in the meeting with Sgt. O'Brian on 1/3.

    When I've in these expressed my concern about what has been going on in the Arvato company, and
    also explained to them that I'm worried about my former collegues that were still working there,
    because it seemed to me that some of them must have been under control by criminals.

    And when I also mention to the Merseyside Police that I have been in contact with the Embassy,
    and later also the Consulate, and I give a larger number, several hundred, documents, that
    helps show that there has been something goving on there.

    And when I've also sent e-mails, on my last day working at Arvato, to a number of British and
    Norwegian newspapers and tv-stations, and also to the parent-company, that it's clear to me
    that there is a problem with organised criminal activity in the company.

    If the fact, that the police are still ignoring my plea to get a contact-person and a dialog
    with the police, to get a chance to tell them everything I know about the problems at Arvato,
    (and also about the other problems from Liverpool and Norway).

    If the fact that they are still ignoring this request, means that they haven't been investigating
    the problems at Arvato at all, then I off course think that this is serious. And I guess, since
    I haven't been reading about the problems at Arvato in the newspapers or otherwere, and since

    I see from the letter the Merseyside police sent me on 10/7, that the police doesn't seem to be
    interested in letting me tell them what I know about (since they haven't commented on the problems
    I have been having with the contact with the police at all).

    Due to this I have to presume that nothing has been done about the problems at Arvato then.
    Problems which to me seems like they are serious, and it seems to me that some of the people
    that were working there, at the same time I was working there, was under control by criminals.

    (This got clear to me at the end of the time I worked there, thats why I sent the e-mails to
    the newspapers etc., and this is also why I went to the police and told them about this all
    those times from November 2006.).

    I've also explained about what it seems to me must have been going on at Arvato, to the Norwegian
    Embassy, and the Norwegian Police, since there were many Norwegians and Scandinavians working
    at the Arvato campaign which I was working on.

    But if it even, after I've tryed to tell all of these about the problems, if there still hasn't
    been investigating what has been going on at Arvato (Which I find highly unlikly, since I think
    any responsible police-force of course would have investigated serious cases like this. But

    I mention this anyway, due to the ignorance from the police regarding my plea to tell the police
    what I know about what has been going on).

    Because then, since it also hasn't been about this in the news, then I have to presume that the
    problems at Arvato haven't been investigated by the Merseyiside Police at all, or by anyone
    else, so then I think the only responsible think would be to try get advice on how this problem,

    with the semingly organised crime activity at the Arvato company, should addressed, when the
    police are igonring the problem.

    So if you at the IPCC have any idea on how to go forward then. I guess thats a complaint about
    the Merseyside Police as a police-force, as well as a complaint against individual police-
    officers, like it is in the complaints you are dealing with.

    But I reackoned that I might as well ask you now then, how I should go forward, to get the police
    to investigate the problems with the organised criminal activity at Arvato, which seeems clear
    to me from working there, and which I also have documents that supports the occurance of.

    Sorry if I'm repeating myself a bit at the end here, but I think that these problems should
    be dealt with in a responsilbe way.

    And it doesn't seem to me that the complaint with the problems with the liasons is being dealt
    with in a responsible way from the Merseyside Police.

    And this makes a bit worried about if the problems with my former collegues from Arvoto which
    it seemed to me must have been under control by criminal, also is being dealt with in an
    irresponsible way.

    Thats why I'm bringing this up now, even if I'm not sure if it's the right time and place, but
    I hope that maybe you could maybe give some advice on how to go forward with this problem as
    well, with the org. criminal activity at Arvato, and the problems with the people working

    there seeming to be under control by criminals.

    Even if this complaint originaly only was regarding the problems with the contact with the
    police, because I was sure that the police would deal with a case like that responsible,
    no matter what they inform me about what they are doing.

    But I must admit that the way the police have been dealing with my complaint from 3/5, with the
    problems surrounding the meeting on 22/6, and the answering-letter from 10/7.

    I think issues have been dealt with a bit unprofessional by the police, so the unprofessionalism
    from them surrounding these issues, has made me a bit uncertain as to if they are dealing with
    the problems at Arvato in a responsible way at all.

    So thats why I thought I'd bring this up now, while I was dealing with the relating issues
    in the appeal.

    So I hope that this is alright, and that it's possible for you have a look at the issues I've
    brought up in this appeal.

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog


    On 8/15/07, Joanne Fitzgerald <Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:


    Dear Mr Ribsskog,

    Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).


    The information we require, should you wish to appeal the police's decision to not formally record your complaint, is set out in the Appeal Form that I have posted to you.

    I have also now attached the relevant appeal form with this email for your consideration – this electronic version can be printed out, completed and returned by post. You may complete an Appeal Form or provide the same required information in an email.

    Please be aware that if you wish to submit an appeal we must receive your appeal within 28 days of the date of me informing you of your right to appeal.

    I hope this information has assisted you.

    Please contact me if you have any further questions,


    Yours sincerely,

    Joanne

    Joanne Fitzgerald
    Casework Manager


    Independent Police Complaints Commission
    90 High Holborn
    London


    WC1V 6BH
    Tel: 020 7166 3182


    Fax: 020 7166 3642
    Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk


    From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
    Sent: 15 August 2007 00:24

    To: Joanne Fitzgerald
    Subject: Re: Your Complaint Against Merseyside Police – 2007/006341


    Hi,

    thank you very much for your e-mail!

    I will definatly appeal against the decision not to investigate the complaint.

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

    to look up in the letter about how one should appeal formally, one of the next

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

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

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

    Hope that this is alright!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    On 8/14/07, Joanne Fitzgerald <Joanne.Fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

    > wrote:

    Dear Mr Ribsskog,

    Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission
    (IPCC).

    I have contacted Merseyside Professional Standards Department to
    establish the current status of your complaint. I was informed by
    Merseyside Police that they did not deem your complaint to be concerned
    with allegations of misconduct against individual police officers and

    therefore decided not to formally record your complaint under the Police
    Reform Act 2002.

    If you disagree with the decision by Merseyside Police to not formally
    record your complaint, then you have a right to appeal to the IPCC to

    independently review the police's decision. I have sent you the relevant
    appeal form today in the post (Appealing Against a Complaint Not Being
    Recorded) and this form is also available online at our website

    (www.ipcc.gov.uk), should this assist you further. Please note, should
    you wish to appeal, we must receive your appeal form within 28 days.

    If you have any further questions then please do not hesitate to contact
    me.

    Yours sincerely,

    Joanne

    Joanne Fitzgerald
    Casework Manager
    Independent Police Complaints Commission
    90 High Holborn

    London
    WC1V 6BH
    Tel: 020 7166 3182
    Fax: 020 7166 3642
    Email: joanne.fitzgerald@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

    ******************************************************************************
    The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
    It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient

    please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
    distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content of
    this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily those

    of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
    accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
    computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your

    receipt of this email.

    Independent Police Complaints Commission
    90 High Holborn
    London,
    WC1V 6BH.
    ******************************************************************************

    The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.

    Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

    This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.


    Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.


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

    It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient
    please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
    distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content of

    this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily those
    of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
    accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for

    computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
    receipt of this email.

    Independent Police Complaints Commission
    90 High Holborn
    London,

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

    The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.

    Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.






  • Correspondence with the IPCC about appealing against the decision not to investigate (Appeal e-mail 3)

    Correspondence with the IPCC about appealing against the decision not to investigate (Appeal e-mail 3)



  • Correspondence with the IPCC about appealing against the decision not to investigate (Appeal e-mail 2)

    Correspondence with the IPCC about appealing against the decision not to investigate (Appeal e-mail 2)


  • Correspondence with the IPCC about appealing against the decision not to investigate (Appeal e-mail 1)

    Correspondence with the IPCC about appealing against the decision not to investigate (Appeal e-mail 1)


  • E-post til Trond Halvorsen om HV osv. (In Norwegian)







    Google Mail – alvor







    Google Mail


    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>



    alvor




    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>


    Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM





    To:

    Trond Halvorsen <trond-h@getmail.no>



    Hei,

    og det med AG-3, det er fordi jeg er i heimevernet.

    Jeg overhørte i 2003, da jeg jobbet som låseansvarlig på Rimi

    Bjørndal, ved siden av

    bachelor-studier på HiO ingeniørutdanningen, at jeg var forfulgt av

    noe ‘mafian’.

    Så jeg bestemte meg da for å dra til Sunderland, for å studere.

    Dette fordi, at jeg ikke viste hvem den her ‘mafian’ var, jeg vet bare

    det som står i avisene,

    om mafia i Norge, dvs. ingenting.

    Så jeg dro til utlandet.

    Lånekassa og HiO, tulla med meg, så studielånet ble veldig forsinket,

    så studiene gikk i vasken.

    Etterhvert så dro jeg til gården til min onkels nå eksdame, i Kvelde

    utenfor Larvik, hvor jeg ble forsøkt

    drept av et Ku Klux Klan-lignende jaktlag, som om de jaktet på en

    negerslave i gamle dager, i sørstatene.

    Men jeg kom meg til Liverpool, hvor jeg har bodd i over tre år nå.

    Jeg får ingen hjelp av Kripos eller norsk politi, de vil ikke

    etterforske, eller gi meg

    noen informasjon.

    Jeg vet ikke hvem i HV jeg kan stole på heller, så utstyret mitt fra

    HV og resten av klærna og

    tingene mine, som jeg ikke fikk med meg til Sunderland, ligger i en

    bod i Oslo, hos City Self

    Storage, som jeg ikke har hatt råd til å betale for, det siste året cirka.

    Det var det jeg spurte faren min om, om han kunne betale leia for

    boden hos City Self-Storage.

    Jeg har ikke bedt han tømme boden, for jeg ville ikke latt folk tulle

    med HVs ting.

    De må ligge der jeg la dem, mener jeg, det er bare HV som kan flytte

    på de tingene, mener jeg.

    Så det er bare oppspinn, fra faren min, at jeg har bedt han om å tømme

    den boden.

    Men men.

    Og vitnemål og attester, det ligger igjen på den gården i Kvelde, det

    er familien min på morssiden,

    (Ribsskog), og de nekter å sende meg papirer, (blant annet et brev fra

    Rimi Hagen som jeg fikk da

    jeg var butikksjef i Rimi), og klær, som jeg måtte legge etter meg da

    jeg ble jaget til England, den

    andre og siste gangen jeg dro til England.

    (Jeg var mye på språkreise til England, på 80-tallet, så derfor

    kjenner jeg meg litt hjemme i England,

    mer enn i Sverige f.eks.).

    Men men.

    Bare for å forklare om det AG-3 greiene, så du ikke skulle tro at det

    var noe med noe kriminelt fra min

    side, eller noe, jeg er i HV, det er derfor jeg har den ag-en og andre

    HV-ting, i en bod hos City Self-Storage,

    i Oslo.

    (Som jeg har sagt fra til dem at bare HV får røre).

    Så sånn er det.

    Med vennlig hilsen

    Erik Ribsskog

    2009/2/28 Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>:

    [Quoted text hidden]





  • E-post til Trond Halvorsen. (In Norwegian)







    Google Mail – alvor







    Google Mail


    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>



    alvor




    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>


    Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:07 PM





    To:

    Trond Halvorsen <trond-h@getmail.no>



    Hei,

    her ser du at jeg også har fått e-poster fra denne e-post adressen.

    Med vennlig hilsen

    Erik Ribsskog

    ———- Forwarded message ———-

    From: Arne <arnemogan@gmail.com>

    Date: 2009/1/31

    Subject: alvor

    To: eribsskog@gmail.com

    Når skal du ta til vettet. Så mye tullprat som du legger ut på nettet.

    Du skriver ikke om AG3-en din og den boden din som jeg skulle hjelpe

    deg med

    å tømme. Nå får du slette alt du skriver om familien din. På mandag

    går jeg til drammenspolitiet. Så sett igang med en gang å gjør den

    jobben.

    Din far.





  • E-post til Trond Halvorsen. (In Norwegian)







    Google Mail – Trusler mottatt i email







    Google Mail


    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>



    Trusler mottatt i email




    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>


    Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:05 PM





    To:

    Trond Halvorsen <trond-h@getmail.no>



    Hei,

    ja det er e-post adressen til faren min.

    (Ihvertfall som han sier han bruker da, han burde jo brukt

    arnemoganolsen@gmail.com, eller noe).

    Men men.

    Jeg har kuttet ut kontakten med faren min, ettersom han lot meg bo

    alene fra jeg var ni år, og så hadde jeg

    ikke kontakt med faren min omtrent, fra jeg var 19 år, i 1989, til ifjor.

    Og forrige måned, så ringte faren min meg hele tida, natt og dag, og

    jeg måtte kjøpte ny mobil,

    for å få disse telefonene til å slutte.

    Han brydde seg ikke om at jeg sa, at jeg ikke ville han skulle ringe.

    Så jeg måtte kjøpe ny mobil da.

    Men jeg tror mer at det er onkelen min, Håkon Mogan Olsen, som er noe ‘mafian’.

    Så det kan være noen andre enn faren min, som bruker den e-post adressen.

    Men jeg har anmeldt faren min, til politiet i Drammen, for telefonsjikane og

    for, hva heter det, omsorgssvikt, under oppveksten.

    Men politiet i Drammen, gjør ikke noe.

    Så om det er politiet, som tuller med meg, gjennom faren min, eller om

    det er noe

    ‘mafian’, det vet jeg ikke.

    Men jeg hadde anmeldt det til politiet, det har ihvertfall jeg gjort,

    på e-post og publisert

    det på bloggen.

    Men jeg kan bekrefte at faren min oppga den e-post adressen, over

    telefon, ifjor, da

    jeg skulle sende han noen e-poster.

    Jeg skal se om jeg finner mer om det.

    Med vennlig hilsen

    Erik Ribsskog

    [Quoted text hidden]





  • Trond Halvorsen har mottatt trusler fra faren min, Arne Mogan Olsen. (In Norwegian)







    Google Mail – Trusler mottatt i email







    Google Mail


    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>



    Trusler mottatt i email




    Trond Halvorsen

    <trond-h@getmail.no>


    Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:53 PM





    To:

    Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>




    Hei.

    Jeg mottok en trussel i email. Noen som har lest bloggen din

    antagelig:

    Arne Mogan Olsen [arnemogan@gmail.com]

    jeg er fattern til erik og som han beskriver meg er jeg no mafia å det

    er jeg så slutt å ha kontakt med erik ellers får du besøk.

    fattern mafios

    mvh

    Trond Halvorsen





  • E-post fra Trond Halvorsen om at Bin Laden ikke stod bak 11. september, mm. (In Norwegian)







    Google Mail – Utdrag fra diskusjon på blogg







    Google Mail


    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>



    Utdrag fra diskusjon på blogg




    Trond Halvorsen

    <trond-h@getmail.no>


    Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:41 PM





    To:

    Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>




    Hei.

    IslamInEurope:

    Trond,

    BigShaker, I think there's a misunderstanding here, but maybe Trond can explain

    better.

    Trond

    started by posting a theory that Larry Silverstein built the Pentagon (?!) and

    that he was a mass-murderer (?!). Then he posted a list of Jewish businessmen

    and say that's the reason for the 'cover-up'. If I understand correctly – he

    claims it's a Jewish conspiracy, and Fox News is part of the cover-up by

    bringing a stupid story. Unlike the really 'intelligent' story about a Jew

    'fooling America

    by building a building that symbolizes evil'. Stupid Americans. And here they

    thought the attack on the Pentagon was Osama bin-Laden's plan, just because he

    claimed responsibility and Muslims world-wide celebrated.

    Bin-Laden

    threatened Norway

    directly, Trond, is that a Jewish plot too?

    ———————-

    TrondH:

    9/17:

    "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been

    carried out by individuals with their own motivation."

    http://web.dailycamera.com/news/terror/sept01/17abin.html

    9/28:

    "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in

    the United States.

    As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these

    attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other

    humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent

    women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the

    course of a battle. It is the United

    States, which is perpetrating every

    maltreatment on women, children and common people "

    http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html

    FBI-Laden,

    12/13:

    "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who

    would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the

    floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most

    optimistic of them all."

    "Due

    to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in

    the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area

    where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had

    hoped for."

    http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.transcript.html

    This

    last Laden knew exactly how many were working at the top floors at that

    specific time. He had calculated the casualties in advance. Due to his

    experience in miracles and because he had read parts of the official script

    before it was released, he thought that the jetfuel would make the top floors

    disappear.

    But

    his experience was not good enough and he should have read the whole script,

    and his calculations were a waste of time…

    ———————-

    TrondH:

    "Larry

    Silverstein built the Pentagon (?!) "

    No,

    I din't say that, and I'm pretty sure you know that 🙂

    ———————-

    IslamInEurope:

    You're

    right.

    I

    just assumed there was a connection between the beginning and end of your

    comment. So, I'm glad you 'proved' that Osama bin-Laden 'only' meant to destroy

    a few floors, and I suppose the attack on the building by Muslims a few years

    earlier was just a 'joke' too. Good for you.

    So,

    Osama bin-Laden didn't attack the buildings, Silverstein was a mass-murderer

    and Eliphas Levi was Jewish. And you can 'prove' that by quoting Bin-Laden who

    first said he didn't mean to destroy so much and then said he didn't do it?!

    Please

    take your Jew-hating paranoia elsewhere, thank you.

    ———————-

    TrondH:

    You

    just proved that you pretend you don't understand anything. No one is as dense

    as you pretend to be 🙂

    ———————-

    IslamInEurope:

    I'm

    sorry I actually look up facts.

    ———————-

    TrondH:

    Yeah,

    any sane person would see that the 2 first Laden-interviews seem realistic,

    while the last one, which was on a tape that FBI discovered, was quite

    ridiculous 🙂

    http://home.chello.no/trondh/collapse-wtc7.gif

    ———————-

    IslamInEurope:

    Wow,

    you quoted a Jew to prove your point. You must be right, then.

    ———————-

    TrondH:

    If

    you reply to the correct post you would make sense.

    http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/02/oslo-imam-blames-911-on-us-in-college.html

    Mvh

    Trond Halvorsen