johncons

Stikkord: Islam

  • Like etter årtusenskiftet så klagde min Rimi-kollega David Hjort på at vi hadde Valgerd Svartstad Haugland, som kulturminister. Og nå har vi en muslim, (Abdi Raja), som kulturminister. Jeg lurer på hva David Hjort sier da. Hm

    https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/har-vaert-turbulent-mellom-oss/72066115

    PS.

    Da David Hjort sa dette, (like etter årtusenskiftet).

    Om at det var så dumt, at Valgerd Svartstad Haugland, var kulturminister.

    Så tenkte jeg, at spiller det nå så stor rolle, hvem som er kulturminister.

    Har kulturministeren en slags totalitær makt, liksom.

    Det har de selvfølgelig ikke.

    Så man må vel si, at David Hjort søyt fælt.

    Og at det bare var koselig, å ha ei vestlandsk dame, som kulturminister.

    (For å si det sånn).

    Så sånn var vel det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Mvh.

    Erik Ribsskog

    PS 2.

    Nå var det også sånn.

    At i VG, (og andre aviser), på 80/90-tallet.

    Så stod det ofte råd, om at man ikke burde diskutere politikk og religion, på jobb.

    (Ihvertfall ikke som leder).

    Så jeg bare noterte meg David Hjort sine meninger, (om kulturministeren), husker jeg.

    Men jeg begynte ikke å diskutere dette.

    (På noen måte).

    For jeg var ofte David Hjort sin overordnede, på jobb.

    Og jeg prøvde å ikke glemme dette, (på fritiden), for å si det sånn.

    Samtidig så hadde ikke vi Rimi-ledere, noen strenge regler, (som for eksempel i Forsvaret), angående hvem vi kunne ‘fraternisere’ med.

    Så derfor var det ikke så lett, å vite hva man skulle si, når ens ‘undersotter’ på jobb, ville ha en med ut, på byen, i helgene, (vår Rimi Bjørndal-kollega Thor Arild Ødegaard, (som på fritiden var DJ), fikk oss satt opp på gjestelister, på utesteder over hele byen), osv.

    (For å si dette sånn).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    PS 3.

    Det var ikke bare David Hjort som skulle diskutere politikk/religion med meg, da jeg jobba, som Rimi-leder.

    Mens jeg jobba som assisterende butikksjef, på Rimi Bjørndal.

    (Noe jeg jobba som fra våren 1996 til høsten 1998).

    Så var det en pakistansk butikkansatt, (som jeg har kalt ‘hakk i hue’, i mine memoarer, for han slo hull hodet, da han falt ned fra en balkong, (eller noe lignende), som liten gutt, i Pakistan).

    Og han ville diskutere religion med meg, på bussen hjem fra jobb.

    (En buss som gikk fra Bjørndal og til Mortensrud, vel.

    Noe sånt).

    Og er jo ikke religiøs.

    (Jeg tror ikke på gud.

    For eksempel).

    Men likevel så forklarte pakistaneren, at han, (og de andre muslimene), mente at Jesus ikke var Guds sønn.

    De mente at Jesus var en profet.

    Men han var ikke Guds sønn.

    (Noe sånt).

    Og jeg som ikke tror på gud.

    Dette interesserte meg, et visst sted.

    (For å si det sånn).

    Men jeg sa ikke noe.

    Jeg fulgte rådet, fra de norske avisene, om å ikke diskutere religion/politikk, på jobb.

    Så jeg bare noterte meg ‘hakk i hue’ sine meninger, (og diskuterte ikke dette på noen måte).

    (For å si det sånn).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    PS 4.

    Det var også noe lignende, en gang, på Rimi Karlsrud.

    Ei assisterende butikksjef der, ved navn Liv.

    (Som seinere ble butikksjef, (på Rimi Grenseveien, blant annet).

    Hu var blant annet på butikksjef-seminar, på Storefjell, samtidig med meg, (høsten 1998), husker jeg.

    For å si det sånn).

    Og hu spurte meg på jobb, på Rimi Karlsrud, (hvor jeg jobba nå og da, (som ekstrahjelp/ringehjelp), ved siden av deltidsjobber på to andre Rimi Nylænde og Rimi Munkelia).

    Om hva jeg syntes, at var passende straff, for voldtektsmenn.

    (Noe sånt.

    Dette var antagelig en gang, i 1993 eller 1994.

    Før jeg begynte som heltids-leder, (på Rimi Nylænde), sommeren 1994).

    Og igjen, så bare noterte jeg meg, hva hu Liv sa.

    Jeg begynte ikke å diskutere, på noen måte.

    Jeg fulgte karriere-rådene, fra de norske avisene, da.

    (For å si det sånn).

    Men hu Liv, var kanskje litt nazi.

    Det var vel sånn, at hu ville kastrere voldtektsmenn, muligens.

    (Mener jeg sånn halvveis å huske).

    Så hu var kanskje litt ‘mannevond’.

    Hu hata kanskje menn.

    Og hu hata også utlendinger, (virka det som).

    For en gang, (mens jeg satt i kassa, på Rimi Kalsrud).

    Så dukka det opp, ei ung negerdame, (eller om hu var asiatisk), som lurte på veien til en skole, hvor hu skulle gå på norskkurs.

    (Noe sånt).

    Og da gjorde hu Liv narr, og sa: ‘Å _den_ skolen, ja’.

    Når jeg ropte opp kontoret, (på callinga), for å spørre de, om hvor dette var.

    (For som handel og kontor-elev, (og tidligere Matland/OBS Triaden-medarbeider, blant annet).

    Så tenkte jeg nok, på alle, som var, i butikken, som kunder.

    Så lenge de ikke var selgere, (som var på jobb i butikken), eller noe lignende.

    For å si det sånn.

    Og da prøvde jeg å yte så god kundeservice, (som jeg kunne).

    Og som jeg hadde lært om, på handel og kontor, da.

    For å si det sånn).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    PS 5.

    Nå sa vel Erna Solberg, på TV, i dag morges.

    At Abdi Raja kun skulle heie, (som kulturminister), og ikke delta.

    Så kulturministerens rolle, er å være en slags maskot, (kan det virke som).

    Men hvorfor ble David Hjort da så sur, på grunn av det, at Valgerd Svartstad Haugland, var kulturminister, like etter årtusenskiftet.

    (Hvis hu kun var en slags maskot.

    For å si det sånn).

    Det kan man kanskje lure på.

    (Må man vel si).

    Så sånn er nok det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

  • Da jeg jobba som butikksjef på Rimi Nylænde, (noe jeg jobba som fra høsten 1998 til høsten 2000), så var det sånn, at vår kassadame Linn Korneliussen, (fra Vestlandet), en gang satt med skaut/hijab på seg, i kassa, (da jeg kom på jobben, og skulle jobbe seinvakt), husker jeg. Men jeg vet ikke om det var fordi at hu var snikislamifisert, liksom. Hm

    https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/xnWlj/troendersk-is-kriger-31-skrev-hjem-fra-syria-kosa-mae-te-tider-sjoe

    PS.

    Det at hu Linn satt med skaut/hijab på seg, i kassa.

    Det var bare et engangstilfelle.

    (Sånn som jeg husker det).

    Så det var ikke sånn, at jeg fikk tatt det opp.

    Men hu Linn var sånn, at hu frøys mye.

    Så jeg måtte kjøpe en varmovn, til å ha i kassa, (hvis jeg husker riktig).

    Og det hadde jeg ikke hørt om før.

    (Jeg hadde jobba et år deltid på CC Storkjøp i Drammen.

    Og to år heltid/deltid på Matland/OBS Triaden i Lørenskog.

    Og jeg hadde jobbet i 7-8 år i Rimi, (i Oslo).

    Så jeg hadde jobba mer enn ti år i dagligvarebransjen, på den tida.

    For å si det sånn).

    Men det var slitsomt når de ansatte ble sykemeldt.

    Så derfor gikk jeg med på at hu Linn kunne ha varmovn i kassa, da.

    (Etter å ha rådført meg, med min assistent Stian Eriksen, blant annet.

    Var det vel.

    Og det ble vel til at jeg kjøpte, en liten oljefylt radiator-ovn, (muligens på Coop, ved Lambertseter Senter).

    For den trodde vi, at ikke var så brannfarlig, da.

    Men jeg er fortsatt ikke helt overbevist om, at det er så smart, å ha en varmovn, inne i en sånn trang kasse.

    For å si det sånn.

    Men det var vel sånn, at distriktsjefen, var Jan Graarud.

    Og han var rimelig ‘nazi’, (han spionerte på meg, fra bak potetgullet osv., da jeg satt i kassa, den første gangen han var innom butikken, som distriktsjef).

    Så det var kanskje ikke så fristende, å ta opp sånne saker, med distriktsjefen.

    For å si det sånn.

    Og det var også en ransbølge på den tida.

    Og min mor døde også, på rundt den samme tida.

    Så jeg var nok ikke helt på topp, da.

    Så jeg er ikke helt fornøyd med, hvordan beslutningsprosessen ble, rundt det med den varmovnen.

    Jeg skulle gjerne ha tatt det opp, høyere opp i Rimi.

    Må jeg si).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Mvh.

    Erik Ribsskog

    PS 2.

    Min farmor Ågot.

    Hu pleide også å gå med skaut.

    (Når hu klipte hekken, (rundt hagen hennes), for eksempel).

    Men jeg tror ikke at hu var snikislamifisert, liksom.

    (Ihvertfall så sa hu til meg at hu stemte KRF.

    Sånn som jeg husker det).

    Men det er vel sånn, at norske bondekoner, har pleid å gå, med skaut, i alle år.

    (Av en eller annen grunn).

    Og skaut og hijab er vel mer eller mindre det samme.

    (Må man vel si).

    Så sånn er vel det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    PS 3.

    Som nevnt ovenfor.

    Så hadde jeg jobba i dagligvarebransjen, i cirka ti år, da jeg hadde Linn som kassadame, (Linn var samboeren til min tidligere kollega David Hjort), i 1999, (var det vel).

    Og jeg hadde aldri tidligere sett, at noen av mine kolleger, hadde hatt skaut på seg, på jobb.

    Så norske damer, pleier ikke å ha skaut på seg, i kassa.

    (For å si det sånn).

    Men seinere.

    Da jeg jobba som butikksjef på Rimi Kalbakken.

    (Noe jeg jobba som fra høsten 2000 til våren 2001).

    Så trengte vi nye ansatte.

    Og det lå bare en eller to søknader/CV-er, på kontoret.

    (Sånn som jeg husker det).

    Og den ene var fra ei muslimsk dame, som jeg prata med på telefonen, (husker jeg).

    Og hu sa at hu ønsket å ha hijab på seg, i kassa, (da jeg spurte).

    Og jeg ansatte en annen søker, (som hadde mer butikk-erfaring), husker jeg.

    Men man kunne ha forestilt seg, at Rimi/ICA sitt hovedkontor, lagde en policy, for dette med hodeplagg, (i kassa).

    For det er nok ikke så lett, for butikkledere, å ta avgjørelser om dette, (ofte i en vanskelig situasjon, med mye sykmeldinger).

    Og hva synes kundene om dette.

    Jeg husker at jeg satt på en trikk, i Oslo sentrum, en gang, (rundt midten av 90-tallet).

    Og ei med piercing i nesa, klagde til ei venninne, på at vestkant-fruene mobba henne, (hu jobba som kassadame, eller noe lignende), fordi at hu hadde piercing.

    ‘Er det en kvise du har der’, hadde visst vestkant-fruene sagt.

    Så norske kunder liker ikke piercing, (på de butikkansatte), sånn som jeg har forstått det.

    Og de liker nok ikke tatoveringer.

    Og da liker de nok ikke hijab/skaut heller, (hvis jeg skulle tippe).

    Så hovedkontorene/eierne, (til Rimi og Prix osv.), ønsker nok ikke, å ha folk med hijab/skaut i kassa.

    (Hvis jeg skulle tippe).

    Men de ønsker kanskje ikke negativ publisitet/bråk med muslimer heller.

    Så de trekker seg kanskje.

    Og så lar de den enkelte butikksjef bestemme dette.

    (Noe sånt).

    Så sånn er muligens det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    PS 4.

    Da jeg jobba i en kontorjobb i England, (for Bertelsmann Arvato sin Microsoft Scandinavian Product Activation), i Liverpool, i 2005 og 2006.

    Så hadde de der noe de kalte: ‘Dress-code’.

    Det vil si: ‘Kles-kode’.

    Og den var rimelig klar.

    (Selv om de hadde begynt med noe de kalte: ‘Dress down Friday’.

    Noe som betydde at man skulle kle seg mer ‘casual’, på fredager.

    Og på lørdager og søndager så var kles-koden enda mer casual.

    For å si det sånn).

    Og den kles-koden ble ofte terpet på, (når det gjaldt at kvinnfolka ikke skulle ha korte skjørt osv.), av sjefene, (husker jeg).

    Men i butikker, så har man jo uniform.

    Men det var sånn, at jeg pleide å si fra, til de ansatte, hvis de hadde glemt navnskilt.

    (Da måtte jeg ofte lage et nytt.

    Og i England måtte nok da de ansatte, ha betalt, for nytt navnskilt selv.

    Noe sånt.

    For det måtte jeg, en gang, (i England), da mitt ‘mikrofon-munnstykke’ ble stjålet.

    For å si det sånn).

    Det er mulig, at hvis man leste Rimi sin personalhåndbok nøye, så stod det kanskje, at det ikke var lov, med hodeplagg, (i kassa).

    Men dette var et problem som var nytt, rundt årtusenskiftet, vil jeg si.

    For de første ti årene jeg jobbet i butikk, så var aldri dette, (med hodeplagg på jobb), noe tema, vil jeg si.

    Så hovedkontorene kunne godt sendt et skriv, til butikkene, angående hvordan man skulle håndtere hodeplagg i kassa.

    (Vil jeg si).

    Siden at dette var et nytt problem, som dukka opp, i forbindelse med den økte innvandringen, osv.

    (For å si det sånn).

    Og det var også sånn, (på Rimi Kalbakken), at det en gang, satt en sikh, i kassa, med turban.

    (En som jobba der fast, før jeg begynte der, (og som hadde perm fra militæret, kan det vel muligens ha vært).

    Og som vel var i slekt med ferskvare-medarbeider Gurvinder.

    Noe sånt).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    PS 5.

    Det var vel forresten også sånn, at hu Linn.

    En gang satt med en stor pelskåpe på seg, (muligens av ulv, uten at jeg tørr å si det sikkert), i kassa, (på Rimi Nylænde).

    Så hu syntes nok, at det var, rimelig kaldt der.

    Men det var det vel ingen andre som syntes.

    (Sånn som jeg husker det).

    Rimi hadde noen jakker, til å ha på seg, inne på kjølerommet, osv.

    Men de var litt ‘harry’ å ha på seg, i kassa, (må man vel si).

    Og det var vel bare på Rimi Munkelia, at de brukte disse, av de Rimi-butikkene jeg jobba i.

    (Noe sånt).

    På OBS Triaden så hadde vi, (den første tida etter omprofileringa fra Matland, høsten 1990), en uniform, som bestod av bukse, skjorte og blazer.

    Og da kunne man velge, om man ville ha blazeren på seg, (husker jeg), i kassa.

    (Jeg syntes at det ble litt varmt med blazer.

    Så jeg satt som oftest i hvit skjorte, (med rødt slips vel)).

    Men Rimi hadde vel ikke noen sånne blazere, (sånn som jeg husker det).

    (Ihvertfall fikk jeg aldri noe annet enn skjorter i Rimi.

    For å si det sånn).

    Hvis ikke kunne vi ha bestilt en til Linn.

    Linn hadde lærevansker, (på skolen osv.), fortalte hu meg, (under opplæringa, som jeg tok selv, etter  litt problemer, med kontakten/kommunikasjonen med medarbeiderne, i forbindelse med noen tidligere ansettelser).

    Så Linn tok nok ting veldig rolig, på jobb.

    Men det var ikke så mange kunder, på formiddagen, på Rimi Nylænde.

    Så Linn hadde muligens et veldig rolig tempo.

    (Noe sånt).

    Så hu hefta muligens assistent Stian Eriksen, (som pleide å ha tidligvaktene), en del.

    Og Linn sin samboer David Hjort, han klikka, av å jobbe sammen med Linn, (husker jeg).

    (Han prøvde en gang, å liksom stappe en calling, oppi fitta på Linn, (gjennom arbeidsbuksa), inne på tellerommet.

    Etter at de hadde jobba sammen en dag, (siden at David Hjort enkelte ganger jobba ekstra på Rimi Nylænde).

    Men Linn bare lo av dette, sånn som jeg husker det.

    Og det var ikke sånn, at jeg selv, liksom prøvde, å stappe noe opp i fitta, på Linn, etter dette.

    For å si det sånn.

    Linn Korneliussen og David Hjort var jo samboere.

    Så de kunne kanskje tulle litt, på en ‘sex-aktig’ måte, på jobben.

    Uten at det var noe, som de selv, ble satt ut av, for å si det sånn.

    Og jeg hadde vel sett fitter/kvinnfolk før, jeg og.

    Så jeg tålte vel også såvidt, dette ‘pervo-greiene’, (selv om jeg var ungkar).

    For å si det sånn.

    Og det var ingen andre til stede, i tellerommet, når dette ‘pervo-greiene’ skjedde.

    For å si det sånn).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    PS 6.

    Og da jeg jobba som assisterende butikksjef, på Rimi Bjørndal.

    (Noe jeg jobba som, fra våren 1996 til høsten 1998).

    Så var det sånn, at ‘Gokk-Hilde’, (var det vel), mente at det var tradisjon der, på Rimi Bjørndal.

    At kassadamene skulle ha nisseluer på seg, på lille julaften.

    Og da var det ei marokansk ei, som hele tida tok av seg nisselua si, (husker jeg).

    Men det var fordi at ble varmt, (med nisselue), sa hu vel.

    (Noe sånt).

    Så det var muligens ikke, av religiøse årsaker, at hu ikke ville ha nisselue på seg, i kassa.

    (For å si det sånn).

    Men et forbud mot religiøse hodeplagg vil muligens også ramme nisseluer, da.

    Selv om det kanskje ikke er så vanlig, at kassafolka, har nisseluer på seg, på jobb, (i jula).

    Dette er muligens bare noe Rimi Bjørndal hadde som tradisjon, (fra tida før masse-innvandringen).

    (Noe sånt).

    Så sånn er muligens det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    PS 7.

    Det da David Hjort liksom prøvde å voldta sin samboer Linn, med en calling, (utapå arbeidsbuksa hennes), inne på tellerommet, på Rimi Nylænde.

    (Rundt årtusenskiftet).

    Det minna meg, om en episode, i England.

    Min tremenning Øystein ‘Adoptert fra Korea’ Andersen og meg.

    Vi var to somre, (jeg var der tre somre), hos Hudson-familien, i Shoreham, utafor Brighton.

    (Dette var sommeren 1988.

    Og sommeren 1990).

    Og under et av disse besøkene, så fortale kona i familien, (Tina Hudson), oss.

    (Mens hennes ektemann Rick Hudson stod ved siden av henne).

    At hu noen ganger, pleide å bli voldtatt, av sin ektemann Rick, (som forresten hadde en eks fra Hamar, fortalte han en gang).

    Og det måtte hu bare finne seg i, (mente Tina).

    (Siden at de var gift).

    Så jeg hadde kanskje denne episoden, i bakhue.

    Da David Hjort liksom prøvde, å voldta sin samboer Linn, (som bare lo), med en calling, inne på tellerommet, på Rimi Nylænde, en ettermiddag, rundt årtusenskiftet.

    Så jeg er kanskje litt påvirket, av engelsk arbeiderklasse, osv.

    Etter flere språkreiser, (med etterfølgende feriebesøk), til Brighton, (og Weymouth).

    Og å gå imellom et samboer-par, (som David Hjort og Linn Korneliussen), når det gjelder seksuelle ting.

    Det er kanskje ikke noe, som er noe særlig enkelt/populært, (for å si det sånn).

    Man kan si at det er feil, at samboere, skal jobbe sammen, i samme butikk.

    Men dette var under en oppgangstid-periode, (før årtusenskiftet osv.), når ingen ville jobbe i butikk liksom, (alle skulle jobbe med y2k-data-problemer osv.).

    (For å si det sånn).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

  • Jeg sendte en e-post til the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

    Erik Ribsskog

    Complaint/Fwd: Update/Fwd: Complaint/Fwd: Independent Adjudication Review Report – 15 November 2016

    Erik Ribsskog  9. september 2019 kl. 15:47

    Til: Phso Enquiries


    Kopi: Politikk Høyre , Akademikerforbundet , “sande.vgs”


    Hi,

    I’ve told this guy to stop sending me e-mails.

    Which he ignores.

    It’s some type of Arabic/Muslim name, (it seems).

    And the muslims are known for assasin-attacks on editors from before, in Norway.

    (Nygård, who publish Salman Rushdies book ‘Sataniske vers’).

    So this I wanted to complain about.

    This is harrasment, (from your citizen), it seems.

    (And when its a Muslim/Arabic name then they aren’t that
    western/democratic often.

    So you should perhaps this guy back to Asia/Middle East again).

    Erik Ribsskog

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: “A. Abu-Aleid” <a.abualeid@gmail.com>
    Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:53:35 +0100
    Subject: Re: Update/Fwd: Complaint/Fwd: Independent Adjudication
    Review Report – 15 November 2016
    To: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

    Hi Erik Ribsskog,

    I again write to you to request effective deletion of my emails shared with
    you, including the blog.

    I professionally cc’d you in my email to the CAB providing I related to
    your posted story experience but I did not give you the permission to
    publish such sensitive email online as it includes personal information
    about me.

    Thanks for your consideration. Looking forward to hearing from you.

    Regards,

    Abu-Aleid

    On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, 11:33 A. Abu-Aleid, <a.abualeid@gmail.com> wrote:

    > Hi Erik Ribsskog,
    >
    > Hope you are doing fine.
    >
    > I guess you may misunderstood my previous communication with you. That
    > said, I did not give permission for you to publish my private email
    > communication but I just felt to share similar experience with you.
    >
    > https://johncons-mirror.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/mer-fra-g-mail_23.html?m=1
    >
    > I would be most grateful if you can effectively delete above blog.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > Abu-Aleid
    >
    >
    > On Friday, 23 December 2016, Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > there’s something called, to be ‘casely’.
    > >
    > > And this seems a bit ‘clammy’ now, I think.
    > >
    > > So please stop sending me e-mails.
    > >
    > > Erik Ribsskog
    > >
    > >
    > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:20 PM, A. Abu-Aleid <a.abualeid@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Dear Mr William Shawcross,
    > >> I write to you as the Chairman for Charity Commission to review our
    > complain to CAB Chief Executive about inconvinience encountered at the
    > Kirklees region, West Yorkshire and others.
    > >> I am hear trying to folow the best available legal practices to resolve
    > this case as the CEO of CAB apparently not willing to respond, which
    > supports her team choice to close our complain.
    > >> I beleive Mr Erik Ribsskog has similar concerns to mind, which I would
    > be grateful if can be fairely reviewed along.
    > >> Looking forward to hearing from you.
    > >> Best regards,
    > >> Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016, Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> Hi again,
    > >>>
    > >>> also, the IPCC have ‘periode’.
    > >>>
    > >>> (They don’t want me to send more e-mails to them.
    > >>>
    > >>> For some reason).
    > >>>
    > >>> Or else I would have updated them as well.
    > >>>
    > >>> (Since I complain about the Merseyside Police, etc).
    > >>>
    > >>> Regards,
    > >>>
    > >>> Erik Ribsskog
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> ———- Forwarded message ———-
    > >>> From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
    > >>> Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:02 PM
    > >>> Subject: Complaint/Fwd: Independent Adjudication Review Report – 15
    > November 2016
    > >>> To: rsi@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk
    > >>> Cc: a.abualeid@gmail.com, gillian.guy@citizensadvice.org.uk, Feedback
    > <feedback@citizensadvice.org.uk>, Phso Enquiries <
    > Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>, Ratchford Janet <
    > Janet.Ratchford@ombudsman.org.uk>, barbara.stow@btinternet.com,
    > pressenquiries@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk,
    > whistleblowing@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk, Andrew Haigh <
    > andrew.haigh@cht.nhs.uk>, cservices@bsigroup.com, casework@ico.org.uk,
    > Malcolm Hachemi <malcolm.hachemi@isonharrison.co.uk>,
    > national@theguardian.com, newsdesk@independent.co.uk, LO Postkasse LO <
    > lo@lo.no>, Akademikerforbundet <post@akademikerforbundet.no>, Politikk
    > Høyre <politikk@hoyre.no>, “sande.vgs” <sande.vgs@vfk.no>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Hi,
    > >>>
    > >>> I haven’t been aware of, that there is a Charity Commission before.
    > >>>
    > >>> (Or else I would have complained earlier).
    > >>>
    > >>> What happened was that I went to Citizens Advice Bureau, in Dale
    > Street, with my employment-case, against Arvato, where I worked, (for
    > Bertelsmann Arvato’s Microsoft Scandinavian Product Activation), in 2005
    > and 2006.
    > >>>
    > >>> And then Citizens Advice sent me to a law-firm that didn’t accept
    > founding, from the legal aid-programme.
    > >>>
    > >>> So I didn’t get anywhere with my employment-case.
    > >>>
    > >>> And there were also a number of other problems.
    > >>>
    > >>> They had meeting there in the dark, (I remember).
    > >>>
    > >>> (As if to get me into shock, (or something)).
    > >>>
    > >>> And I remember, that the adjudicator wrote, something like, that
    > e-mails were a new invention, so Citizenz Advice, couldn’t be blamed, for
    > not knowing how to deal with them.
    > >>>
    > >>> (Something like that).
    > >>>
    > >>> But I thought that if the Citizens Advice, don’t know how, to deal
    > with e-mails.
    > >>>
    > >>> Then they shouldn’t use e-mails.
    > >>>
    > >>> (Before they’ve learned how to use them).
    > >>>
    > >>> And I wasn’t given any compensation at all, (the adjudicator and the
    > CAB directors just freed Liverpool Central CAB on all the complaints).
    > >>>
    > >>> And my employment-case haven’t gotten anywere, after I was sent by
    > Liverpool Central CAB to Moorcrofts, (who didn’t accept founding from the
    > legal aid-programme, and that was really I went to CAB, (I was sent there
    > by Merseyside Police who said they were ‘government’)).
    > >>>
    > >>> (If I remember it right.
    > >>>
    > >>> Because this is some years ago).
    > >>>
    > >>> So this I wanted to complain about.
    > >>>
    > >>> Regards,
    > >>>
    > >>> Erik Ribsskog
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> ———- Forwarded message ———-
    > >>> From: A. Abu-Aleid <a.abualeid@gmail.com>
    > >>> Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:43 AM
    > >>> Subject: Re: Independent Adjudication Review Report – 15 November 2016
    > >>> To: gillian.guy@citizensadvice.org.uk
    > >>> Cc: Feedback <feedback@citizensadvice.org.uk>, Phso Enquiries <
    > Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>, Ratchford Janet <
    > Janet.Ratchford@ombudsman.org.uk>, barbara.stow@btinternet.com,
    > pressenquiries@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk,
    > whistleblowing@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk, Andrew Haigh <
    > andrew.haigh@cht.nhs.uk>, cservices@bsigroup.com, casework@ico.org.uk,
    > Malcolm Hachemi <malcolm.hachemi@isonharrison.co.uk>,
    > national@theguardian.com, newsdesk@independent.co.uk, eribsskog@gmail.com
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Dear Ms Gillian Guy,
    > >>> I remind you that I did send you a previous complaint about case
    > handling around August 2016 but no response. I therefore remind you again
    > to kindly and personally respond to our complaint embarking from the moral
    > and professional duties your title carries. I accept no further
    > communication from the Client Services Team as I no more see them qualified
    > to review my case – they should also comprehend that this is my complaint
    > and its my own decision alone to decide how and when to bring this case to
    > end.
    > >>> Best regards,
    > >>> Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid
    > >>> On 19 December 2016 at 16:39, Feedback <feedback@citizensadvice.org.uk
    > > wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Dear Mr Abu-Aleid,
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Thank you for your email.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> We are in receipt of your communication to the office of the Chief
    > Executive of Citizens Advice which we thank you for. We will be responding
    > to your query and we understand that you are still unsatisfied with our
    > response to your complaint.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> While you may not agree with the Independent adjudicator’s report,
    > we hope you can appreciate that you have reached the final stage of our
    > complaints procedure.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Because of this, we regard the complaint as closed and we will not
    > reopen the matter for further investigation. Going forward, any
    > correspondence we receive about this will be filed but it may not be
    > acknowledged or responded to.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Regards,
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Kimberley
    > >>>> The Client Services Team
    > >>>> Citizens Advice
    > >>>> Tel: 03000 231 900
    > >>>
    > >>> On 20 December 2016 at 10:36, A. Abu-Aleid <a.abualeid@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> *** REMINDER ***
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> ᐧ
    > >>>
    > >>> On 16 December 2016 at 11:36, A. Abu-Aleid <a.abualeid@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Dear Ms Gillian Guy,
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I write in reference to received independent adjudication review
    > report dated 15 November 2016. Before delivering our opinion concerning
    > this review report, I will start with highlighting complaint major
    > milestones:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 1. CITIZENS ADVICE
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 1.1. NHS ADVOCACY SERVICES
    > >>>>
    > >>>> In September 2015 I contacted Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office to
    > discuss and help with ongoing complaints against number of health
    > institutions, namely: CHT PACS, Local Care Direct, NHS England and Crosland
    > Moor Surgery.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On Tuesday 08 September 2015, I met with Ms Ginny Woolfenden to
    > review the march of ongoing complaints; she then confirmed that her role
    > will be a pure interface channel to ease communication with the concerning
    > institutions.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 14 September 2015, Ms Ginny Woolfenden stated: “Kirklees NHS
    > Complaints Advocacy Service can not undertake any legal action or
    > litigation with regard to the NHS – so if you want undertake ‘legal actions
    > to assure and protect against any future inconvenience caused’ I am afraid
    > that this is not something I or Kirklees Law Centre can assist with”; this
    > leads to corollary understanding that NHS advocacy operations are not
    > subject to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman nor to Legal
    > Ombudsman, and therefore, the Citizens Advice complaint procedure persists
    > as the ultimate recourse for such review.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 10 June 2016, I emailed the PACS Team affirming that “Ms Ginny
    > Woolfenden and all Kirklees Citizens Advice and Law Centre members are no
    > more authorised to represent my side. This shall effectively ends their
    > participation in current complaint communication as well as no more
    > information sharing is allowed from or with them. However, they remain
    > responsible for any countered inconvenience due to their work”. Thus, any
    > further communication after this notification date would be a clear
    > violation to agreed terms with al involved parties.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 1.2. THE OMBUDSMAN
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Formal complaints may be referred for a registered third party for
    > their independent review if no satisfactory local resolution can be
    > achieved, among which is the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
    > (PHSO) established to “investigates complaints about government departments
    > and some other public bodies – they can also look into complaints about NHS
    > hospitals or community health services”, the latter is different from Legal
    > Ombudsman which “can help resolve legal service disputes” – quoted from CAB
    > website. This however, does not deny the right to seek justice through the
    > legal route if client decided not to communicate with the Ombudsman.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On June 2015, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman stressed
    > to wait till all involved health institutions get finalized before
    > complaints to be considered. Following listed institutions and their status:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 1. Local Care Direct: NHS Advocacy played no role. Final response
    > received. Referral made to PHSO.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2. NHS England and Crosland Moor Surgery: NHS Advocacy played limited
    > role. Final response received. Referral made to PHSO.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 3. CHT PACS: NHS Advocacy played ambiguous role. Troubling referral
    > made to PHSO. Vague End of resolution letter delivered in November 2016
    > upon new complaint headed to the Chairman of the Board in September 2016
    > but no final response received.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2. COMPLAINT TO CITIZENS ADVICE AND LAW CENTRE
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2.1. COMPLAINT SCOPE
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I usually use a particular method for defining complaint scope to
    > avoid falling into anticipated manipulation scenarios. If to take formal
    > marriage relationship as an example, a spouse can divorce another for
    > various reasons but one cannot use good honeymoon times to justify or deny
    > escalating life hurdles and surprises. Hence, conflicts to be predominantly
    > addressed based on current changes in the concerning relationship.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> The same applies to a formal relationship between an independent
    > client and advocacy caseworker from citizens advice and law centre; the
    > investigator shall address the complaint triggers not to propagate or use
    > overall service assessment to mitigate or deny the encountered
    > inconvenience and subsequently waste of charity funds. I therefore did
    > stress in number of times for all involved parties to address issues in
    > email 25 May and June 11 2016 subsequently to avoid time and complaint
    > mismanagement.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 05 September 2016, I wrote to Mr Steve Anderson from the Client
    > Services Team that “I can predict you are working on a good quoted,
    > paraphrased, legally written review to support your argument in front of
    > the independent adjudicator not to serve the client. Otherwise, a sincere
    > review can be concluded in a short response without much hassle from the
    > assigned NHS Advocacy Caseworker herself to reply to the open email
    > communication 25 May 2016, which if she did then had avoided this complaint
    > unless she realised the inconvenience she put me in as a client”. This
    > shall finalise any complaint scope argument.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2.1.1. SCOPE FOCAL EMAILS
    > >>>>
    > >>>> In conjunction with 25 May 2016 and 11 June 2016 emails, the
    > following focal emails were also provided to the independent adjudicator to
    > bring a rational end to the anticipated communication clarity argument:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 23 May 2016 at 16:09 “I do not believe I
    > can continue to support you as an advocate without fully understanding your
    > instructions – which I feel I have been unable to do over the recent
    > months”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # Mr Gerard Curran Email 23 May 2016 at 14:00 “Further to your
    > client’s email below, please accept my sincere apologies as I am slightly
    > confused by your client recent emails”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 23 May 2016 at 12:32 “I would suggested
    > that you revert directly to the PHSO rather than chasing after the Trust”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 16 May 2016 at 11:10 “I cannot take your
    > complaint to the PHSO until I have been given the final response from the
    > Trust. I have asked Gerard, complaints manager to confirm the Trusts
    > position in writing so that I can do this”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2.2. FORMAL COMPLAINT – 25 MAY 2016
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I requested in person from the Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office
    > Manager to investigate suspected collaboration between Ms Ginny Woolfenden,
    > Solicitor and Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service Caseworker and Mr
    > Gerard Curran, Patient Advice and Complaints Manager at Calderdale
    > Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery Nurse
    > Services in this complaint meeting. I even offered my smart phone for the
    > Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager to read the 25 May 2016 email
    > communication to understand my concerns but she declined to comment. She
    > promised to review the matter and update the following day through the
    > phone but no response received since.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I believe the above is within advertised complaint procedure:
    > “Complaints can be addressed to the bureau manager or chair. You can tell
    > the bureau on the phone or face-to-face that you want them to investigate
    > your complaint”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2.3. FURTHER REVIEW – 03 June 2016
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Hence no call received from Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office
    > Manager, I needed a recorded reference to protect my complaint existence,
    > and therefore communicated with Huddersfield CAB again to request a written
    > reference but nothing received. However, one member did provide contact
    > details for Mr Nick Whittingham. Later on, I wrote a letter to Chief
    > Executive at Kirklees Citizens Advice and Law Centre to “complain and
    > reveal unclear communication and expectations” between Ms Ginny Woolfenden,
    > Solicitor and Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service Caseworker and Mr
    > Gerard Curran, Patient Advice and Complaints Manager at Calderdale
    > Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> To avoid subsequent clarity argument, the concerning Kirklees team is
    > firstly aware of sight and facial pain condition if to ignore the march of
    > the complaint can lead to reasonable understanding that I intended to write
    > “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016
    > was headed to Chief Executive to avoid prospective misunderstanding excuse.
    > He also did not request further clarification if encountered:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> “COMPLAINT FACT: I previously complained through a 1st class recorded
    > post letter dated 03 June 2016. I based my complaint understanding on the
    > Chief Executive will to investigate the forwarded email and its related
    > communication in details”. 11 June 2016
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I again did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery
    > Nurse Services in the complaint scope. I might forget to refer to
    > concerning email 25 May 2016 in the letter but I definitely enclosed copies
    > of the concerning email communication with the concerning parties so the
    > Chief Executive can fairly understand case background. The letter is
    > recorded and therefore envelope weight records with the Royal Mail can be
    > reached to affirm there was more than one sheet posted – letter footer line
    > shall read: Page 1 of 6.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I believe the above is within advertised complaint procedure: “If you
    > are still not happy after the local Citizens Advice response, you can
    > request a further review. The review will be conducted under the direction
    > of the Citizens Advice Chief Executive”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2.4. INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION REVIEW:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I initially needed to substantiate the background of the prospective
    > independent adjudicator to affirm I am communicating with responsible
    > personal with official corporation email and professional title whilst the
    > Citizens Advice previously refused to “release any of her private contact
    > details without her permission”, Steve Anderson said on 15 September 2016.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I eventually did an online search for Ms Barbara Stow and
    > coincidently arrived in one of her previous case communication with Mr Erik
    > Ribsskog who volunteered by “planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so
    > then at least, I’ll be able to deal with this in that way, that I at least
    > get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and maybe react or
    > reflect on what’s going on”. I hence thought to summarise his communication
    > in the following key words: “disappointed, suspect, lie, ignored, strange,
    > magic, errors, worrying, fail, set-ups, ignored, games, corrupt, phoney”,
    > which I find similar to my case in terms of resulted frustration.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> E-mail from the independent CAB Adjudicator, Barbara Stow, on 29/4/08.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > https://ribsskog.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/e-mail-from-the-independent-cab-adjuticator-barbara-stow-on-29408/
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 15 November 2016, Ms Barbara Stow stated: “You will see that the
    > notepaper has a different email address from the one from which I have been
    > corresponding with you. That is the one that I normally use for this
    > purpose but it was temporarily unavailable when I began working on your
    > case”. I am afraid Ms Barbara Stow delivered report contains the same email,
    > barbara.stow@btinternet.com, she previously used with Mr Erik Ribsskog.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> In addition, I have never requested from the independent adjudicator
    > “to influence the progress of your complaints about your medical
    > treatment”. I did predict the outcome from her review providing her
    > previous story with Mr Erik Ribsskog but still forwarded focal emails to
    > avoid her any excuse. This was also an opportunity to utilise the complaint
    > to investigate the extent of failure in CAB operations hoping this will
    > drive someone from the establishment to stand-up for such violations.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I hereby advise Mr Erik Ribsskog and other affected members of the
    > public that you might not consider taking legal action but definitely you
    > can contact the Charity Commission to open a statutory inquiry into a
    > charity when there is significant public interest in the issues involved
    > and the outcome.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2.4.1. SCOPE OF WORK BY INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 24 September 2016, Ms Barbara Stow confirmed that “the purpose of
    > my review is to consider how your complaint was handled, not whether it is
    > justified”, and “Specifically, my remit is to examine whether, in my
    > opinion, complaints have been dealt with in compliance with the Citizens
    > Advice procedure, and investigated fairly. If I find deficiencies I say so
    > and I may direct that there should be further investigation.  At the end of
    > a review I send a report to national Citizens Advice who will send it to
    > you and to the bureau”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2.4.2. THE REVIEW REPORT FOCAL POINTS:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I admit struggling with too many repetitive arguments in addressing
    > Ms Barbara Stow raised points, especially her double-standard approach in
    > most listed points aimed to allow the author an avenue to escape
    > controversial issues. Due to health condition restrains, I decided to
    > respond to following most vital arguments:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 59:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 16 May 2016, Mr Gerard Curran wrote: “your client does not wish to
    > attend a local resolution meeting to discuss this matter further”, but
    > declined to “provide an evidence of such accusation if to proceed”,
    > requested on 25 May 2016.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 18 May 2016, I responded: “This is another inaccurate judgment if
    > to consider that the TRUST refused to respond to my request on 21 August
    > 2015 to meet with the CEO, Medical Director, and the Head of Complaints,
    > which affirms the hidden intention to delay the process”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 19 May 2016 Ms Ginny Woolfenden wrote: “you are now asking me to
    > set up a meeting with the Trust and for this meeting to be recorded. For
    > sake of completeness – can you provide me with a clear agenda for what you
    > want to discuss at this meeting” ignoring the fact being told on 29 April
    > 2016 “I now believe no authentic communication with the health services in
    > Kirklees but recorded”, this to avoid double standard communication.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 25 May 2015, I responded: “I again cannot understand the purpose
    > nor able to set a specific agenda for your proposed unclear “local
    > resolution meeting to discuss this matter further” whilst you
    > contradictorily just said I did “not raised any new issues” and accused me
    > of not willing to attend, which overall do not reflect genuine intentions”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 61:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Ms Ginny Woolfenden has confirmed she plays no legal role in the
    > concerning complaints with NHS institutions. In her 14 September 2015
    > email, she stated: “Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service can not
    > undertake any legal action or litigation with regard to the NHS – so if you
    > want undertake ‘legal actions to assure and protect against any future
    > inconvenience caused’ I am afraid that this is not something I or Kirklees
    > Law Centre can assist with”; ”; this leads to corollary understanding that
    > received NHS advocacy operations not subject to Legal Ombudsman unless Ms
    > Ginny Woolfenden was delivering undeclared legal advice to the NHS whilst
    > serving an opponent client.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 63:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 25 May 2016, I wrote: “The August 2015 request for deletion and
    > clarification about the Head of Ophthalmology Department, Mr Owrou’s
    > incorrect report statement was compromised in October 2015 to a request for
    > an objection statement to be loaded to my NHS profile records against his
    > statement. The latter action was drafted under the supervision of Kirklees
    > NHS Advocacy. The TRUST response, however, did not reflect about or
    > confirmed such action accomplishment. Hence, the TRUST’s response become
    > professionally incomplete, and therefore the TRUST are very obliged to
    > respond along with a DATED copy of the subject objection statement if
    > indeed actioned and loaded”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 67:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I find it inconsistent approach to advocate that chief executive “had
    > offered to assist with the complaint against the Trust but the client
    > clearly did not wish to take up the offer”, knowing the latter is not the
    > sole of my complaint to Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre. That said,
    > the chief executive himself declined to comment about the ethical
    > responsibility for the assigned NHS Caseworker to confirm if her designed
    > complain is fully unanswered before referral to PHSO as well as to respond
    > and explain her unclear series of May 2016 email communications. Plus, it
    > is my own decision alone to choose to whether seek justice through the
    > legal route or to communicate with the Ombudsman if not satisfied with the
    > response.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> The Chief Executive with his counterparts use such vague statements
    > to support their fragile positions else fully addressed in 11 June 2016
    > email communication. In fact, I find it inadequate practice to take a
    > credit for offering a service to a vulnerable client whilst knowing it is
    > unfeasible offer, especially from a senior officer at Kirklees Citizens
    > Advice & Law Centre regardless of his membership status, which I find
    > irrelevant to the client or to be used to justify a loose argument.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Furthermore, Ms Barbara Stow herself read the forwarded to date
    > emails where “the CHT management … propagate a troubled meeting
    > discussion in 23 June letter to MP, or in August to the PHSO or to later
    > offer to discuss a meeting plan over phone in 19 August and yet today is 25
    > August 2016 and still no meeting and agenda delivered through email or in
    > writing”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 68 to 74:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Phone conversation with Ms Grace from CAB Client Services Team on 13
    > June 2016 concluded in me: “sending a detail list of reasons you’re unhappy
    > with the way your complaint has been handled by your local office. Once we
    > have received these reasons we will request a copy of your file from the
    > local office. Thus, I forwarded to her account a duplicate version of 11
    > June 2016 email unanswered inquiries previously raised to the Chief
    > Executive.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 29 June 2016, Ms Kimberley from CAB Client Services Team mentioned
    > that “After looking into your complaint further, we note that your
    > complaint is about the services that were provided to you by Virginia
    > Woolfenden, a regulated solicitor, not against Kirklees Citizens Advice &
    > Law Centre. Therefore, if you want to take this matter further the next
    > stage would be to contact the Legal Ombudsman. It is not correct for
    > Citizens Advice to either continue with a review of your complaint, or
    > escalate the matter to an Independent Adjudicator because your complaint is
    > about the services of a regulated solicitor”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> However, “When requested to provide explanation or confirmation, Ms
    > Kimberley provided no further comments to support her investigation time
    > nor able to confirm back if Ms Ginny Woolfenden is the same person as
    > “Virginia Woolfenden, a regulated solicitor, not against Kirklees Citizens
    > Advice & Law Centre”; I think this in-line with Ms Barbara Stow
    > investigation scope providing she earlier “explained that the purpose of my
    > review is to consider how your complaint was handled, not whether it is
    > justified”, which confirms the ambiguity of the entire fantastical review
    > framework designed to diminish client’s right for fair investigation.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 05 September 2016, I wrote to Mr Steve Anderson from the Client
    > Services Team that “I can predict you are working on a good quoted,
    > paraphrased, legally written review to support your argument in front of
    > the independent adjudicator not to serve the client. Otherwise, a sincere
    > review can be concluded in a short response without much hassle from the
    > assigned NHS Advocacy Caseworker herself to reply to the open email
    > communication 25 May 2016, which if she did then had avoided this complaint
    > unless she realised the inconvenience she put me in as a client”. This
    > shall rationally finalise any complaint scope argument if the concerning
    > CAB team is indeed time and cost effectiveness oriented.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 74:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> In spite of clarity argument about 03 June 2016 complaint letter, the
    > Kirklees team is aware of my eyes health condition if to ignore the fact
    > that march of the complaint confirms my intention to write “unexpected
    > unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016 was headed
    > to Chief Executive to avoid misunderstanding excuse. He also did not
    > request further clarification if encountered.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> In fact, when requested to “response as came in my email to Ms Ginny
    > Wolfenden. I would be grateful also if you can confirm if the action
    > drafted by Ms Ginny Wolfenden is delivered as per your reading of trust
    > response”, the Chief Executive responded on 10 June 2016: “My role as
    > Complaints Officer is not to act a second opinion and I have no comment to
    > make on the detail of your case”, which confirms the vagueness of his
    > response and who support his approach.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 75 & 76:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 14 November 2016, I wrote to Ms Barbara Stow stating that “Ms
    > Ginny Woolfenden apparently invites the client (Me) in her comfortable zone
    > to learn about his weak and strong points and bass them outside work
    > communication system to the concerning CHT team for their proper protective
    > action; in certain scenarios, she use phone or meetings to avoid being hold
    > responsible through recorded email; she also push clients to prepare agenda
    > for a meeting proposed by others to avoid get legally stuck in front of the
    > CHT management if the meeting got recorded”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 19 May 2016, I wrote to Ms Ginny Woolfenden: “I always insisted to
    > have everything recorded but not to go for unauthentic meetings and phone
    > conversations to be twisted as needed and as reflected over the march of my
    > complaint. Hence, your previous statement makes Kirklees NHS Advocacy
    > follow the TRUST path in misinterpreting my positon as well as my clear
    > statement on 29 April 2016 “I now believe no authentic communication with
    > the health services in Kirklees but recorded”. It also overlooks the fact
    > the TRUST refused to respond to my request on 21 August 2015 to meet with
    > the CEO, Medical Director, and the Head of Complaints if they really have
    > the good will to address my issues. Please call for witness: Ms [Nureen]
    > and Ms Vanessa from PACS, and the HRI CEO Office secretary to affirm how
    > many times I called for a meeting arrangement.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Ms Barbara Stow is again manipulating 23 May 2016 email’s narrative
    > without authentic foundation merely to avoid reflecting on the core
    > complaint trigger, email 25 May 2016, which Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law
    > Centre overlooked because it reveals the truth behind all May 2016
    > communication. In fact, if Ms Ginny Woolfenden on 23 May 2016 “could not
    > support him if communication was only to be by email”, then it would be
    > “inconsistent for [her] to deliver a later dated 07 June 2016 letter with
    > such controversial content and still not able to reflect to your own
    > statement in below unclosed email communication” just after knowing that “I
    > then raised the complaint to the Chief executive Mr Whittingham on 03 June
    > 2016”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 77 & 78:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I just wonder which procedures were followed and which specific
    > points to provide if “I even offered my smart phone for the Huddersfield
    > Citizens Advice Office Manager to read the 25 May 2016 email communication
    > to understand and respond to my concerns but she declined to comment. She
    > promised to review the matter and update the following day through the
    > phone but no response received since”. This is the most absurd argument in
    > to date review stage which affirms Ms Barbara Stow’s irrefutable
    > “superficial and defensive” role as well as it reveals the corruption
    > extent at CAB complaint procedures.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 80:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Old school argument intended to mitigate encountered manipulations in
    > the entire time-frame allocated to investigate the complaint raised to
    > Citizens Advice Bureau. In fact, the reader of entire September 2016 emails
    > to the CAB Client Services Team can easily realize irrefutable manipulation
    > of complaint time-frame if not poor effort management.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 82:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I just wonder what is the purpose of the continues nonsense talk
    > about a “local resolution remained open” whilst Ms Barbara Stow herself has
    > read through forwarded emails where “the CHT management  … propagate a
    > troubled meeting discussion in 23 June letter to MP, or in August to the
    > PHSO or to later offer to discuss a meeting plan over phone in 19 August
    > and yet today is 25 August 2016 and still no meeting and agenda delivered
    > through email or in writing”, which confirms she only notes what validated
    > its predetermined agenda.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Indeed, it is a hilarious independent adjudication review to
    > propagate important issues in total illusion and without true bases. In
    > June 2016, the PHSO declined to consider my complaint against the CHT Trust
    > before receiving final position letter as well as the first stage response
    > is incomplete as reported in the provided email, which in return destroys
    > the “PHSO referral” repetitive song by all involved parties.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Furthermore, the PHSO wrote a two months delayed deleterious letter
    > around 09 August 2016 to Huddersfield PACS falsely stating that I told them
    > I did not receive a response to my October 2015 complaint, which reveals
    > the size of collaborative fraud in the concerning system. That said, Ms
    > Barbara Stow affirmed her exhausted position through seeking events
    > occurred after June 2016.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 84:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Firstly, it is rationally accepted that the general aim of any
    > investigation is service improvement and customer satisfaction; such
    > process may combines intangible and or tangible remedies. Secondly, I tend
    > to organise complaint stages into primary and secondary milestones but
    > leave the “ultimate” outcome to evolve with the rise of events especially
    > when based in a volatile environment. That said, the shared outcome with Ms
    > Barbara Stow was to satisfy her curiosity upon her request; else this is
    > not in-line with the “heart” of her investigation scope.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> However, I did feel after reading the gist of her 12 November 2016
    > response that conveyed main outcome may misrepresented or rendered of
    > secondary importance, and therefore, I effectively informed Ms Barbara Stow
    > that “Ms Ginny Woolfenden has partially hindered October 2015 complaint
    > targeted outcome from the CHT, which to receive immediate surgical
    > operation for both eyes in Huddersfield or else. Meanwhile, Kirklees Chief
    > Executive and CAB Feedback team have respectively constrained the flow of
    > complaint in number of times due their understanding of my court hearing
    > even if not admitted”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> In addition, I am surprised for Ms Barbara Stow to be “curious about
    > what you had wanted the advice and law centre to do in practical terms that
    > would help your situation at the time – in June 2016 when you sent your
    > letter of complaint to the Kirklees chief executive” but instead of
    > “faithfully” reporting “The offered financial redress option can be a
    > direct payment to an accredited private ophthalmology clinic to provide the
    > concerning surgery in the nearest opportunity, as the closer the operation
    > to be done the better results achieved”, she assumed no “further
    > investigation of his complaint about the advocacy service would serve any
    > useful purpose”, which confirm her dramatic fantasy of caring for client’s
    > “distressing eye condition”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 94:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> To avoid the subsequent clarity argument, the concerning
    > Kirklees team is firstly aware of sight and facial pain condition if to
    > ignore the march of the complaint can lead to reasonable understanding that
    > I intended to write “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email
    > dated 11 June 2016 was headed to Chief Executive to avoid prospective
    > misunderstanding excuse. He also did not request further clarification if
    > encountered.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I again did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery
    > Nurse Services in the complaint scope. I might forget to refer to
    > concerning email 25 May 2016 in the letter but I definitely enclosed copies
    > of the concerning email communication with the concerning parties so the
    > Chief Executive can fairly understand case background. The letter is
    > recorded and therefore envelope weight records with the Royal Mail can be
    > reached to affirm there was more than one sheet posted – letter footer line
    > shall read: Page 1 of 6.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> # POINT 96:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I previously stated that I submitted recorded complaint on 3 June
    > 2016 to CEO of Kirklees CAB and Law Centre. The Royal mail tracking
    > information confirmed letter delivery on 06 June 2016 noon time (11:55). On
    > 10 June 2016 at 14:26 the Chief Executive said “letter of 3rd June 2016,
    > received by me today”, and yet proceeded investigation and decided the same
    > day to “do not uphold your complaint”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> In other words, if the Chief Executive arrived in his office around 9
    > o’clock, therefore it took him approximately 5 hours 26 minutes to reach
    > his decision after “looked at your case file and the work that has been
    > done for you and have considered your complaint in relation to unclear
    > communication and expectations”.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> However, when challenged to provide answers to raised inquiries in
    > email 11 June 2016, the Chief Executive replied on 13 June 2016 “You are
    > trying to draw me into re-visiting issues and I am not prepared to do that.
    > I have offered to assist with your complaint against the Trust and you
    > clearly do not wish to take up my offer. I think our correspondence must
    > now come to an end”. However, on 10 June 2016 Chief Executive said “My role
    > as Complaints Officer is not to act a second opinion and I have no comment
    > to make on the detail of your case”, which is purely to do with NHS
    > Caseworker’s drafted action part of the troubled complaint as well as the
    > clarity argument in 25 May 2016 email communication.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> As per aforementioned, it is inadequate to talk about “opportunity
    > Cost, at the expense of the service to other clients, in responding to
    > complaints in fine details”, whilst complaint then did reach the maximum
    > advertised 8 weeks on the CAB website to consider all raised issues. In
    > fact, the reader of entire September 2016 emails to the CAB Client Services
    > Team can easily realize irrefutable manipulation of complaint time-frame if
    > not poor effort management.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> * * * * * * *
    > >>>>
    > >>>> CONCLUSION:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> In brief, the independent adjudicator was bias in relating client
    > (Me) circumstances in which objective facts are made less influential in
    > shaping her post-truth review report. I found repeated assertion of
    > ignoring focal points or and painting them as unimportant or irrelevant. I
    > believe it is an intellectually inconsistent review report that conflicts
    > with the Citizens Advice’s propagated vision.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I am not in a position to discuss qualifications or titles but I
    > found involved personals did not faithfully fulfill their assigned duties.
    > I therefore call on the Chief Executive at Citizens Advice Bureau to
    > intervene and further investigate our complaint.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Looking forward to hearing from you.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Yours sincerely,
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid
    > >>>>
    > >>>> ᐧ
    > >>>
    > >>> ᐧ
    > >>>
    > >
    > >

  • Muslimske politikere i Norge sier, at vi ikke må ha islamofobi. Men har de glemt hva som skjedde 11. september, og har de glemt hva som skjedde i Rotherham, (hvor alle de hvite jentene var pakkishorer). Det blir jo som det eventyret rødhette og ulven, hvor de later som at ulven er en snill bestemor, (må man vel si). Noe sånt

    PS.

    Det er også hun nestlederen i Arbeiderpartiet.

    (Tadja Hajik).

    Hun sier at politiet skal få makt til å bli, et slags meningspoliti.

    (At politiet og ikke domstolene, skal bestemme, om noe er straffbart å skrive.


    Og politiet er jo ofte litt som gorillaer, (må man vel si).

    Og på bygda, med lensmenn osv., så vil de nok bare gjøre noe).

    Så det er sånn, at muslimske politikere fronter ‘hjernevask’ og innskrenket ytringsfrihet, for oss nordmenn.

    (Kan det virke som).

    Og det blir det litt sånn ‘Norgistan’, (må man vel si).

    (Noe sånt).

    Så sånn er nok det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Med hilsen

    Erik Ribsskog

    PS 2.

    Her er mer om dette:

    https://www.vg.no/nyheter/meninger/i/pLlzjj/hadia-tajiks-meningspoliti?utm_source=vgfront&utm_content=row-22

    PS 2.

    Nå har det jo vært, et slags terrorangrep, (mot en moske), her i Bærum, i helgen.

    Men ved tidligere terrorangrep, så har politikere sagt, at vi ikke må miste våre vestlige verdier, på grunn av terroren.

    (Da er det at vi gir etter for terror).

    Så jeg regner med at det er det som fortsatt gjelder, (for å si det sånn).

    Så sånn er nok det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

  • Arbeiderpartiet vil ha et ‘folkelig forankret heimevern’. Men hvis de vil ha, et folkelig forankret heimevern, på Tøyen. Så blir det lett til, en underavdeling, av Al Quaida liksom, (mistenker jeg). Så man må kanskje være, litt forsiktige, når det gjelder, hva man ønsker seg. Vi lever ikke på 50-tallet lenger, (for å si det sånn). Hm

    folkelig forankret heimevern

    http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/forsvaret/slaar-ring-rundt-heimevernet/a/24077204/

    PS.

    Nå hadde det kanskje ikke vært, _så_ farlig, hvis HV på Tøyen, for det meste bestod, av muslimer.

    Hvis HV hadde vært, som i gamle dager, og de bare skulle sikre viktige bygg osv., i sin egen bydel/kommune/HV-område.

    Men i våre dager, så har vi innsatsstyrker, eller fylkeshærer, (som man også kan kalle de, mener jeg).

    Og disse er også, en del, av HV.

    Og de har både stormpanservogner, kanoner og 12/7-er, (kjempestore maskingevær med multi-purpose ammunisjon, som ble kritisert, i Afganistan, for å være ‘overkill-våpen’, når de ble brukt, mot mennesker).

    Så hvis disse fylkes-hærene, (som Derby osv.), også skal være, folkelig forankret.

    Så kan vi risikere, at disse også etterhvert, liksom blir som underavdelinger, av Al Quaida, (mistenker jeg).

    (Noe sånt).

    Så legg ned disse utradisjonelle fylkes-militsene, (som Derby osv.), før det er for sent, (vil jeg si).

    (For å si det sånn).

    Så sånn er det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    PS 2.

    Her er mer om dette:

    mer om grønland hv område

    https://www.nrof.no/OM-NROF/Nyheter-fra-NROF/Ledige-omradesjefstillinger-i-HV-02

    PS 3.

    Og den siste gangen, (var det vel), som jeg var med, på rep-øvelse, med støtte-område, (som var en forløper, til Derby).

    (Dette var mens jeg jobba, som butikksjef, på Rimi Kalbakken.

    Noe jeg jobba som, fra høsten 2000 til våren 2001).

    Og da var det sånn, at det kun var en som ble kalt ‘Titten Tei’ og meg, som dro ut, på byen, for å ta oss, noen halvlitere, den siste dagen.

    (Enda det er tradisjon, for HV, at man drikker/fester, på øvelsene.

    Det er et rykte, som HV har på seg, husker jeg, fra førstegangstjenesten).

    Så spørsmålet er, om støtte-området liksom var, som en underavdeling, av Al Quaida, (siden at ‘ingen’ drakk, av soldatene).

    Hm.

    Så sånn var muligens det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    PS 4.

    Enda mer om dette:

    mer om grønland aftenposten

    http://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/–Gronland-taler-ikke-flere-moskeer-232149b.html

    PS 5.

    Og det heter seg visst.

    At det kommer til å bli fler og fler muslimer, i Oslo/Norge.

    Så dette er et problem, som kommer til å bli mer og mer aktuelt, i fremtiden.

    (Ettersom at det blir fler og fler ‘muslimske’ bydeler/HV-områder, i Norge).

    Så hva vi skal gjøre, med Heimevernet, i disse muslimske by/lands-delene, etterhvert.

    Det kan man kanskje lure på.

    Hm.

    Så sånn er nok det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

  • Min Bok 5 – Kapittel 44: Julebordet 1997

    Like før jul, i 1997, så spurte butikksjef Kristian Kvehaugen meg, om jeg kunne ordne med julebordet, den jula.

    For Rimi Bjørndal skulle visst ha sitt eget julebord, dette året da, sa Kristian Kvehaugen.

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Jeg pleide jo å lese Dagbladet, på vei til jobben.

    (På bussen, eller om det hadde blitt T-bane, på den her tiden).

    Så jeg hadde sett det, at et utested, ved rådhuset, som het Sofies Mat og Vinhus vel, annonserte med at de arrangerte julebord, da.

    Og jeg spurte Toro, som jo var DJ og utelivseksperten, på Rimi Bjørndal, (må man vel si), om han syntes, at det stedet, virka ok, da.

    Og det syntes han da, (sånn som jeg husker det, ihvertfall).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Det her var jo det første julebordet, som jeg arrangerte.

    (Og vel også det siste).

    Men jeg prøvde å få det riktig, da.

    Men jeg lurer på om jeg fikk det feil.

    For Diana, hu dukka vel opp på julebordet der, selv om hu hadde slutta, (tror jeg).

    Hvis jeg ikke husker helt feil, da.

    For jeg mener å huske det, at jeg ikke hadde invitert Diana da, (siden hu hadde slutta, vel).

    Så hvorfor hu Diana var der, det veit jeg ikke.

    Men hu ble kanskje sur da, siden jeg ikke hadde invitert henne, (eller noe sånt).

    Og så dukka hu opp der likevel, liksom som på trass da, (kunne det kanskje virke som).

    Noe sånt.

    Så sånn var kanskje det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Jeg husker også at jeg inviterte han pakistaneren med hakket i panna, på det her julebordet, da.

    Og han sa at han skulle komme, da.

    Og man kunne velge mellom flere forskjellige retter da, husker jeg.

    Og det var juletallerken, (som bestod av julepølse og medisterkaker, blant annet vel), biff og muligens pizza, vel.

    (Noe sånt).

    Og jeg er glad i biff.

    Men siden det var jul, så bestilte jeg juletallerken, til meg selv, da.

    Og det var det noen som reagerte på der, mener jeg å huske.

    (Muligens Gry?).

    Men det var ikke bare var meg, som bestilte juletallerken der, da.

    Det var vel cirka halvparten, vel.

    (Noe sånt).

    Også bestilte den andre halvparten, (inkludert Toro og Gry vel), biff, (mener jeg å huske), da.

    (Hvis jeg husker det riktig, ihvertfall).

    Så sånn var vel det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Og han pakistaneren, med hakket i panna.

    Han sa til meg det, at jeg visste hva han kunne spise, da.

    (Som muslim, da).

    Da jeg spurte han, om hvordan mat han ville ha, på det julebordet, da.

    (Etter at han hadde sagt, at han skulle dukke opp der, da).

    Og da regna jeg med det, at han tålte å spise en biff, da.

    Så da bestilte jeg biff til han, da.

    Men han kom ikke på julebordet likevel, da.

    Og da var det noen som klagde, (muligens hu sure blondinna, som hadde sagt at plasten blander seg på søppelhaugen likevel, (eller noe sånt), et år eller noe, før det her, vel).

    (Hu liksom bare spydde ut noe latter eller noen gloser, ut i lufta der, da).

    Og mente at det var fælt, da.

    (Eller noe).

    Men jeg mente at å bestille biff til en pakistaner, det var greit liksom, da.

    Så lenge jeg ikke bestilte juletallerken til han, liksom.

    For juletallerkenen, den var det jo svinekjøtt i, da.

    (Og det er jo svinekjøtt, som muslimene ikke har lov til å spise, da.

    Hvis jeg ikke tar helt feil).

    Men det er mulig at jeg tok feil.

    Men han pakistaneren, han overlot jo til meg, å bestemme, hva han skulle spise, da.

    Og jeg er jo ikke noen ekspert på islam, akkurat.

    Så hvorfor han gjorde det, det veit jeg ikke.

    Men han burde vel klart å bestemme det selv, hva han ville spise, skulle man vel tro.

    Men så ikke, da.

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Jeg husker at Irene Ottesen var på det her julebordet, (enda hu vel hadde slutta, på Rimi Bjørndal, men hu var muligens med, fordi at hu var ambulerende butikksjef), og at hu satt til venstre for meg, vel.

    Og hu spiste vel noe vegetarmat, (muligens vegetarpizza, eller noe), mener jeg å huske.

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Det var ingen som satt på stolen til høyre for meg, (husker jeg).

    Men hu sure blondinna, (som satt på den andre sida av bordet vel), hu la veska si der, (husker jeg).

    (Av en eller annen grunn).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Og jeg hadde vel bare gått ned dit, (til Rådhusplassen), fra St. Hanshaugen, mener jeg å huske.

    Og jeg gikk vel muligens i den smokingen, som Magne Winnem hadde hjulpet meg å kjøpe, for cirka 300 kroner vel, på Dressmann, før jeg skulle være forlover for han, høsten 1993.

    (Som jeg har skrevet om, i Min Bok 4).

    Og jeg mener å huske at Toro sa til meg det der, at ‘du ser jo ut som en mafia-boss’.

    Og da visste jeg ikke hva jeg skulle svare, husker jeg.

    For det var vel kanskje et litt rart kompliment, (må man vel si).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Toro han spurte meg også, under det her julebordet.

    Om jeg ville låne noe porno, av han.

    Men det syntes jeg at virka litt ekkelt, (husker jeg), å låne noe porno, av Toro.

    Så da svarte jeg bare det, (husker jeg), at jeg fant porno på nettet, hvis jeg trengte det.

    Og etter det her, så begynte jeg å leite mer etter porno på nettet og, husker jeg.

    For jeg ville ikke låne porno av Toro liksom, da.

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Og jeg mener også å huske det, at David Hjort, skulle ha meg med inn på dassen, på Sofies Mat og Vinhus der.

    Men det syntes jeg at ble veldig rart.

    Så det gadd jeg ikke, da.

    (Hvis jeg husker det riktig).

    Så hva David Hjort dreiv med da, det veit jeg ikke.

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Og like før vi dro derfra.

    Så var det vel noen, (muligens Toro), som foreslo det, at vi skulle bestille en halvliter, til alle som satt ved bordet.

    Så bordet ble jo fullt av halvlitere, da.

    Og da ble butikksjef Kristian Kvehaugen sur, husker jeg.

    For jeg begynte å bli litt full, da.

    Men Kristian Kvehaugen mente at vi måtte drikke opp all ølen, før vi dro derfra.

    Men jeg mente at det ble for mye, da.

    Jeg kunne jo ikke drikke opp all den ølen selv, liksom.

    Så det var litt morsomt da, (eller umorsomt), avhengig av hvor seriøst man tok det her, da.

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Etter det her, så dro Toro en del av oss med, i en maxi-taxi vel, til der Radio 1 Club pleide å ligge vel, i Storgata.

    (Noe sånt).

    Men så dro vi istedet til Head On, (mener jeg å huske).

    Og der slapp ikke jeg inn, da.

    (Av en eller annen grunn).

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Og jeg mener å huske vagt, at jeg gikk inn på utestedet Barock der, en tur.

    Men hvorfor jeg gikk inn der, det husker jeg ikke helt sikkert.

    Men det var sikkert en eller annen grunn, da.

    Men jeg husker rimelig klart, at David Hjort og meg, vi stod sammen, utafor den Narvesen-kiosken, i Universitetsgata der, (blir det vel).

    Og jeg banna og sverta da, siden jeg ikke hadde kommet inn på Head On, (må det vel ha vært).

    Men da var det ei dame, som handla, (sammen med ektemannen sin vel), i den Narvesen-kiosken.

    (Og som kanskje også hadde vært på julebord, vel).

    Og hu begynte å klage på meg, (mener jeg å huske), og sa at jeg ikke måtte være så sur da, (eller noe sånt).

    Så da måtte jeg nesten prøve å skjerpe meg litt, husker jeg.

    Men etter det her, så husker jeg ikke noe mer, fra det her julebordet, vel.

    Så sånn var det.

    Bare noe jeg tenkte på.

    Men men.

    Det var fortsatt mye mer som hendte, den tida, som jeg bodde, på St. Hanshaugen.

    Og dette tenkte jeg at jeg skulle prøve å få skrevet mer om, i de neste kapitlene, av Min Bok 5.

    Så vi får se om jeg klarer å få til det.

    Vi får se.