Explanation:
PROBLEMS WITH THE LIASONS WITH THE POLICE (AND MORE):
25/11/06:
On this day there was an episode involving a team-leader at work following me on my
way home from work. (Encl. 4)
I had been having incidents involving this team-leader earlier (Encl. 4), and when he
started following me on my way home from work, I started to fear that this could
be connected with problems I had been having with organized criminals (without
me myself having been doing anything wrong) in Liverpool, and probably also
connected with almost similar problems I had been having in Oslo.
Because of this, I thought that the most responsible thing to do, would be to contact
the police about this.
So I went to the St. Anne's Street police station, and reported this to a police-woman,
I think maybe in her 30s with light blond hair.
We agreed that she would log this incident, in case this would escalate into a more
serious situation.
We also agreed that I would return one of the next days with the name of the person.
(Which I didnt know at the time).
(Log. number: 0611251690).
(Note: Encl. I).
26/11/06:
The next day I return to the police-station after having spoken about this with my
team-leader at work. She tells me that the persons name is Chris Baines.
The person working at the police-station reception this day, is a heavily built
police-constable, maybe in his late 40s, and with short blond hair.
I explained that I had been there the day before, and that I was returning with the
persons name, like I had agreed there the day before. (I think I also must have
shown him the note with the log-number (Encl. I)).
He wanted to know more about what the problem was about, so I gave him a
copy I had brought with me, of the summary from the meeting I had been
having earlier that day with my team-leader at work. (Encl. 4).
I explained that the summary contained an overview of the problems I had been
having with the team-leader.
He read about half of the document, and explained that these problems were
work-related, and therefore I had to deal with these problems at work.
I explained that the incident with the team-leader following me on my way home
from work, had not been happening at work.
He then said that it had got to be 'continious harassment', before I could report
this to the police. He said that it had got to be numerous harassment-incidents,
involving the same person(s), before it could be a matter for the police.
I said that there had been several episodes (involving the team-leader), at work,
but he said that he couldnt do anything about this matter, since it was an
employement-case.
I said that there had also been several (harassment) incidents been happening
towards me different places in town, which I though was probably arranged by
organised criminals, or "mob" as I have understood they are called, and that I
also suspected that this could be connected with the incidents involving Chris
Baines at work, and when he was following me on my way home from work.
He didnt want to help me. He continued to say that it was an empolyement-
case. And he didnt want to help me even when I said that I thought that the
other harassment-incidents that had been happening which was not work-
related, surely would qualify to be 'continious harassment'. (without me
being an expert on legal-terms).
I had to raise my voice to get to explain this without being ignored. So all
the people that were in the station must have heard all that was being said.
But he wouldnt listen, and wouldnt give me any help. He wasnt responding
to the things I was saying. He wouldnt even log the team-leaders name,
like the other constable and I had agreed on the day before.
Since he was only ignoring me, and didnt want to give me any help, it
seemed to me like I wasnt very welcome there, so I decided to leave
since I wasnt getting any help. (It seemed a bit to me like I was on the
brink to being thrown out. It seemed a bit odd to me that I wasnt given
any answer about what to this, but I didnt want to argue to much with
the police eighter, so I just went home, even if I didnt get an answer).
The non work-related incidents had been happening around town earlier,
I hadnt reported them, because I had been in contact with the police a
lot before about other, more important matters (the problems with
organised criminals in Norway and at my old address), without getting
any help on this, or getting in a proper dialog with the police. They
said that they would call back, but they didnt, except for once, when
constable Bolderstein from the police-station in Walton (where
my old address was), called me at work, and said that the case had
been put away/filed.
Most of these incidents were often so strange and peculiar, that it would
probably seem strange and peculiar reporting them. Therefore I thought
I'd try to report the more important incidents, and the incidents that wasnt
so strange and peculiar first, and then get in a dialog with the police.
And then, when I had gotten in a dialog with the police, and then when
I had gotten to know the police-empoyes better, then I thought I could
start telling about the other incidents which were often strange, peculiar
and embarrasing to explain about.
I thought that if I started telling about only these strange incidents at first,
without knowing the constable/officer, then the constable/officer would
probably think I was crazy or something, because so strange and peculiar
were many of these incidents.
28/11/06
On the 28th of November, I was in two meetings at work. (Encl. 3 and 6).
In the first meeting, Senior team-leader Aidan Tippins, lied, and said that
there wasnt a team-leader with the name of Chris Baines in the company.
(Encl. 6).
And in the other meeting, (Encl. 3), Senior team-leader Aidan Tippins and
Sarah Rushby from HR, were helping Chris Baines with covering up the
incidents I had reported in Encl. 4.
These meetings, together with other situations, (Encl. II point 5, and Encl. G),
made me more and more certain that the company was having a problem
with a criminal organisation having infiltrated or taken over the company.
So I decided to go back to the police once more, even if they wouldnt
give me any help two days earlier.
I explained to a police-constable in his 40s, with short ginger hair, whom I
later, on 01/03/07, found out that had the collar-number 2155.
I explained that the Senior Team-leader had been lying, and that Sarah
Rushby and the Senior Team-leader, had tryed to cover up for Chris
Baines for the episodes I had reported in Encl. 4.
I also started reading from a draft of Encl. 6, which I had been writing at
home just before I went to the police-station. And he asked if he could
read the draft.
He said that they would call Chris Baines at work the next day.
He logged this as a new case. I asked for the log-number, and he said that
I should call back in about an hour, then they would have logged it.
This was at about 11 pm. I called at about 12 pm, and they said that they
would call me back. When they called a bit later, I got the lognr: 16. 29/11.
The woman calling, Kim, said that due the problems I had been having with
these persons, I should inform higher management about this.
I asked if she meant the Managing Director, and she said yes.
Notes: Encl. III.
The day after I had a meeting with the Managing Director. I also thought it
would be irresponsible of me not to make more people aware of the problem
in the company, so I also choose to alert the parent-company Bertelsmann
in Germany, and also some newspapers etc.
This was because there was no way for me to know how far upwards in
the organisation these problemes streched.
So it was clear to me that the only thing responsible would be to alert more
people than just higher management.
First I sent an email to the Managing Director (Encl. 2), where I asked for a
meeting as soon as possible (Encl. 5).
In the meeting, I adviced the Managing Director to seek help from competence
outside of the company, which had expert knowledge on these problems.
The police had the day before said that they were going to call Chris Baines
at work.
The Managing Director asked me if it was anything else I thought he should do
about the situation, and I adviced him to contact the police.
He asked me if I could give him the lognumber, and later email him the evidence
of organised crime in the company, that I had explained in the email (Encl. 2) and
in the meeting (Encl. 5) that I had got.
I gave him the lognumber I had got from the police when they called me at home
something like 12 hours earlier.
(It took about 3 or 4 hours from I sent him the email, until the meeting was started.
I asked a Key-Acount Manager (I think her title was) in the company where the
Managing Directors office was, and knocked on his door at around 10 I think it
must have been, but he was then busy in a meeting, speaking with a man in his
30s or 40s with shirt and tie, and dark hair, If I remember correctly. And they had
a few sheets of paper lying beetween them on the meeting-table).
The Managing Director gave Sarah Rusby the responsebility of investegating the
problems I had reported in the email (Encl. 2), and which we had discused
in the meeting (Encl. 5).
The Managing Director also said that he was responsible for my security at work.
And that due to the risks to my security that I had informed about in the email
and in the meeting, he could not be responisble for my security at work, so he
said that I should stay home with pay, untill they would call me at a later time,
when they had finished investigating the matter.
(I remember he seemed relived/content with that I was not going away on holiday
in my holidays. I said that it wouldnt be a problem for me asisting the investigation
(I had in mind an investigation led by someone outside of the company. I hinted
several times in the email and in the meeting that I didnt trust Sarah Rushby.
I wrote that she was involved in the covering up, and reminded her in the meeting
that the police were inpartial etc.), even if it was on one of my holidays).
I asked the Managing Director first if it was alright if I stayed at work, but only
worked on finishing the summaries from the quite many meetings I had been
on in the last weeks, but he declined, giving the reason mentioned above.
I then asked if it was alright if I worked on finishing the summaries at home,
and that he said was ok.
In the next days and weeks, I was sitting at home finishing the summaries.
I reckoned that Bertelsmann probably would have their own investigation about/
take some action regarding the problems I had alerted them about.
I had sent the same emails (Encl. 2, Encl. 4 and Encl. 6), to both Arvato Germany,
and to the Bertelsmann hq. in Germany.
I also reckoned that the Managing Director would follow my advice and contact
the police. Especially since he had asked for the log number for the case. He
gave me the impression that he would follow my advice and contact the police.
And I also thought it if he didnt get help from the police, that he might contact
some kind of expertise from outside the company which could help investigating
this. (Without me knowing who that would be, but it seems like a good general
advice at least, if companies get problems they havent got expert-knowledge
on how to solve, that they bring in experts from outside the organisation).
I also reckoned that the police would investigate the case. They had told my
the day before that they would call Chris Baines about this on work the next
day, the same day we had this meeting.
And since I also had reported about the problems to the media, I was really
waiting for reading about this in the news and/or being contacted by at least
one investigation about these problems.
But nothing happened.
Letter from Arvato
The only thing that happened was that happened was that I recieved a letter
from Arvato, about the problems Ive reported from Arvato 13/12/06. (Encl. 1).
The letter was signed by Sarah Rusby, whom I therefore presumed was still
leading the investigation.
The letter was delivered on my door in the afternoon/evening 13/12, and the
letter invited me to a meeting at 10 am. the next day, 14/12.
If I hadnt by chance gone to the gym to work out in the evening 13/12, I wouldnt
have seen the letter before I would have goon to pick up the mail the next day,
14/12, at around 12 am.
And the meeting was scheduled at 10 am. the same day.
In the letter, it said that I could bring a member from the Union to the meeting.
But it wouldnt have been possible for me to contact someone from the Union
and then inform them about the case, in time for the meeting (which was
scheduled about 2 hours earlier than the time on which I normally would
have recieved the letter inviting me to the meeting).
I concluded that this letter was so unproffesional that I couldnt take it
seriously.
I also considered the letter to be a continuation of the harassment.
(since I thought the letter was unprofessinal, and also delivered to me on
my door when I had explained about the team-leader following me home
after work. I thought that a company like Arvato should send their letters
by Royal Mail, and not getting someone, who I presumed was an Arvato
employee, to deliver the letter on my door.
Especially not when I had earlier, in the same case, complained about
Arvato employees following me almost to my doorstep).
Ive explained more about this in Encl. II.
Summaries
I first wrote the summaries by hand in Norwegian. Then I started transfering
them to English.
I thought it would be smartest to transfer the summaries to English.
Naturally because English was the language used at work. And I also reckoned
that these summaries could assist a more serious investigation led by eg.
the Police or Bertelsmann.
So I continued working on writing the enclosures 2 to 7 in English.
I had also used some time to sort all the work-related documents, which I hadnt
got to sort properly before.
-
I got quite a few more letters from Arvato. Some of the new letters were delivered
on my door, and some were sent by Royal Mail.
I didnt open the new letters, because I thought the first letter they sent had been
so unserious/unprofessional.
I only opened the letter they sent me around the end of the month, which contained
my pay-slip.
I didnt have that much money left, so I was wondering how much money I would
recieve.
The Managing Director had said on the meeting (Encl. 5), that I should stay at home,
but that I still would recieve my salary.
He also said that they would call me. But they didnt call.
I checked my pay-slip (Encl. IV), and in the same envelope as the pay-slip, I also
recieved a form called 'Details of employees leaving work', from the Inland Revenue.
(Encl. V). On this form, it said that my last workday was 18/12/06.
This was the same date as my contract (Encl. VI) expired. I then naturally asumed
that the work-relationship had ended due to my contract having expired.
I thought that this was fine by me. I didnt want anything to do with the company
anyway, until the problems with organised crime were sorted.
I was starting to run of money, so I decided I had get myself a new job. But I understood
that if I started in a new job, then this would take away much of my focus on the
summaries etc, and make it easy to forget details from my old job.
This due to that one often have to reset one self, and have to cope with many new
things when starting in a new job.
I understood that it could be important that the summaries were as accurate as possible,
I therefore decided that I would finish them while I still had the details fresh in my head.
And then start applying for work when I had finished writing the summaries.
-
I thought the Police had acted a bit strange when I was seeing them at the police-station
on three different occations in the end of November.
On one of the occations, the Police wouldent even log what I reported.
They also asked me to contact higher management, even if I on the three occations
informed them that this possibly (on the first occation), most likely (from what I explained
on the second occation) and certainly (from what I explained on the third occation),
had got to do with organised crime.
But when the police called me on 29/11/06, they sounded worried, and it seemed clear
to me that they had knowlegde about these persons from before (and that this is why
they sounded worried).
But they still didnt offer to help me. They still told me to go back to the company and
contact higher management.
-
When the Police called me on 29/11/06, I was sitting and wondering if I should escalate
the matter to the Manager of Operations Phil Jones, or to the Managing Director.
(There were a lot of things going on in the company at the time (see Encl. 7), and I
felt that my job was threatened due to the many attacks from team-leaders etc. etc.
I was working on describing all of the irregularities that I found to be going on in the
company. (in Encl. 7).
This work wasnt finished, and I didnt want to get fired due to breaching company
policy etc, or for any other reason, before I had finished writing that summary.
This because I thought that the problems with org. crime in the company, could
be related with the problems I had been having with org. crime in Norway, and also
elsewhere in town which were non work-related.
I hadnt managed to get any help with these problems, so I thought that if I could
document all the problems in the company, then it would that all these problems
couldnt be coincidental, there had to be a logical reason for why a company
like Arvato, which are part of a big mulitnational company like Bertelsmann, had
such many irregulareties going on from the management.
I thought it was unlikely that the lightning would struck at the same place twice,
(that I would get problems with criminal organisations both in England and Norway,
without these problems being connected).
So I thought that if I could start to nest from one end of the problems (the problems
at Arvato), then it might in the end also solve the other problems in England and
Norway.
Thats why I though it was import to finish the summaries, and thats I would have
risked going back to Arvato even if understood the situation. I was determent on
finishing the summaries, to describe what was going on.
I thought that since there were so many people working at Arvato, then there
wasnt that risky working there. (I would risk going there to finish the summaries,
since I found the situation I was in very difficult, not getting any help etc.)
(But when I later had finished the summaries, then I didnt find it worth taking
any risk to go back there. Going back then would also seem very stupid.
Because then the people at Arvato could eg. say to eg. Bertelsmann,
that whatever I meant with my alerts, it couldnt be that serious, since I
now had returned to work, and was working as usual.)
-
So, since I had planned to do this, then this new situation that had arrised, with
the team-leader following on my way home from work, with the Senior team-leader
lying, with the covering up in the meeting etc, was really a bit of a distraction from
what I had really planned to do.
But when the police called, and sounded worried, and said that I should report
this to higher management, then I thought this was a bit strange, why wouldnt
they help me when they obviously thought this was serious.
But it was already clear to me that there were problems with org. crime in the
company. (Encl. II point 5, Encl. G etc)., and when the police called and it
seemed clear to me that they were also worried due to the persons that
were involved in this.
Then this confirmed even more what I from before was clear to me, and it also
gave me an oppertunity.
Because now, I could escalate it how much I wanted I thought, without fear
of loosing my job, and the chance to finish the summaries.
So this was a new situation now, I though what do I do now, how do I deal
with this in the most responsible way possible.
Id learned on management courses in the company I used to worked with
in Norway, that the company wanted employees who could think by themselves
(make decisions) and act responsible.
The things we were thought about the Norwegian companies policies when
it came to management etc, looked very similar to the Bertelsmanns
priniciples that I had been reading on the poster on the wall on the 4th
floor in the Arvato offices in the Cunard building.
So I recked from this, and from what Ive read about the Bertelsmann
Principles, that also Bertelsmann wanted to have employes who though
by themselves/made their own decisions, and acted responsible.
So I thought, if I look at this in buisness perspective, its my responsibilty
to act as responisble as possible with this, and make my own desicions,
(as an Arvato/Bertelsmann employee).
I understood that it would be an advantage in a situation like this to act
fast. So that the criminal organisation wouldnt get control, if you acted
to slow.
So I thought that I, as an Arvato/Bertelsmann employee, now probably
was the only employee in the company that had a chance to do anything
about this. Because of the information I had got, and the contact from the
police which it seemed clear to me supported the way the situation
seemed to me.
So I thought, that I had to find the most responsible way to act.
Since there was no way for me to know how far upwards in the organisation
this problem was streached, then I would act responsible if I only alertet
the Managing Director.
So I decided that I had to alert Arvato Germany and Bertelsmann as well.
But I also though that since they were in another country, then it could
be that the Liverpool-branch was quite indipendant, and that Arvato Germany
and Bertelsmann didnt have that much control on the English department.
(I though this was likely, since these problems existed).
So because of this, I thought maybe Arvato Germany and Bertelsmann could
be calmed down by the English department, even if they recieved my alerts.
They could be persuaded to think that it wasnt serious or something like that.
This seemed like a possible scenario to me.
I thought that it was very important that this didnt get covered up. To try to
reduce the risk of such a scenario happening as much as possible.
So I decided that I also had to contact the Media if I wanted to act responsible.
I had already alerted the police, but I wasnt totaly convinced about that they
would deal with it responsibly, due to what happened when I went there
26/11/06, and what they said in the call just at this time, that I should go
back there and contact higher management, even if it was clear what
was going on.
I though that to deal with situations like these really was a job for the police,
and that they shouldnt advice employees to return to the company under these
circomstanses.
-
To complete the summaries, took a bit of time. The reason was that, like one
can read in Encl. 7, it was layed to much work on my shoulders the last
months I was working in the company.
So I was very exchausted.
I hadnt had much holiday eighter. Most of my holidays were to be taken in
December (Encl. 25).
This was much to do with that when I aplied to get my holidays in October
and/or November, I didnt get holidays on the days I had applied for them.
I instead got my rest-days moved, so that I had rest-days on the days I had
applied for holidays.
The reason I wanted holidays in the automn, was because I was over-worked.
I needed to work over-time to pay my bills, and there were often needed
extra workforce on the campaign.
So I tryed to get to work extra on my restdays (about 2 days a month),
to get extra money to pay my bills.
But I was tired, so I applied for holidays, because then I cope with working
over-time on my rest-days, and get extra payed. (You didnt get extra
payed if you worked on your holidays, then you only got a lue-day).
But I only got the rest-days moved, and not the holidays I had aplied for.
I brought this issue up with my line-manager, Line Slettvold, but she said
that this practise was normal when one applied for holidays.
She said that if one wanted the holidays one applied for to be taken from
your remaining holidays, (and not being moved rest-days), then one had to
specify this when one applied for holidays.
This lead to that I had to work more days than 5 days a week, to pay my
bills. And the shift-plans were also quite peculiar, when it came to me being
given very few rest-days in the beginning of the month (which I would need
to work in to get the money on the next salary, due to the cut-date). Also
new restictions were interduced on swapping shits with other employees,
and more.
So I was a bit tired when I was home from work, so I needed to some rest-
days as well in December. I was really exhausted, due to the workload.
-
But in the middle of January, I had finished working on the summaries.
On Monday 15/1 I was thinking about how I would do it regarding finding
a new job.
I didnt have a letter from Arvato to show new employers (cant remember
the English word), so I though it could be tricky finding a new job.
And I was almost out of money, so I decided to go to the jobcenter, and
register as unemployed.
I reckoned that the jobcenter probably would be asking me about the
details on why I ended working for Arvato.
I also reckoned that there probably would be a court-case or something
because of all this.
So I though I probably shouldnt discuss this in detail at the jobcentre.
Also I thought that it could be a for employees at the jobcentre to be involved
in situations like these.
So I wasnt sure what to tell them.
So I though that because of the risk to the jobcentre employees, and the risk
of probably be asked questions that it seemed to me should be treated in
a court-room, I thought I could bring my summaries to the police, and ask
them for advice on how to deal with the jobcentre.
The reason I wanted to bring my summaries, was that on earlier occations,
I had been having problems convincing the police that it wasnt an employement-
case, but a criminal case.
So I thought that if I could show them the summaries, since it was a complicated
case. Then it would be possible for me to show them how the things were
connected, without having to start to raise my voice and almost having to
argue etc. to try to explain to the police what was going on.
Eg. like if you see the letter from Arvato (Encl. 1), then someone could say
that of course you should have gone to the meeting.
But if you look at the contence of the email (Encl. 2), and the summary from
the meeting the same day, then you can see that the Managing Director
was warned about Sarah Rushby taking part in the covering up on the
harrasment-meeting, and then its easier to explain why one didnt go to
the meeting.
Instead of maybe having to ¨'argue' about these things. It would also help
on any language problems etc, to have this readily explained in English.
So I brought with me the enclosures 1-25, the letter from Inland Revenue
(Encl. V), and went to the police-station on 16/1.
16/01/07
In the reception it was a constable that I hadnt seen before, more or less
shouting at me if this had got to do with the harassment-incidents, I had
reported earlier (in the end of November), because this I had to deal with
at work.
The constable was Keith Holmes, collar-number 9723.
I showed to him Enlosure V, and explained that I wasnt working there
any longer, and that I didnt know what to say at the jobcentre.
So Holmes let me speak to Sgt. Camel (or it could have been Connel,
O'Connel (?)), and also another constable.
They had collar-numbers 1718 and 1183).
The sergant went through some of the documents (Encl. 1-25), and said that
this was an employement-case, and that I should go to the CAB and ask
to get to speak with a solicitor.
(I hadnt really prepared to discuss this, I had just finished writing the
summaries and now I had to start applying for work, because I was
running out of money.)
I said that if a lawer went through the documents, they would see that this
surely was a criminal case.
He said I should tell the jobcentre that this was a case that I had reported
to the CAB, and that would be dealt with by the Crowns court.
Jeg tryed to explain that the company I had worked in was infiltradet by
a criminal organisation. (I had of course told them this before, and I had
alerted a lot of organisations, the media etc about this, so I of course
reckoned that something was done about this. But I couldnt be sure
until I knew for sure. I though that this would be in the internet-papers,
on the tv news etc, or that someone would ask me to assist a proper
investigation etc.).
But I didnt know what has had been going on, and I needed money,
so had to register as unemployed.
But I wanted to act responsible, and ask the police what I could tell
about this at the jobcentre, so that I wouldnt do anything wrong when
it came to dealing with the jobcentre.
And I wasnt really prepared to discussing the other stuff, it came as
a surprise, I thought it most probably had been dealt with.
I had only written the summaries, I hadnt actually prepared to explain
that it was a crime-case.
I had prepared to explain the problem with what to tell the jobcentre.
I wanted to bring the rest of the documents to the police-station the
next day to better explain why it was a crime-case.
But the Sergant said that this wasnt necesary.
-
17/01/07 I went to the jobcentre, and got told to call an office to register
as unempoyed.
-
18/01/07 they called me from the jobcentre, and got details about my
address, bank-details etc. etc.
I told them the clerk that there were special circomstances surrounding
why I ended working for the firm, but I didnt go to more detailes than this.
It was made an appointment, that I should go to the jobcentre at
Williamsons Square, for a meeting with P. Chopra on the 22/01 at
2.30 pm.
-
I thought that I should really go to the CAB before the meeting on the
jobcentre. If I were going to tell the jobcentre that the case was being
investigated by the CAB/Crowns Court.
On the meeting 16/1, they had told me that if this was a police-matter,
then the solicitor given to me by the CAB would return the matter to the
police.
-
But I really thought it would be irresponsible of me to involve a Solicitor
in the details about a organised crime case.
Especially since I didnt know how the situation was.
I didnt know for sure that things were ok, so I had to act like it wasnt.
It was obvious that this was a police-matter.
I didnt actually know where I had the police, I didnt know if I could trust
them due to the problems when I went there in November, and with the
advice to contact higher management etc.
So instead of going to the CAB, i decided that I should instead try to
go to the police again, to try explain to them again that it was a
police-matter.
So I tryed to sit down and describe it in a letter, some of the reasons
that this was a police-case. In a way that I could document.
I tryed to do this in a way so that it couldnt be disputed that this was
a police-case.
So I wrote the letter that is enclosure II, and went back to the police
on 22/01.
-
22/01/07
At the police-station, I again spoke with Keith Holmes.
I had brought my laptop.
At the last meeting the police hadnt been to interested in the documents.
And there were a lot of other documents than the enclosuers 1-25.
So I thought I could just show them the letter (Encl. II), on the
computer-screen.
And also the other documents, the ones who werent indexed yet, to browse
through them, since these documents supported what was said in Encl. II etc.
(and it would save time and also ink from the printer, and maybe also look
more professional/less boring than only having the documents in the form
of paper-sheets.)
Because even if I wasnt sure about the police, like mentioned before, I wanted
to give it a try. I wanted to cooperate with them, and deal with this in the most
professional manner I could.
Holmes said that he couldnt look at my computer due to the data protection
act.
He wanted me to contact Crimestoppers about this, or the CAB.
I explained that if I got to show them the new letter and the unindexed
documents, then it would be clear to them that this was a crime-case.
It was obvious to me that this was a police-case, so even if I didnt know
what the situation was, I still wanted to deal with this in a professional
and proper manner.
Therefore I tryed to get him to have a look at the documents.
I said I had also recently found some new information, (which I had, and
wanted to discuss in a meeting, which I presumed we would regarding
the new letter etc).
So in the end I got him convinced to have a look at it.
We agreed that I would go home and print out the documents, and return
the police-station with this as soon as possible.
So I went and had to buy some ink to the printer. I think i got the numbers
for the ink-cartrigde mixed up with an old ink-cartridge number for a printer
I used to have in Norway. (I was a bit tired and stressed).
So I couldnt find the right cartridge, so I ended buying a new printer for
£19 at Argos.
Then I went home and started printing the documents.
-
We had agreed that I would return with the documents eighter later that day
or the day after.
I thought since there had been some problems with the contact with the
police etc, that I had to show that I wanted to deal with this as profesional
as possible, and try to give a good impression.
So I decided that I wanted to go there the same day with the documents,
and not the day after, it could seem like I didnt take it seriousy.
-
So I called the jobcenter in Cressington. (It said that one should call
Cressington to change the appointment time, on the cover-letter that
came with Encl. D).
When I called Cressington, I got told that I should call the Williamsons
Square jobcentre at 0151.801.5700.
Which I did at 1.55 pm.
I called from my mobile, so the time is possible to read on the call-registry.
I called the jobcentre twice, but noone answered.
So I decided to instead go there the next day and explain about the
situation. Why I didnt show for the meeting.
Then I printed the rest of the documents, and delivered the letter (Encl. II),
together with all the indexed and unindexed documents.
All of these became Encl. VII.
(There were some hassle with the printer so some documents were printed
twice, and there could be that some documents were missing, but I
had an overview over which documents that had been printed and
which who hadent, so I was sure that I had included the most
important documents, and also more or less all of the documents,
maybe missing a few, but there shouldnt have been any of the
documents I regarded as most important missing).
I also thought it was important to try to deliver them quite fast, to show
that I took this seriously, so I didnt want to go out and buy more ink,
I thought that the most important stuff was there.
-
These dokuments I delivered to con. 3847 Victoria Steele, at around
5 pm the same day.
I showed her the collar-number for the constable I had been speaking
with, which I had written on a note. (Encl. VIII, I think this enclosure
has a tag which says Encl. VIII in Norwegian, and if I remeber correctly,
then the tag is hiding the collar-number on the scan, but it should still
be possible to see con. Steeles own collar-number there, which she
wrote herself on the note.)
Steele said that the constables name was Keith Holmes, wrote his
name on the same note (also hidden I think), and refered to him as
'the superintendant'.
I asked her if she could give him the documents, and she said that
she would do that.
(notes: Encl. VIII).
-
23/01/07
I went to the jobcentre, and explained that I couldnt come to the meeting
the day before, due to a police-case, and that I had tried to call, and that
I was there to set up an appointment for a new meeting.
I got to speak with a clerk called Michelle, and she asked several times
(Encl. D), why I didnt show for the meeting. She told me (complained to
me) how important it was that one were activly applying for jobs, (even
if I had only been registered unemployed since 16/01).
She asked several times about why I didnt show, and she wasnt content
with hearing that it was due to a police-case, but she also wanted to
know the details about what type of police-case it was etc.)
I said she would have to contact the police to get the details.
(The next time I was at the jobcentre, at the meeting which I got the
appointment for by Michelle at this meeting.
At this, the next meeting, the new clerk (sitting at the same table as
Michelle did, if I remember right). He was a bit elderly clerk, who
checked details about my name etc., and copied my passport.
This clerk asked for the lognumber for the police-case, when I
explained to him why I couldnt show for the first meeting).
There was also a couple of other incidents at the jobcentre this day.
(23/01).
A lady wanted to know if I was Swedish, when she heard me talking
to the guard about my errend at the reception-point at the ground-floor.
I had been living in Liverpool for some time, and sometimes I speak
almost scouse when I am in shops etc. because of this.
So when I spoke to the guard at the reception-point, I that I spoke
more or less scouse. (I refered to the job-centre as 'job-centah' etc.)
And I dont really think I used a particularely distinct Scandinavian
accent at all when I was speaking with the guard there.
Yet, as soon as I had explained my errend, a woman in her 40s or 50s
turns towards me from the phones-area, and ask if Im Swedish.
The way she acted seemed unnatural to me.
I answered 'Norway, neigbour country, impressive'.
I dont think what I said must have confused her, because she just
turned numb, and I think turned back to the phone-area.
And when I walked up the stairs to the first floor, to speak with
Michelle. (or really the guard downstairs asked me to speak with
a guy I dont remember the name for, or Michelle. He said the
names quite unclear, and quite fast).
Then in the staircase up to the first floor, another unnatural-acting
person started talking to me.
It was a clean-cut guy in his 20s I think, a bit more 'snobbish'
than the average Scouse-person maybe, from London or something
maybe.
And he follows me up the stairs, and starts talking commenting
on the guards scouse-accent.
Complaining about the scouse accent. Im not sure how to explain
it but I really sounded scouse when I spoke myself, so I didnt
quite get the way this person acted to fit in with the situation.
It seemed like he had practised for a different scenario.
And I dont think it would be usual for a 'snob' kind of person from
probably a big English city, to start talking in a stair-case
to a stressed looking person, in a like mate-ish/trusting/
confinding(?, Im not sure if thats the word) way, with a stressed
Norwegian.
It would have been more beliveable if I had been a guy from London,
or wherever he was from, myself. Then I could have understood it.
But when the woman asked me load and clear if I was from
Sweden, and I answered Norway. I dont think a guy like that
normally would confind in me about his disliking of the scouse
accent.
And I usually speak quite load and I am usually not that relaxed in
places like English jobcenters where Ive hardly have been before.
And acutally, people very rearly level with me at all, so that he
suddently wanted to be my friend/level with me. I thought it was
a bit peculiar.
And he looked like a clean cut, well adapted guy, with new,
probably expensive clothes. And probably from London. What
was he really doing in a Liverpool jobcentre at all? And then
starting to make remarks that didnt fit in eighter.
It seemed very odd. (peculiar).
And then when on top of this Michelle starts to asking questions
about the details about the police-matter, then the whole experience
started to take form of a visit to a local amatour teater or something
like that.
-
After the meeting I was a bit stressed, and I had already planned
to go to the food-store, so I did that.
On my way home, a lorry driver wanted me to tell him the way to
St. Annes Street, I was still stressed but I tryed as good as I could.
(I think I managed to show him the wrong way actually, stressed as
I was).
But the peculiar bit, was that the lorry-driver didnt want some English
guys passing to explain him the way.
He insisted on me, a stressed Norwegian, to explain him the way,
even if he must have understood that I wasnt British.
I was really tired and stressed, I just went on auto-pilot home to get
some rest.
-
24/01/07
I went to the police-station again.
Victoria Steele had told me when I was there the last time, that she
would get Keith Holmes to call me. (About a meeting about the
documents i reckoned. I thought this would have been a natural way
to go forward with the case).
But noone had called.
So I decided to go back to the police-station again, to ask why
noone had called, and to tell about the peculiar insident at the
job-centre etc.
When I got to the police-station, it was the same light blond police
woman working there, that was working the first time I went there
to log the incident about Chris Baines following me on my way home
from work on 26/11/06.
But she just turned when she saw me, looking nervous/frightened/
shocked almost. Something like that.
She went back again, and out came another police-woman.
I had got into the habbit of writing down the collar-number of the police-
constables I was speaking with, to keep track of who had said what
etc.
But this one didnt have a collar-number. She had a blue or black
blazer over her shirt.
She had a broad gold-ring on her left long-finger (?), and a band-aid
on her other long-finger, it must have been.
I think she must have been in her 40s, altough she looked younger
24/1, than when I went back 25/1.
I showed her the note on which Steele had written her collar-number,
and her collegues, Holmes' collar number.
Steele had called Holmes 'the superintendant'.
And I refered to Holmes as the superintendant.
Then the police-woman answered 'thats not the superintendant', when
I showed her the note where Steele had written Holmes' name and
number.
Then she continued, before I could explain why I was there, that she
would ask Steele to call me later the same day, as soon as her
shift started.
The police-office was full of youths, and the police-constable seemed
quite nervous, and didnt want me to finish it seemed.
It could be because of all the youths in the office, that she didnt want
them to hear to much.
Without me knowing this for sure. But it seemed that way to me. And
it seemed a bit strange that they switched police-constable, and that
the new one didnt want to let me finish expaining.
And also that Holmes wasnt the superintendant any longer.
And that she didnt have a collar number.
25/01/07
Steele ringte meg ikke, så jeg gikk tilbake neste dag.
Det var samme politidama som dagen før i resepsjonen.
Hun sa at hun hadde gitt beskjed, og at hun skulle gi beskjed igjen.
I asked what I should do if other things happened in the mean-time,
like for instance the episode on the jobcentre.
She said that then I should makes note of it on a piece of paper,
and report it when Steele called me.
She seemed a bit stresset. The whole room was full of youths, like
the day before. And it was a guy standing in the door into the
reception-room who wasnt smelling very nice.
And I thought it was a bit strange that neighter Holmes or Steele
had called like they said they would.
I really thought that the police had been acting strange all the time
since November regarding this.
But I thought I should just wait and see if they called, they
probably had their reasons.
I didnt think I could go there every day eighter, when I had been
there 4 times the 4 last days, and about 10 times the last
2-3 months.
notes: Encl. VIII.
30/1
30/1 I was on a new meeting at the job-centre. It was on this
meeting that the jobcentre-clerk wanted to know the lognumber
for the police-case.
9/2
The days passed, and I still didnt hear anything from the police.
I think it was eighter 9/2 or 12/2, that I went back to St. Annes, and
explained that Steele was supposed to call me, but didnt.
The guy that was working there took a couple of phone-calls I think
in the other room.
He returned after a while, and told that Steele was working from
10 pm til 7 am from tuesday 13/2 and the two next days.
After this she was going on vacation.
I remember I tought that it was a bit strange that she was going
on a vacation in February. Most people are going on vacation
in the summer-time or at Christmas etc.
13/2
So I tryed to call her back 13/2. I got her phonenumber from the
central on 777.4100.
But she didnt answer.
14/2
So on 14/2, I went to the station after 10 pm to try to see if she
was there.
Holmes was working in the reception again. He said he had recieved
the documents (Encl. VII).
He said that he had read a little on the top, a little in the midle, and
a little in the bottom of the pile of documents.
But he said that it wasnt anything about organised crime there, it was
only an employement-case.
I hadnt really prepared to discuss this, I had only prepared to speak
with Steele about why she hadnt called.
And since it is a quite complicated case, and I had been aplying
for some jobs etc, I had been having a lot of other stuff on my mind.
So I just answered 'ok', when he said I had to take it to the CAB.
Earlier I had been telling him that I didnt think it would be safe to
involv a solicitor in this. And that it was a police-matter.
So I thought that probalby the police dosent always say what they
mean, but that it should probably be alright to bring it to a solicitor,
when the police advice me to do it all the time.
And I was also a bit tired of aruging with them, and I am a Norwegian
citizen, so I thought it was a limit on how far I could go with arguing
with the British police.
While I was standing there thinking about what to do, another guy
came into the police-station.
Then I just said that I would contact the CAB. I also said that there
was another episode I also had to report to them. (The incident
at the jobcentre, Encl. D).
Men I didnt want to talk about the details when the new guy was
there, so I told the constable that I would call him about that
later.
Then on 16/2, I recieved a letter from the found property department
at the police. (Encl. C).
It said that MISS Erik Ribsskog should meet at the police-station
as soon as possible, to get some papers they thought were mine.
(Encl. VII).
I thought it was a bit strange that they would write MISS Erik Ribsskog,
due to Eric being a quite common name in the USA and the other
English-speaking countries.
I asked Liz Murphy at the Norwegian consulte in Liverpool if she also
didnt think that this was a bit strange.
She answered that she tought it was. She thought it had to do with
the people writing it being uneducated.
I think that she probably is right in that they could need to be a bit
more educated.
No matter if the reason is that they are uneducated, or if they write
it as a joke, or any other reason, I at least think that this is a
couse for consern, when the police treats a serious case like this,
who is affecting so many Norwegian and Scandinavian citizens,
in such an unprofessional way.
17/2
I went to the St. Annes police-station, and got the documents (Encl VII),
and then I went to the CAB. But the CAB was closed for drop-in, so I
decided to go back there again on the Monday.
19/2
I went back to the CAB, and explained that the police had adviced me
to go there. I said like Holmes had said 14/2, that it was clear to him
that there had been comitted wrongdoing againt me, I think was the
words he used.
The CAB set me up with a meeting with a Solicitor on the 27/2.
27/2
I was on a meeting with solicitor Eleanor Pool from Moorecrofts Solicitors.
On the meeting i brought the enclosures 1-25, and the letter that is
enclosure II. I also bring some new encloseres that are about things
that has happened since I delivered the documents to the police
22/1.
The new enclosures were encl. A-G, that are described in Encl. XI.
Pool says that its clear to her that this is both a crime-case and an
employment-case.
The meeting is set to last for 30 minutes, so we havent got time to
go through all the files.
But she reads Encl. II and also Encl. A. (++)
Ive also brought with me a letter from the jobcentre (Encl. B2), where they
want med to answer questions like 'What grievances did you have and
who where they against', 'Why did you use the email system without
first trying to rectify your grivances throug the appropriate channels,
please', etc.
They wanted to ask me this, because Sarah Rushby had informed them
that: 'It was proven that Erik displayed inappropriate behavior by using
the email system for personal use, making allogations about employees
and forwarding this info. to third parties before allowing the Company
the oppertunity to resolve these issues through the greveance procedure
and bringing the Company in disrepute.
As the Company can bring the employement to and end during the
probationary period, for any reason and without reference to the
diciplinary procedure, the rest of the questions are not applicable.'
If i didnt answer these questions within a week, I could lose my
jobseekers-allowance, it said.
There were also to be sent copies of my answers to my old employer.
It also said in the letter that I had been dismissed.
I thought it was a bit strange that I suddently had been 'dismissed' now,
when it in the letter from the Inland Revenue (Encl. V), says the same
leave-date as in the empoyment-contract (Encl. VI). I thought that this
meant that the reason for the employment ending was due to the contract
having expired.
I had also explained about these questions in the meeting with the
Managing Director 29/11. (Encl. 5).
And I meant that I when I contacted the police on 25/11/06, 26/11/06 and
28/11/06, and also later.
And by on 19/02/07 going to the CAB and set up at meeting with a
solicitor.
I meant that I by doing this, have started a process of getting these
issues treated by the government/legal system/court system.
So I meant that these questions were already being dealt with, (at
a higer level than at the jobcentre).
So I meant that these issues shouldnt be treated by the jobcenter
untill this, the first process, had ended.
Also because I thought these issues were to serious to be dealt with
at the jobcentre. They should be dealt with by police or others who
are trained to deal with them.
So because of this, I asked the Solicitor, if she could have a look at
the letter.
I asked about this, even if the 30 minuttes were over. This was because
that I had only got 7 days to sort this by the jobcentre.
And I thought it wouldnt be time to set up a new meeting. Since it
was only this day and three other days left of the seven days I had
got to answer.
And I didnt know that the meeting only lasted 30 minutes, untill I got
told so when the 30 minutes had past.
So the Solicitor looked at the letter, and said that I should answer it.
But this was a complicated case, I would have had to send them the
enclosures 1-25 and more, to get to explain them the reasons.
An as mentioned earlier, I didnt think the jobcentre was the right place
to deal with this.
But the meeting had ended, so I didnt get to explain this properly.
Due to that the time for the meeting had really ended, and I thought
she could might have overlooked some of the details, since there
wasnt much time to look at the letter.
So I wasnt sure if she due to this could have overlooked the fact that
the jobcentre would send copies of my answers to the employer.
And I wasnt sure if this was right eighter.
I really would have had to send Encl. 1-25 ++, to the jobcentre, to
explain them this properly.
So I wasnt sure about this, and I didnt think it would be possible to
sort with a new meeting in time for the time-limit (and this would
also had cost me £140/hour, which I didnt have).
28/2
I got the letter sent (Encl. X) from the Solicitor, regarding the meeting
the day before at the CAB. She writes that they can help me with
the harassment-part of case. (But this would cost me £140/hour).
Neighter the Police or the CAB had informed me that it would cost
£140/hour to get help from the Solicitor.
So I thought that the situation was a bit confusing when I read about
the £140.
Before the meeting with the Solicitor, I had been sitting up more or
less all night sorting with the new enclosures (A-G).
So I was a bit tired on the 28th, so I was only at home in my flat
relaxing this day.
So I didnt actually find this letter before I went out on the 1/3.
But I remember thinking when I found it, that it must have been laying
there from the day before.
I dont remember excactly now, why I thought this, but it could be
with that I had noticed earlier that we didnt get any mail on some
Fridays, so I thought maybe they dont deliver mail as often as
five days a week.
(I checked it now, and the 28th was a Wednesday, and the 29th
a Thursday, so it couldnt have had anything to do with this.
It could have been that I went downstairs earlier than 11-12 am,
and that it couldnt have been delivered yet on the Thursday.
I was very tired these days, because of working quite much with
Enclosures A-G, printing a lot of documents, and I was also a
bit stressed because I didnt undestand what was going on
regarding the things described in this case. (Why the police
wouldnt look at the case etc.)
1/3
I had promissed Keith Holmes at the St. Anne St. Police-staion on
14/2, that I would call the him/them regarding the incident at the
jobcentre on 23/1.
I hadnt done this earlier, because the police-woman at the station
25/1, had told me to wait until Steele called me with reporting this
and other new incidents.
But, when I spoke with Holmes on the police-station on 14/2, he
adviced me to contact the CAB to speak with a Solicitor.
And because I thought it was a bit strange of Holmes to say
that it wasnt a crime-case, even if he had given him Encl.
1-25 and Encl. II ++.
But I had argued so much with the police about this, so I thought
it might be an idea and follow their advice and go to the CAB,
because I rembered Camel/Connel had said that if the
Solicitor found that it is a crime-case, then they would send
it back to the police.
So I thought that since I thought Holmes was acting a bit
strange with this, then maybe it would be best to ask the
solicitor about advice about what they thought about the
incident at the jobcentre on 23/1 as well.
I was going there anyway, so I thought this was a good idea.
But, the meeting with the Solicitor lasted only 30 minutes.
And I didnt know this untill the 30 minutes had pased.
And I started with presenting the most important files.
(Encl. II, Encl. A, etc).
So I didnt get time to explain about the incident at the jobcentre
to the Solicitor.
But I still had this in the back of my head, because I thought
I had do what I promised.
And also I wanted to ask the police about how it was supposed
to work with the £140/hour for the Solicitor. Why noone had
explained this to me, because it was the police who had sent
me to the CAB to get to speak with a Solicitor.
I though that this probably meant that one would get help even
if one were, like me, unemployed and quite broke.
I had told the police that I was unemployed, and Im certain that
I must have explained to them that the reason that I had to
register at the jobcentre, and try to get a new job, was because
I was running out of money.
So I thought it was a bit strange that they would send me to
the CAB and a Solicitor if this costs £140/hour, when they knew
about my economical situation.
Because I thought that when they repeatedly adviced me to go
there, then they should have informed me about how this worked.
So I wanted to ask them about this now, now that I had read the
letter, and read that it costs £140/hr.
(I asked them about this at the police-station, but they didnt give
an answer. I asked the constable with the ginger hair, and he
mentioned it to O'Brian, but none of them really answered me
about this, and the conversation just went on. This took place
in the reception-area).
Also, if I had to pay for the Solicitor, why did they advice me to
go to the CAB?
I hadnt had anything to do with the CAB before, so I though
this must mean that I get free help or something. Especially
since the police must have known that I was running out of
money when they adviced me to go there.
If not, then why did they say that I should go to the CAB?
They could just have told me to look on Solicitors in the
yellow pages, couldnt they?
Except then I would have had complained more, because
I thought the CAB had to be something with the Government.
And in the meeting in January, Camel/Connel also mentioned
the Crowns Court in connection with the CAB and my case.
So to me it seemed that to do it the way he said, certainly
had to an official/Government way to sort this.
If they had said yellow pages, then I would have understood
that I wasnt actually getting any Government help.
And I would also have understood that the way the police
adviced me to sort this wouldnt be free.
-
And the last, but not least, thing I wanted to speak with the
police about, was that the Solicitor had said in the meeting
two days before that she tought this was both a crime-case
and an employement case.
In the letter (Encl. X), she said that they could help me with
the harassment cases, but that they dont work with criminal
law (the org. crime bit it must have been, se Encl A).
It must have obviously have been this, because the only other
things in the case that could be discribed as crime, is the
harassment-cases, which they could help me with.
She thought that the police would be assisted by looking trough
the documents, in relation to the criminal-law (org.crime)-
part of the case.
So I obviously thought I had to contact the police about this.
Really, Camel/Connel had said that the Solicitor would bring
it back to the police if they thought it was a crime-case.
But it didnt seem this way from the letter, so I decided to
take contact with the police again and explain what it said
in the letter. (And what she said in the meeting).
I tryed to call the police about this, but it was a bad line
the woman at the central said, so I wrote some notes
(Encl. XII), and went to the police-station.
-
In the reception on the police-station, it was the same constable
working, who I spoke with when I went there on 28/11/06.
It was the constable with ginger hair, and collar number 2155.
I told him that I was there regarding three things.
I had also brought the documents I had with me to the meeting
at the CAB with the Solicitor.
I showed him Encl. A, problems detailed, and Encl. II, and he
answered that it was an employement case.
Then I showed him the letter from the Solicitor, Encl. X, and told
him that the Solicitor in the meeting had told me that this was a
crime-case (and an employement-case).
So then he had to agree with me on that.
Then we got to the second point, and I told him about the episode
at the jobcentre where the woman there, Michelle, asked me
several times (or twice), if I could tell her the details from the
police-case.
She had asked me twice to tell her what type of police-
case it was that made me miss the meeting.
When I answered her on her initial question, why I wasnt on the
meeting. That this was to do with a police-case. Then she wasnt
content with that answer, but she continued to ask me what type
of police-case it was.
This happened twice, once in the beginning of the conversation,
and then she asked the same two questions again at the end of the
conversation.
She had also asked me questions like why I hadnt called them
and told them that I couldnt get to the meeting.
Then I told her that I had called them twice (on the phone-number
I got from the Cressington Jobcentre), but that they didnt answer
the phone.
She asked me what time this was, that I had called them, and I
checked this on my mobile, it was at 13:55:24 on 23.01.07 (I have
it on my mobile still), and the number was 0151.801.5700, the
number I had been given from Cressington.
I remember that I had been calling them twice, and waited many
rings each time, but that I hadnt got any answer on the calls.
She also reminded me that it was important that I was an active
job-seeker, even if I hadnt been registered as unemployed for
more than a few days.
I went to the jobcentre first on Wednesday 17th to register, and
spoke with a clerk named Dave on the jobcentre-phone.
Then on Thursday, a clerk called Thom called me to get the
address and bank-details etc, and set up the meeting on
Monday.
Then on Monday I couldnt come to the meeting due to the
police-case, but I had called both the Cressington and
the Williamson-square department.
And on Tuesday I went to Williamsons-square department
again to set up a new meeting.
So I dont think you really could say that I hadnt been active,
I had only had contact with them for a period that contained
five working-days.
And in those days, I had gone to the jobcentre twice, and
called different job-centre departments three times, and
also answered a scheduled call from another jobcentre
department.
I remember that Michelle was not calm. She was tense,
and a bit 'agressive'/non-trusting (cant remember the word)
sometimes during the conversation, like when she asked
at what time I had called them and they hadn't answered.
Ive explained it a bit more in detail here than in the conversation
with the constable. I think I focused mostly on telling him that
she wanted to know the details about the police-case.
The constable answered that this sounded like things they
would normally ask for at the job-centre.
I didnt explain to him about the woman who asked if I was
Swedish, and the guy in the stair-case, because I wasnt
sure about how to explain this understandably.
I thought he would just say that this was just chit-chat, and
that it is usual to ask people if theyre Swedish and confind
with them about their disliking of North-Western accents.
And then I wouldnt have known what to answer.
So I decided that I would instead focus on things I thought
I would be better at explaining, so that I wouldnt look stupid,
and then maybe not being taken seriously when it came to
the more important points.
-
But he asked if there had been any other incidents like
this that were not work-related.
There had been many incidents more or less similar to the
ones at the jobcentre since I moved to town.
But from the recent ones, I chose to tell him about when I
went to the food-shop (Spar in Dale Street) on 24/1, to buy
electricity-tickets.
Just before I was going into the shop, I could hear a
crazy-sound being howled in my direction.
Then I turned my head back, and could se that the echo-
mans friend was making a sound towards me.
I managed to spot his mouth moving as he made the sounds.
He stoped making the sound then, but I managed to spot
him making the sound before he stopped.
I didnt really know to act then, he was standing there with
the echo-man, and I didnt really know what to say.
I was a bit stressed then, since I was unemployed, and I
didnt know what the situation was regarding the case,
and I didnt understand why the police didnt want to look
at the case etc.
This was also the day after I had been at the jobcentre and
speaking with Michelle, and with the woman there asking if
I was Swedish, and the guy in stairs who didnt like the
Scouse accent.
This was also the day after the lorry-driver asked me if I knew
the way to St. Anne Street, and insisted on me
explaining him, not letting his compatriots do this.
So I was a bit stressed, but I couldnt really understand why
the echo-mans friend should make sounds at me, I was really
just walking bye on the pavement.
-
I was also a bit tired in this meeting, and a bit stressed since
I had argue about whether or not this was a crime-case, and
about the clerk at the job-centre etc, and all the questions
in English.
So I think I just told him that the echo-man had made a crazy
sound.
But I was a bit hot in my head then, and a bit stressed, it was
acutally his friend.
But I thought it was a bit embarrasing explaining about incidents
like this, and I get more problem with the language when Im
stressed, so I just said it was the echo-man.
-
The constable continued to ask me if there had been more
incidents like these, and I answered that there had been a lot
of more or less similar things happening.
But that I hadnt got to report these incidents yet, due to all
the things that had happened in Norway (which I had tryed to
report to the Merseyside police).
And that also many things had been happening at work (this
case), and that I also had reported other non-work related
incidents that had been happening at my old address in
Walton.
(And that due to all the things going on, that I had been at
the police-station very often, but what always happens is
that when I go there to report something, they usually tells
me that they cant help me (that I cant report treats until
something has actually happened), that I should call to
Norway instead (and that they cant help me with this).
Or that I get to report a few things, and then say that they
are going to call me back, but never do.
And that if I was going to report all of this incidents that are
going on, then I would probably have to go there every day,
or sometimes many times a day, and then theyd probably
think Im crazy if I go there that often.
(I didnt explain him it this thorrowly, but something like this).
But I explained that when things like this happen, then I
try get them written down on a note, so I found a note I had
and gave him.
He said that he didnt actually get any sense out of the note.
I explained that it was because it was written in Norwegian,
and that I just wanted to show him that Id written it down.
-
The constable got hold of the Sergant, and showed him
the letter from the Solicitor, and I think I mentioned that it
said it costs £140/hour with the Solicitor, and the constable
mentioned this to the Seargant.
We went to the meeting-room, and then I sat down in the
same chair as I had sat in the meeting with Sgt. Camel/
Connel and his collegue in January.
Then I got told by this Sergant (Sergant O'Brian, collar-
number 1334), that I couldnt sit in that chair, that chair
was for the police, I had to sit on the other side of the table.
So I had to move to the chair on the other side of the table.
Then the meeting started.
The meeting was a bit caotic.
I told the constable when I got to the station that I was
there regarding 3 things.
We had only talked about the 2 first out in the reception.
So guessed that I was supposed to explain it all again from
the beginning to the Sergant, so I started doing this.
Then the constable wanted to explain this to the Seargent.
The Sergant said that he thought that the lack of progress in
the case, was due to too many officers and constables being
involved in the process.
He said that for us to find out what the different officers and
constables had been doing regarding the case, I should
write my phone-number on a note, and then con. Steele
would call me and explain about what she had been doing
with the documents I gave her (Encl. VII). (Of which Holmes
earlier had said he had recieved)
I remeber I thought this sounded very strange, but I was tired
from before I went to the station. I really had only wanted to call to
the police-station this day. I hadnt really expected a lot of
questions and meetings etc, when I called them that day.
And I had to argue about if it was crime-case as usual, and
answer a lot of questions and exlain about silly and embarresing
incidents.
And also move from the chair I had sat in the first time I was
there, at the beginning of the meeting.
And also from not getting to explain about the case myself.
So I wasnt really ready for starting to argue with one Sergant
and one Constable in English.
And the constable had explained for the Sergant, but I wasnt
sure if he was going to argue with the Sergant as well, or
if this was only my job. (I reckoned the latter, but I was a
bit tired).
I was used to more or less being thrown out of there, so I
thought it was progress just getting to the meeting-room.
So I thought Id just listen to what the Sergant had to say,
and then write it down, and then just do it his way, and see
where it led.
The Seargant was quite intense.
I was confused, embarrased, tired and stressed.
-
I tryed to say that Con. Steele had been supposed to call
me earlier, and hadnt called, but I dont think he really listened.
I reckoned he was a bit stressed or something, he seemed
intense, but not very easy to comunicate with. Like he didnt
want to listen when I started explaining that Steele hadnt
called before.
But I thought I could just call O'Brian and report it if Steele
didnt call again.
At least now, something was supposed to happen, and I thought
that this was progress in itself. A start of a process at least,
something like that.
And I was quite used with the officers and constables there acting
a bit strange and peculiar, so I wasnt really expecting that much.
So even if I thought it was a bad idea to leave the responsibilty
of finding out what had happened before to me, I thought that
maybe this was because he was a bit afraid to get to much
involved in the case, since it had got to do with organised crime.
And I had noticed when I had been there earlier, that some of
the Constables seemed a bit shocked/afraid, and went and got
their collegue instead, when I contacted them in the reception
.He had to ask the constable all the time about who Holmes was
and who Steele was etc, so I reckoned that he was quite new there,
and I thought that this maybe could be why he was a bit difficult to
communicate with, that he was stressed or something.
-
After I had written my name on the note, they acted like the
meeting was ended.
But in the reception I had only got to explain about 2 of the 3 things
I had to explain about, so I had to hold them, to ask them about the
third point.
I asked them if they thought it was ok if I wrote to the jobcentre,
and told them that the problems were part of a process who would
be pursued through the court-system, and that it shouldnt be
dealt with at the jobcentre until the first process was finished.
They said that it was alright that I wrote this, but it seemed like
the Sergant had a quite strong reaction when he heard that I was
unemployed.
I didnt really think myself that this would be that surprising, due to
this being an employment-case.
And when the employer had been infiltrated or taken over by a
criminal organisation.
This also meant that I didnt have a reference to show when I applied
for new jobs, so it wasnt that easy getting one.
But it didnt seem like the Sergant thought about it this way.
So when I showed him Enclosure B2, he started to say in a very
intense way, repeativly, that I had to make sure that the jobcentre
and Arvato contacted eachother.
I thought this was a very strange thing to say, since its obvious from
Enlosure B2 that they already had been in contact with eachother.
But I thought from his quite strong reaction, that he obviously was in
an affected state, and I think that comunicating with people that are
in an affected state often is a bit stressing and sometimes not very
rewarding.
So I decided that I would just pretend to agree with the Sergant, so
that he then hopefully would calm down and get a grip on himself.
Then he started to ask if I went regularly to the doctor, and if I was
taking medicines etc, so I thought it was clear that he didnt like
that I was unemployed.
I didnt really understand why it should be so suprising that one was
unemployed when one recently had quit working for a firm that had
been infiltrated/taken over by a criminal organisation.
And I was quite tired after discussing quite long with the Constable
whether this was an organised crime case or not, so I didnt know
how I to deal with the situation about the Sergant being in an affected
state.
So the meeting ended with us agreeing on that con. Steele should
call me and tell what she had been doing with the documents.
I reacted on the fact that it was me who was the person who should
find out what had happened.
I would presume that the usual way to deal with this was that Sergant
O'Brian himself would check up on this.
Instead of me having to wait for a Constable to call, who never calls.
Later I thought that this was a peculiar way of solving this problem,
but the Sergant was so intense, and I was quite tired from discussing
with the Constable.
And on the meeting it was myseld, and two British police-officers/
constables. And Im a Norwegian citizen living in Britain. And after
the two last meeting where they didnt want to help me at all, I was
more or less happy as long as they didnt throw me out, so I didnt
get as far as bringing up the subject regarding why it was me Con.
Steele should talk with, and not him.
But when I think back at this now, it seems to me like a cause of
concern, that he himself didnt take upon him this responsibility, even
after the Constable had showed him, among other documents,
Enclosure II point 5.
So Im a bit worried that a police-officer dont take more responsibility
in a case that involves many people that are under control by organised
criminals.
That he himself didnt want to do anything about this, other than
letting the responsibility on me on finding out what has happened
earlier.
Whats important for the case has got to be to investigate more on
this, go through the documents/evidence, transfer the case to the
department in the police that specialises on org. crime.
Instead, he only gives me the responsibility to find out what has
happened with the documents earlier, instead of taking the
responsibility himself, and progress with the case.
(Notes from meeting: Encl. XII).
9/3
I didnt hear anything from the police this time eighter.
So on 9/3, I tryed to get contact with Sgt. O'Brian.
I call the central on 0151.777.4100, and asks to speak with him.
They give me his number, which they say is 0151.777.5772.
I tryed to call the number, but noone answers.
12/3:
I tryed to call back on the Monday, 12/3. I call 777.5772, and then
someone answers, and says that Ive got through to the Smithdown
Rd./Liverpool North police-station, which if I remember right is the
police-station in Walton.
I asked for O'Brian, and they said that he had quit working there.
-
Then I called the central and asked to speak with O'Brian, since
Steele hadnt called.
The woman on the central says that Steele will be back from holiday
on 15/3, and we agree that I'll just wait til she returns from holiday,
and she'll call me then.
15/3:
I still dont hear anything from Steele, so I try to call her on 777.4043,
but I dont get any answer.
I try to call several times, but no answer.
The central says that O'Brian is on duty from 9 pm and is on 777.4051.
I try to call after 9 pm., but doesnt get any answer.
I call St. Annes, and they say that he is on 777.4046.
I try to call that number, but doesnt get any answer.
16/3:
Tryed to call Steele on 777.4043 at 14.58, but didnt get any answer.
I tryed to call O'Brian, but no answer.
I calles St. Annes, and they said that Steele was gone home sick.
St. Annes said that O'Brian was on 777.4051, and on duty.
I tryed to call 777.4051, but no answer.
Solicitor:
I have been calling the Solicitor regularly since the meeting at the CAB.
She was having one week holiday, but other than that Ive called and
explained that Ive talking with the police about the case. And that
I also would ask for more advice from the CAB.
Since the police didnt call like they said they would. And since I'd
already been at the CAB, but they didnt explain to me that it would
cost £140 an hour to get help from the Solicitor, I decided to contact
the Norwegian Conulate and hear if they could help me with these
issues.
Norwegian Consulate:
Since I didnt know much about the British legal-system, and also since
I was quite worried about the way the police treated the case, I thought
I should contact the Consulate, and ask for advice.
Since the police didnt call me back (I was planning to ask them about
the £140 pounds/hr), and since the CAB hadnt informed me about this
eighter, I wanted to ask them for advice about this as well.
So I went to a meeting with Liz Hurley there on 19/3.
Liz Hurley took some phone-calls about this, and told me that she had
spoken with O'Brian, and she said that O'Brian had told her that he
remembered the case.
But I still, to this date (19/04/07), havent heard from eighter O'Brian or
Steele.
Not even after Liz Hurley called on the 19/3, and spoke with O'Brian
about the matter.
CAB:
After the meeting at the Consulate, I called the Solicitor later on 19/3,
and said that I would go to the CAB for more advice the next day.
So I went to the CAB on 20/3, and asked in which cases one would
need a criminal solicitor. (which the Solicitor had said that I might
need, since Moorecrofts didnt deal with criminal-cases).
And I also wanted to speak with them about legal-aid.
I had wanted to go there before and ask them about legal-aid.
But I thought it was right to ask the police about how this worked,
since it was them who had sent me there in the first place. Telling
me to take the case to the CAB and a Solicitor, without telling
me that this would cost £140.
I wanted to ask the police about how they intended this to be.
Had they intended that I should pay £140 pounds an hour, or had
they intended that this was goving to be covered in some sort of
way.
(I didnt really read about legal-aid untill maybe one or two weeks
before this. I read about it in a leaflet I had picked up at the CAB
earlier, but that I hadnt got time to read properly before.
I just by coincidence find the leaflet again, and then I understood
that there was something called legal-aid.)
-
But since the police never called me, there wasnt much progress
regarding this.
So when I didnt hear anything from the police, even if I tryed to call
both Steele and O'Brian about this, I decided to rather ask
the Consulate for advice before I went to the CAB again.
But it got a bit delayed due to this, thats why I didnt go to the CAB
before and asked them about the legal aid system.
The Solicitor that I spoke with on the phone when I was at the CAB,
told me that it was only in the cases that me myself had been
charged in a case, that I would need a criminal Solicitor.
She said that the part of the case that was a criminal-case, should
be dealt with in liasons with the police.
I asked her who I should contact if there was problems with the
liasons with the police, and she said that I should contact the
CPS or the Law Society.
-
At the CAB, I also asked them for advice on how the legal aid system
worked, and I got told that on the CLS website, there was a calculator
that one could use to calculate if one were eligable to get legal aid.
But when I tryed the calculator at home later that day, it got clear
that the program couldnt calculate if I was eligable.
This was because I was working as self-employed now, (doing research
for a company called Packaging Europe in Norwich).
And when one were working as self-employed, then one had to contact
a legal advisor to get help with calculating this.
So I searched on the same website, and it said that the nearest legal
advisor to my address, was the CAB.
The CAB was closed the next day, but on 22/3, I went back there.
I told them that the website had said that if one were self-employed,
one the program couldnt help you calculate if you were eligable for
legal aid, but you would need help with this from a legal advisor.
And the CAB set me up with an apoinment with a new legal advisor
there on 5/4. (Encl. New1)
-
Later on the same day, I went to the Solicitors, and told the Solicitor
that Is was going to a meeting about legal aid on the CAB on the
5/4.
The Solicitor said that one never gets legal aid in employement-
cases.
I told her that noone had told me this earlier. (I thought I had at
least hinted to her on the phone earlier that I didnt really
understand the legal-aid system, or how I was going to solve
the problem with the £140/hour, which I wanted to ask the
police more about.
(I had planned to ask the police more about the £140 pounds
and hour which they didnt explain to me before they sent me
to the CAB to get to speak with a Solicitor throught them.
On the notes I prepared for the meeting at the police-station on
1/3, Encl. XII, I had written a note about asking the police to
explain about this.
But the meeting was so caotic. I got stressed/embarresed from
being told to move to the other side of the table etc, after that
I first had sat down on the same chair where I had sat the first
meeting I was on there (16/1).
And I got embarrased and tired from the questions in the
reception.
I was tired from before I went to the meeting, I had really
only intended to call them.
And I lost a bit control on my presentation, when the constable
started to explain to the Sergant.
I wasnt really that clear to me what my role in the meeting was.
And then when the sergant in the meeting (O'Brian), who was
very intense, started to saying strange/unreasonlble things,
(like that I should be responsible for finding out what all the
police-constables and officers had done with the documents/
case).
They told me to write my phone-number on a note, for the
police (Steele) to call me, and then they acted like the
meeting was finished.
Then I got a bit stressed, because I knew I had to answer
the letter from the jobcentre, where they treatened to
discontinue my jobseekers-allowance, if I didnt reply
within a week, and 2/3 (the day after this meeting),
was the last day I could reply within the time-limit).
So then when they started to leave the table, then I
thought I at least had to ask about the jobcentre-letter
first, since I didnt think I would get another chance to
get advice about this before the time-limit expired.
So then, I think, in the chaos that was the meeting, that the
issue with the £140 was forgotten.
After the meeting, I thought that I would just sort this when
the police called. And that if Steele, like last time, didnt
call, then I could try to call O'Brian about this, who hopefully
had managed to calm down by then.
But Steele didnt call, and O'Brian didnt answer when I called,
so this got a bit delayed.)
-
The Solicitor said that Moorecrofts only accepted payments from
private founds.
I said that I still didnt really understand the system with the legal-aid,
and I thought that maybe I could get legal-aid by applying from the
Government, or whoever gave them, and then maybe they could
be seen as part of private founds, or something like that.
I was a bit confused by how this worked, so we agreed that I would
go the meeting at the CAB on 5/4 as agreed with the CAB, and then
I was going to contact her back again one of the first days after the
meeting.
CAB 5/4:
On the 5/4 there was a meeting on CAB at 1.30 pm. (Encl. new1).
I was printing out some documents right before the meeting, to bring
with me at the meeting.
The documents thought a bit longer than I thought, so I had to hurry
for the the meeting.
I was a couple of minutes late when I got to the State Building, so I
tryed to hurry up the stairs to the CAB.
When I got almost to the floor where the CAB is, I noticed there was
a small girl sitting in the staircase, right outside the door that leads
into the CAB.
Ive neven used to meet someone in the stairs, and I thought at once
that it was peculiar that a young girl would sit there. I though that
the State Building had to be an office building, with a reception and
with the CAB being there, with the name, and Id only seen buisness-
people in the building before.
So since I hadnt used to met so many people in the stairs, and because
I thought it was a bit strange that she was sitting there, I cougth a
glimpse of her while i stressed passed.
She sat like on display. She was very young, looked like maybe 11,
12, 13 I thought first, but she could have been even younger, because
I think she was dressed up do look older, because her face really
looked like even younger than that when I think of it.
And she looked like she wasnt comfertable at all sitting there,
from the look in her eyes one could see that she was a small
child who just sat there for some reason, but uncomfertable,
like she had been put there, to sit there on display.
I was used with many particular incidents happening almost everywere
in streets and in shops etc. in town, (which I have written about in
Norwegian, and showed to the ginger constable at the St. Anne str.
station).
And I thought that the girl sitting there like on display for no seemingly
particular reason, could look like almost similar with some of the other
incidents that had been happening earlier in town (like when I was
at the jobcentre 23/1, Encl. D, and many other more or less emarresing
situations that has happened around town).
So when I see something that seems peculiar to me, like this, I to be
alert.
So i rushed to the door to CAB, and rang the button twice before a
man answered. (I think this could have been the person I later called
back and spoke with thats called Steve).
I explained that I was there for the meeting for the legal advisor at 1.30.
I was let in, and it was dark there, the lights were turned off, there were
no people there.
Since there werent any people there at all, I just grabed a leaflet
standing in a plastic-display in the reception-area (Encl. new2).
(This leaflet was the same that I had found laying around at home
some weeks earlier, which I must have picked up on the CAB
probably the first day I was there, when I got the apointment
to see the Solicitor from Moorecrofts.
It was from this leaflet I first had heard about that there was some-
thing called legal-aid, when I browsed through the leaflet a few
weeks earlier.)
Since noone showed up, I just sat down in one of the chairs, and
browsed a bit through the leaflet, and got my notebook ready,
things like that, for maybe a couple of minutes.
Then a clerk around 25 years showed up, who was maybe from
Pakistan, India or Sri Lanka or something like that.
He was well-built, very groomed, with a feminin face and skin-tight
clothes, and a bit feminin voice, so I reckoned that he was probably
gay.
I could hear from his voice that he was not the guy who had let me
in the door, and who I had talked with on the calling-system.
This person (Steve I think it must have been), sounded like a man
in his fifties maybe, and with a much lower voice. But he must
have been sitting in another room, because I didnt see him there
at all during my visit there.
The clerk explained to me that the Duty Solicitor from EAD, had
just called and told that he had to cancel the meeting.
The clerk appologised to me that he hadnt called me and told me
this. He said this was because the solicitor had just recently
called and canceled.
Then he told me the phonenumber to the EAD solicitors
(0151.708.0606), which I wrote down in my notebook (Encl. new3).
The clerk adviced me to call them and ask if they could help me
over the phone, since they couldnt make it to the meeting.
Then he wanted to give me a leaflet (Encl. new2), but I was
already holding one of those in my hand, so I just explained
to him that I already had that.
The clerk advised me, that if the EAD solicitors couldnt help me
when I called them, then I should call the company that was
presented in the leaflet (Merseyside Employement Law, Encl.
new3).
The clerk appologised again that he didnt call me and tell me that
the meeting was canceled.
I remember I thought that the right thing would have been to set
up a new meeting. But since the clerk adviced me to call the
EAD, I thought with myself that I did go there for advice/help
from them, so I should just follow the advice that the CAB clerk
gave me. Since he was working with this, I reckond that he had
to know about these things, and that it then would be ok for
me to follow his advice.
I asked the clerk if he knew the name of the Solicitor, so that
I would know who to ask for when I called.
The clerk said that he didnt know the name.
At one point at near the end of the conversation, the clerk,
went and turned on all the lights in the office while we were
talking.
(I think this maybe could have been while going to get the leaflet
in the plastic-display).
After the clerk had turned the lights on, and at the end of the
conversation between me and the clerk, the woman who works
there with the dark hair, I think about 50 years, and who allway
help with legal matters, and who calls the Solicitors, and sat
up the apointment for this meeting.
This woman went into the reception-room at the end of the
conversation.
She placed herself in the reception, and was looking at me while
I passed the reception on my way out the entrance-door.
I noded to her, (and I think I also said hi), but she didnt return
my greeting. (or what the word is).
She looked right at me when I passed, but she didnt say anything,
and I couldnt see that she was doing any work-task in particular
in the reception.
So I just went out of the building and home to call the solicitor-
firm..
When I went out of the building, the guard in the reception in the
State Building looked away, faced towards Dale Street (he was
looking a bit akward, I think he was red in his face, and I didnt
think he looked his normal self), and he eighter didnt return my
greeting.
(Notes: Encl. new1, new2 and new3.)
EAD:
When I got home, I tryed to call EAD several times, but the number
wasnt working. (0151.708.0606).
I tryed to look in the yellow pages, but I couldnt find the EAD
solicitors.
So I called back to the CAB to ask them for the right number.
A person named Steve answered the phone there.
(He sounded like he could have been the person that opened the door
for me there when I went there for the meeting).
I could hear Steve asking a woman at the CAB about the phone-
number (I guessed that the woman could have been the one with
the dark hair that I described earlier).
The woman told him the phone-number to Steve, who told to me on
the phone. (0151.735.1000).
I asked Steve if they knew the name of the Solicitor I was supposed
to meet there from EAD earlier at 1.30 that day, and Steve passed the
question on to the woman.
But they didnt know the name, I was told to ask for the Duty Solicitor.
-
I called to the EAD at around 2 pm, and got to speak with Stephanie I
think it was.
I thought it was a bit curious that I couldnt find them in the yellow
pages, so I asked them if they were bases in the Liverpool-area since
I couldnt find them there.
She said that they were based in the Colombus Key area. (Encl. 4).
I explained about the canceled meeting at the CAB, and asked to
speak with the Duty Solicitor.
I was transfered to another woman if I remember right, she asked me
what type of case it was, and I think I said employement and crime
or organised crime case, and got transfered to a person I thought
interduced him self as Ryan, and sounded like a guy in his 20's.
I remember thinking that he sounded a bit young to be a lawyer, but
I wasnt sure, he must have been quite newly finished with Uni. I
reckoned.
He asked me for my name, and I spelt it, and I asked him if his name
was Ryan, like I thought he had said.
And then he said it was Reiner, and spelt the letters in the name.
(Encl. 4)
He went on to say that his first-name was Michael.
I explained why I called, and he apologised that noone from the firm
had attended the meeting.
I told him it was an employement-case (I remembered the police and
Moorecrofts had called it this) and an crime case. (It could be I said
organised crime case).
He asked when the latest incidents were, I hadnt prepared to talk
about this on the phone, I had prepared to get help calculating if I
was eligable for legal-aid.
I answered 'in November'.
(I didnt think about the incidents in December and in the new year,
from Arvato and the jobcentre).
He started counting how many months ago that was, and apologised
about it being to late to deal with this now, since it had been more
than 3 months since these incidents happened.
I explained that I had reported this to the police, another Solicitor-firm
etc, and said I thought this maybe could cause the 3 month time-limit
to be extended.
He said a employement-tribunal in very rearly circomstances, could
extend the time-limit.
I explained that I really had arranged the meeting to get help calculating
if I was eligble for legal-aid.
He said that these things were connected, that to know if I was eligable
he needed to know the details from the case, it wasnt possible to do
this over the phone.
I said that I had prepared to look at this in the meeting at the CAB
that day, and he appologised for noone in their company being able
to meet me, but said that they couldnt meet later eighter about
this, because they only dealt with employement-cases that were
Trade union cases.
He explained that legal-aid and the case were connected, so that the
company doing the case also had to calculate if you were eligable
for legal-aid.
I made a point out of that it would probably cost around £140/hour
to get help calculating this.
He said some companies could help you on a (i cant remeber excactly
what he said, but its like they only charge you if you win the case).
He gave me the name and number for another company that he said
he thought could help me, John Halson, 0151.708.8123 (Encl new4).
I said that I think the right thing would have been to have a new meeting
at CAB, I think I must have said, and just asked what type of cases
he meant by trade union cases.
(I didnt automaticly understand this, I think it must have been because
of all the calls/meetings, and the language).
He explained it, the employee gets help with the case by the Union,
who get help by EAD.
Afte the call, I decided that I had too think this through before I was taking
any more calls.
This was the day before Good-Friday, so I decided to think about this over
easter.
10/4:
I called the CPS, I had planned to speak with the Solicitor on the meeting
at the CAB 5/4 about how I should bring the problem with the liasons
with the police up with CPS.
But since the Solicitor canceled the meeting, I just searched on the internet
and found the CPS website.
11/4:
I contacted the Solicitor again.
I explained what Reiner at EAD had told me, about the time-limit being
passed in this case, since its only 3 months for employement-cases.
The Solicitor said that if this also was an harassment-case (which it is),
then there was a longer time-limit.
16/4:
I had been thinking more about the incidents at the CAB 5/4, which I
thought became stranger and stranger the more I thought about it.
I didnt understand why a new meeting hadnt been set up. I thought
it all was a bit dodgy.
I remebered that I hadnt managed to find EAD in the yellow pages,
so I thought Id check up on EAD on the internet.
I found their homepage: (www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/employement, 16/04/07,
2.24 am).
And there it said: 'EAD advices on all aspects of employment law work for
trade unions, union members and individual workers'.
Im not sure if the Liverpool branch is an exception from this, but anyway
I thought the whole set-up with me having to call EAD and not getting a
new appointment, is enough to go further with these things.
Also the episode with Reiner informing me that the time-limit was only
3 months for my case, since I remember I was a bit uncertain about
what type of case I should call it when he asked, since its a quite
complicated case, so then I dont think he should give advice.
Like, if he cant say if the case is eligable for legal-aid by just speaking
with me on the phone, then maybe he shouldnt say what time-limit the
case has got from just speaking with me on the phone.
Also I think the CAB should have offered to set me up with a new meeting,
and not only giving me the phone-number and a leaflet, when the original
meeting was canceled.
And he peculiarieties with the light being off, with the phone-number to
EAD not being right, with not any of the employees Ive asked on CAB
knowing the Solicitors name, with not even the EAD infoming me
about who this Solicitor was ++.
I think there were so many strange things going on with that meeting,
so I decided to go forward with reporting this, and I'll continue that
process.
24/04/07:
I Called Elly Pool at the Liverpool branch of Morecrofts solicitors, to
set up a meeting to discuss how to go forward with the case.
We had discussed earlier the possibility of me paying the solicitors
bill by a type of 'payment plan', since I couldnt find any legal-aid
solution.
Elly Pool said that she was going to contact Mr. Millett about this,
and that they would contact me back.
Later the same day, Samantha from Morecrofts called and said that
I could have a meeting with Mr. Millett, but then I would have to pay
£250 for the meeting, and she said I couldnt have a 'payment-plan'.
Morecrofts were also supposed to call me after I was there on 11/4,
but they never did.
Samantha said that she had been trying to call me three times since
then on my mobile.
I asked if she had been calling from the number that is on their letters.
She asked why I was asking about so many things.
I said that I was only asking about one thing.
She then said that she had been calling from the number thats on their
letters.
(I checked the call-registry on my mobile after the call, but I couldnt see
any calls from that number. I also checked on my old mobile, in case
I had given them that number, but I couldnt find the calls on that call-
registry eighter).
She also said that it was not an employement-case, and adviced me to
contact the law society, and hear if they could help me.
I said that I had thought from the conversations with Elly Pool 11/4 and
24/4, that it would be possible for me to pay for the solicitors-costs on
a type of 'payment-plan', and that I wasnt aware of that I had to pay
£250 right away.
I said that I needed some time to think about how I would deal with
this new situation, and we agreed that I should contact them again
within a week.
(Notes from this phone-call: Encl. new8).
COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE CAB, DALE ST, LIVERPOOL:
1. I think the CAB should have set up a new meeting between the duty
solicitor and myself, when the duty solicitor canceled the scheduled
meeting there on 05/04/07.
2. I think they should have informed me about the name of the duty
solicitor that canceled the meeting. They didnt do this even if I asked
them about this twice.
3. I dont think the CAB should have adivised me to contact the duty
solicitors firm EAD on the phone on 5/4, since one needs to go through
the documents of the case in detail, to see if one are eligable for legal
aid. Which was what the scheduled meeting was supposed to be about.
So they shouldnt have adviced me to call them to get help, since one
needs to have a proper meeting to sort these problems, like the EAD
told me on the phone later on 5/4. (And the EAD also didnt want to
set up a meeting).
4. I dont think the CAB, like they for the meeting on 5/4, should set
me up for a meeting with a Solicitors firms (EAD), that aren't based
in Liverpool.
The Solicitor-firms that they set up to do task of Duty Solicitor
representaton, should be based in Liverpool, for practical reasons,
if someone wants to go to the Solicitors office to speak with
someone there etc.
5. I dont think the CAB should have given me the wrong number
to the EAD solicitiors firm.
The CAB told me first on 5/4 that the phonenumber to the EAD
solicitors firm was 0151.708.0606, but this number didnt work.
(I tryed to find the right number in the Mersey 2005/06 yellow pages,
but the EAD firm wasnt listed there.
Then I called back to the CAB and they told me that the number was
0151.735.1000.)
6. I think the CAB should have the lights on in the parts of their offices
where members of the public are recieved, and in their other public
areas, during their opening hours.
This to insure that contacts between representatives from the CAB and
members of the public are kept in an atmosphare that one would expect
from a public place. (And not in an atmosphare that one would think
belonged more to a privat place/situation.)
I think they should have the lights on during the opening hours, and that
they should not arrange meetings with members of the public to be held
with the lights off.
(Like they did when I went there for the Duty Solicitors meeting, and ended
up first sitting waiting for several minutes in the dark, and then speaking with
the CAB representative for several minutes in the dark, on 5/4).
7. I think that the CAB should have informed before the meeting with the
Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts on 27/2, that the Morecrofts Solicitors firm
only accepted payment from private founds.
And that Morecrofts didn't accept founding founded by the legal aid-
programme, like the Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts, Eleanor Pool, informed
me of on 22/3.
8. I think that the CAB should have informed me before the meeting with
Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2, that the
meeting only was scheduled to last for thirty minutes.
I wasnt made aware of this, untill Eleanor Pool first informed me of this when
the thirty minutes had passed.
9. I think the CAB should have explained to me about the legal aid system,
and how it works, before they set me up for the meeting with Duty Solicitor
Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2.
Especially since this was an employment-case (like I told them that the
police had told me to tell them that it was).
I also told them that the police had told me that certain wrongdoings were
done against me from my old employer.
It must have been clear to the CAB that I was unemployed. (On the meeting
there I showed them the letter from my employer (encl. 1), and I explained
to them that I didnt go back to my employer because I saw the letter as
continuing of the harassment, and that I also didnt think that it was safe
to go back there due to the reasons explained more about in encl. II and
in encl. A).
I also must have told them, (this comes natural to discuss after I had explained
about the letter from my employer (Encl. 1), and from explaining that I hadnt
gone back there due to the reasons that are thorowly explained in Encl. II), that
the [formal] reason that I wasnt working in the company any longer, was that my
contract had expired. (Encl. VI).
So it must have been clear to them that I because of this (that my contract had
expired, and that it was an employement-case) most probably was unemployed.
So, I think they should have informed me of the different financing-ways for the
case that existed. (Eg. the legal aid programme).
(I told them that I needed a solicitor, and that the police had told me that I should
go to the CAB and ask to get a solicitor, so that the case could be taken to the
Crowns Court.)
And I dont think they should have set me up with a solicitor from a firm that only
accepts founding from privat founds (and not founding from legal-aid), when one
are unemployed, and it must have been clear to them (as this often is a
consequense of being unemployed), probably out of founds.
10. I also think that the solicitor I got to speak with on the phone (about when
one would need a criminal solicitor), when I was at the CAB on 20/3, should
have explained to me what her name was, and which solicitors firm she was
calling from.
I was put in a room at the CAB, and told to wait untill the solicitor called me.
But when I answered, I picked up the phone and said 'yes hello this is Erik
Ribsskog speaking', but the solicitor didnt say eighter what her name was
or the name of her company was, she just asked what my questions were.
Also, when I had finished speaking with the solicitor on the phone, then
the CAB advisor had starting speaking with another member of the public
there, without informing me that our meeting was finished, and without
me being alowed to finish explaining why I had gone there.
I had gone there to ask about two things. 1. About when one needs a
criminal advisor, and 2. how the legal aid system works.
But I only got to tell about the first point, before I was put in the room to
wait for the phone from the solicitor. Without me first being informed that
my meeting with the CAB advisor had finished.
11. So I think that the CAB advisor should have told me that the meeting
there on 20/3 was finished, before ending the meeting.
Since this would have given me the chance to explain that there were more
things that I wanted to bring up in the meeting.
THE COMPLAINT-PROCESS SO FAR:
After the meeting with the duty solicitor at the CAB on 5/4 was canceled, I
thought about the inicidents that happened that day in the time that followed.
The 5/4 was on Thursday before Good Friday, so some days passed which
were holidays, and when one couldnt call for advice on how to complain etc.
But the more I thought about the incidents, the stranger I thought they were,
so about a week after easter, I started calling different organisations to get
advice on how to proceed with the complaints on the institutions that were
involved.
So I have been in contact with several organisations/institutions about this,
by email and on the phone, and this correspondence and the delay with
the easter-holiday, has led to it being some weeks having passed since
this happened.
But I have been in regular contact with the organisations that I have asked
for advice, so that this delay is due to it taking some time for me to be
aware of who the right organisations and departments are that one should
complain to about the three different legal-advisors that were involved.
(Which all three should be complained about in a different way due to
the different nature of my contact with them etc.)
So it took some time for me to get this clear, so I appologise for this
taking a bit time.
Also, the complaints number 1-6 are about things that are regarding the
meeting that was canceled on 5/4. (The incidents that made me decide
to send a complaint).
The complaints number 7-10 are regarding contact I've been having with
the CAB prior to 22/3 (the day that the meeting on 5/4 was set up).
But, after the incidents on 5/4 happened, I've also been thinking more
about things that happened regarding my contact with the CAB prior
to 22/3.
I hadnt maybe reflected that much on the incidents prior to 22/3 before
5/4. But I thought that many of the things happening when I was at the
CAB on 5/4 was a bit peculiar, so this made me think more about the
other meetings I'd been having there.
Also, I didnt really know how the system with the legal-aid etc. is
supposed to work. So from learing more about this, and also from
thinking more about the incidents, I've decided that I'd also include
some complaints from before 5/4.
And when I focused more about this, I realised that there had been
many things going on that I shouldnt have tolerated. But I didnt
really know whos responsibility it is to inform about the different
things, like the legal aid system etc.
But from when I decided to complain about the incidents on 5/4, I
thought that I could also include the things from before 5/4, because
I wasnt really sure before if was the CAB's responsibilty to inform
about how long time the meeting in complaint 8 was supposed to
last, or if it was the solicitors.
And also I didnt know if it was the CAB or the solicitors responisbility
to inform me that the Morecrofts solicitors firm only accepted founding
from private founds. (complaint 7).
And I also didnt know if it was the CAB or the Morecrofts solicitors
responisibility to inform me about how the legal-aid system works.
(complaints 9).
Ive thought about complaints number 10 and 11 before, but I didnt think
it was something that was worth making a big fuzz about.
But the things happening on 5/4 was kind of the last drop, so therefore
I chose to include the complaints number 10 and 11 now as well.
