Enclosure II.

WHY THE COMPANY (ARVATO) CANT BE TRUSTED

(PROBLEMS WITH ORGANISED CRIMINALS/MOB IN THE COMPANY)

1: WARNING IN E-MAIL:

In an e-mail sent to Managing Director Ian Carrel, 29/11/06 [Encl. 2], I told him that:

'In the other meeting about this harassment-case, involving Sarah Rushby, Aidan

Tippins and Chris Baines, it seemed clear to me that they were trying to help

him [Baines] covering up.

It was really three against one. They kept interupting me and bringing things out

of context. They showed no interest in helping me, or see the case from my

side. They seemed more interested in what Ive told the police.'

(A copy of this e-mail was also forwarded to Bertelsmann, Arvato-Germany and

some newspapers etc.).

Yet, on the meeting regarding the contence of the same e-mail [Encl. 3], Mr.

Carrel tells us that he has put Sarah Rushby in charge of the investigation of the

harassment and the other problems mentioned in the e-mail [Encl. 2].

2. WARNINGS IN THE MEETING 29/11/06:

In the meeting 29/11/06 [Encl. 5], I made it clear for Mr. Carrel that:

- It was organised criminals/mob in the company.

- That I adviced that it should be arranged an indipendent, competent and

professional investigation, from outside of the organisation, to look into this.

- That on the meeting regarding the harassment-incidents involving Chris Baines,

28/11/06 [Encl. 3], I had made sure that everybody participating on the meeting

(Rushby, Baines and Tippins), before the meeting started had read the summary

from the meeting with my line-manager Line Sletvold [26/11/06], where the

harassment incidents were described.

In that summary I had written this:

'[..] and because Ive earlier had problems with organised criminals in Oslo and

Liverpool (problems which I have reported to the police in Norway and England)

[..]'

Yet neighter my Senior Team-leader Aidan Tippins or Sarah Rushby from HR,

(or Baines), reacted on this.

Neighter of them commented anything about this eighter on the meeting or later.

I made this clear for Mr. Carrel on the meeting 29/11/06 [Encl. 5] on which

Sarah Rushby participated.

Sarah Rushby didnt comment anything on the meeting 29/11 when I mentioned this.

- On the meeting, I also had to remind Sarah Rushby that the police was an

indipendent organisation, and that they could be trusted [Encl. 5].

Yet, the letter dated 13/12/06 [Encl. 1], regarding 'investigations into the issues

that you brought to our attention.', was from Sarah Rushby, inviting me to a

grievance meeting.

3: UNPROFESSIONALISM SURROUNDING LETTER DATED 13/12/06:

The letter I recieved from Sarah Rushby on 13/12/06 [Encl. 1], regarding

'investigations into the issues that you brought to our attention.', was so

unprofessional that it almost by itself make it clear that the company

cant be trusted:

- The letter was not sent by Royal Mail: The letter was not sent by Royal

Mail, but delivered by someone at the door to the building in which my flat is.

Even if Rushby, who must have got someone to deliver the letter,

participated on the harassment-meeting 28/11/06 [Encl. 3], where the main

harassment-incident I complained about [Encl. 4], was that Mr. Baines

followed me after work to the street I live in. And where I made it clear

that I didnt like people from work following me to my address.

Yet Rushby got someone to deliver the letter to my address instead of

sending it by mail.

- The letter was delivered to late: The letter was delivered between the time

I got back from shopping grocceries at 3-4 pm., and the time I went to the

gym at around 7 pm.

If I hadnt gone to the gym that night, I probably wouldnt have seen the letter

before I checked the mail (from Royal Mail), the day after at around 12 am.-

1 pm. (on 14/12/06).

And the meeting was at 10 am. on this day (14/12/06)!

And in the letter it also said: 'If you wish, you may be accompanied to the

meeting by [..] a trade union representative'.

It would have been impossible for me to contact a union representative,

update the union representative, and then get the union representative

to meet at the meeting on 10 am. 14/12/06, when the letter was delivered

in a was that would have made it usual for me to get it at around 12 am.

14/12/06.

This letter was simply so unprofessional that it could only be three explenations:

1. It was meant as a joke.

2. It was meant as harassment.

3. The person sending it must have been extremly incompetent and mindless.

So eighter the company jokes about a very important case, or the company

harass employees officially, or the Managing Director sets an extremly

incompetent person to lead the investigation surrounding a very important

case.

If the Managing Director sets an extremly incompetent person to lead such

an important investigation (that it was mob in the company ++), then it must

mean that he is extreamly incompetent/unprofessional/irresponsible himself.

Any which of the three reasons for the unprofessionaleties surrounding the

letter (that it was a joke, meant as harassment or that the managing director

is extreamly incompetent/unprofessional/irresponsible, means that the

company cant be trusted.

4: HIGH LEVEL OF INCOMPETENCE IN THE ORGANISATION

During the first ten months I was working in the organisation, my focus was on

some other important issues that preocupied me, and my focus wasnt so much

on the company inveronment as it normally would have been under other

ciromstances.

But, from june 2006, when I moved to a new address, and needed to work more

because of the higher rent, I decided to apply for the vacant team-leader

position.

I told the campaign team-leaders about this, and I started to prepare by

trying to learn more about the organisation.

I had noted quite high degrees of incompetence from the campaign team-leaders

earlier, when it comes to management, but I thought it was just a problem with

these persons.

From working more than ten years as a manager in one of Norways biggest

companies (Hakon/Ica-gruppen) [Encl. 8], and from courses in management,

economy etc. while working as a store manager. And also from modulies in

management, organisation, marketing and economics at university-level

[as also described in Encl. 9].

From this, and from when I started learning about how the Arvato organisation

was built up, and from the meetings surrounding the harrasment and other

serious things that were going on in the company [Encl 1-7].

And from some of the sexual harrasment in e-mails I recieved etc. [Encl. 10-14].

And from reading the summaries from the Employee Forum Meetings that

I found on the company intranet [Encl. 15-19].

And from the peculiar shift-plans [Encl. 20-25] made by the CCP-team.

There must be something like one hundred examples of issues that are handled

as unprofessional and with a similar degree of incompetence as the letter

mentioned in example 3, in the company documents Ive got.

The longer Ive worked there, the more obvious it became to me that this low

level of incompetence not only applied to team-leaders in the operations-division,

but also to senior team-leaders, higher management, HR, CCP-team, training-

team, IT etc.

In other words on all levels and in all deparments in the organisation.

This became more and more clear to me with the meetings I had in the last

four weeks in the company, and with the work I did preparing for the

meetings.

In the Employee Forum Meeting 23/05/06 [Encl. 18], Managing Director Ian

Carrel answer this on a question on if it was possible to get trade union

representation within the Liverpool office.

The answer: 'IC explained that this is not group company policy and in a

high value business environment the need for unionisation would be

negligible.'

The thruth is that the business environment and professionalism at

Arvato Liverpool is lower than at an average clearence-store, and that

the people in control of the company arent regular business-people at

all, but a gang of crooks and imposters (organised criminals/mob).

And this is supposed to be Arvato Services UK, a company with

hundreds of employees. A company that has customers like

Microsoft, E-bay, 3, orange, miele, etc.

And also is a company that is part of the large multi-national company

Bertelsmann in Germany, with ten-thousands of employees, and

among other divisions also has got a big record-company division

with artists like P. Diddy etc.

5; SCANDINAVIANS UNDER MAFIA CONTROL

AND ALSO THE LAST TWO DAYS I WAS WORKING THERE, IT

BECAME MORE AND MORE CLEAR TO ME THAT PEOPLE WORKING

IN THE COMPANY (SCANDINAVIANS ON THE SCANDINAVIAN

MICROSOFT PRODUCT ACTIVATION CAMPAIGN), ARE UNDER

COMPLETE CONTROLE OF THE CRIMINALS, AND HAVE TO DO

WHAT THE MAFIA SAYS.

I EVEN SAW BY MYSELF HOW ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES FROM

ONE DAY TO THE NEXT WAS FIRST BEING QUESTIONED A

LOT OF QUESTIONS BY ONE OF THE 'ROBOTS' UNDER MAFIA

CONTROL.

LIKE WHERE THE PERSON LIVED, AND WHO THE PERSON LIVED

WITH ETC.

THE VERY NEXT DAY THE SAME PERSON ACTED LIKE THE PERSON

HIMSELF WAS A 'ROBOT' UNDER MAFIA CONTROL.

THIS HAPPENED ON THE LAST DAYS I WORKED THERE, AND IVE

GOT DOCUMENTATION THAT CAN HELP PROVE THIS.

ITS AN ENOURMOUS SCANDAL THAT THIS IS ALOVED TO GO ON.

IVE TRYED TO TELL THE POLICE, BERTELSMANN, NEWSPAPERS

ETC., BUT NOTHING HAS HAPPENED, AS FAR AS I KNOW.