I've been having some problems with the IPCC, that they don't want to investigate some problems,
regarding a complaint against the Merseyside Police.
They have freed the Police, even if it's clear that the Police have done a lot of things wrong, they
have been operating with phoney e-mail addresses, and they have been calling me 'Miss Erik
Ribsskog', and they have been lieing, and sending me to the CAB, saying they are Government,
when they are a charity, and much more.
I also sent an update, with a new complaint, and I thought the complaints should be investigated
collected.
My last two e-mails to them, haven't been answered at all.
I think this is unaceptable by an institution like the IPCC, that have an important function
in society.
At first, I thought that these problems I've been having, with the IPCC and the Police, could be due
to, that I am a Norwegian citizen.
But I've now contacted EFTA, who explained to me, that since I am an EEA-citizen, then I have the
same rights in Britain, as a UK citizen.
So I don't think I should be bullied by the Police like this, or 'messed with', by the IPPC, like this then.
Spesialenheten, the Norwegian equivalent of the IPCC, are sorting under the Ministry of Justice there.
So I've been having a rather leangthy correspondence, with the Ministry of Justice, regaring the problems with
the IPCC.
But today, I recieved an e-mail from the Ministry of Jusitice, that's in this forward, where it was expained to me,
that the IPCC, is in fact, sorting under the Home Office.
I understand now, that I should have been contacting you.
I think you should maybe contact the IPCC, and look through the files, for the compaints I've sent them, and the
correspondence, since I think there must be some problems there, since they aren't answering my e-mails etc.
From:
eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To:
peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk Peter Crouch
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:37:05 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Your Complaint To IPCC
Hi,
I can't see that I have recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, that's why
I'm sending it again.
Hope this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 4, 2008 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Your Complaint To IPCC
To: Peter Crouch <
peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Hi,
well like I had decided to wait on the Ipcc answer which you sent me last
week.
I didn't get a letter sent to me on 10/1, so I have not recieved
confirmation of dispensation, untill I read this e-mail now.
But now I'm aware of this, and I would please like to appeal to the Ipcc,
with the reason that I haven't got any confidense
in the force, due to the reasons already mentioned.
That they have a phoney general enquiery e-mail address and more.
And I also think the cases are linked.
I have sent the new case as an update to the old case, when I have been
contacting you.
So I think they should be investigated collected, by the Ipcc.
Hope this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 3/4/08, Peter Crouch <peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> I understand that you have lost of confidence in the Merseyside Police and
> have decided to await confirmation of dispensation. It appears from my
> records that a dispensation was granted by IPCC and a letter sent to you on
> 10th January 2008.
>
> With regard to any more recent complaints that we have forwarded to
> Merseyside Professional Standards department (PSD), the same situation may
> arise if you do not respond to any letters you have been sent. You may be
> better advised to cooperate with the PSD, despite your lack of confidence,
> allowing them to complete any enquiries they intend to make. At the end of
> this process you then may have a right of appeal to the IPCC. Ultimately the
> decision is yours, but I just wanted to make it clear that you may
> disadvantage yourself by not cooperating.
>
> yours sincerely
>
> *Peter Crouch*
> *Senior Casework Manager*
> *Telephone Complaints Centre*
> *Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)*
> 90 High Holborn
> London WC1V 6BH
> Direct Line: 020 7166 3123
> Personal Fax: 020 7166 3423
> E-mail:
peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Erik Ribsskog [mailto:
eribsskog@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 28 February 2008 19:12
> *To:* Peter Crouch
> *Subject:* Re: Your Complaint To IPCC
>
>
> Hi,
>
> thank you very much for your answer!
>
> Like I exlained earlier, I've lost a bit of confidence in the Merseyside
> Police, due
> to the phoney e-mail addresses etc., so I don't think theres any point in
> me
> going to any more meetings with them etc.
>
> I'll just wait untill they're finished, and then I'll appeal to the Ipcc,
> for the Ipcc,
> to have a look at the incidents collected.
>
> Like I informed the Ipcc about in one of the former e-mail, which you are
> answering
> me on now, I recieved a letter from the Merseyside Police, from 3/12, last
> year,
> from an Inspector on the Complaints Investigation Bureau.
>
> It says in the letter, that they want an answer, within 21 days from 3/12.
>
> Then they were going to inform the Ipcc, that 'the need for further
> investigation
> of your complaint be discontinued because of lack of co-operation'.
>
> So I reackon I'll eighter hear from you, the Ipcc, or the Force then, once
> the Force
> have finished with their enquieries.
>
> And then I'll contact the Ipcc, when I've got confirmation from the Force
> or the Ipcc,
> that the investigation from the Force have been discontinued.
>
> Hope this is alright!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
>
>
> On 2/28/08, Peter Crouch <
peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribsskog,
> >
> > I am writing in reference to your e-mail of 3rd January 2008 marked for
> > the attention of Douglas Cleaver. As the line manager for Sarah Brown
> > and previously the line manager for Joanne Fitzgerald, he has asked me
> > to respond to the concerns that you raise.
> >
> > Firstly please accept my sincere apologies for the prolonged delay in
> > contacting you.
> >
> > The first issue that you raised concerned an e-mail that you sent to my
> > colleague Joanne Fitzgerald on 10th November 2007, in which you
> > expressed a lack of confidence in the Police, following a meeting with
> > Walton Lane Police Station on 8th November 2007. You were informed by Ms
> > Fitzgerald that she had forwarded the e-mail to Michael Gibbs, the IPCC
> > Casework Manager who had been dealing with an Appeal that you had
> > submitted. Your concern appears to be a lack of response from Mr Gibbs.
> > Having looked into the matter I can see that Ms Fitzgerald asked Mr
> > Gibbs to consider whether the e-mail you had sent was part of the
> > previous Appeal. She also stated that he should pass the e-mail back if
> > he believed it to be a new complaint, which he duly did.
> > For your information the IPCC allocates the work to its staff based on
> > the category of work and geographical location of the force who are the
> > subject of the complaint. Accordingly all new complaints are dealt with
> > by my team at our London office and all Appeals, Dispensations and
> > Discontinuances are dealt with by the IPCC regional office dealing with
> > the Police Force concerned. In your case our Sale office deal with all
> > such matters regarding Merseyside Police related Appeals, Dispensation
> > And Discontinuances.
> > Since the e-mail of the 10th November 2007 was considered a new
> > complaint it was passed back to my department where it was assigned to
> > Casework Manager Sarah Brown, Joanne Fitzgerald having since moved into
> > a different department. Ms Brown contacted you on the 7th December 2007
> > and informed you that she had taken over the matter from Ms Fitzgerald.
> > However, I can see that since Ms Fitzgerald had informed you that she
> > had passed the e-mail to Mr Gibbs, you might still have expected a reply
> > from him even though you had been contacted by Ms Brown. I apologise if
> > there was any confusion there.
> > Also in your e-mail of 3rd January I notice that you refer to advice
> > received from Ms Brown that you should contact the police regarding your
> > lack of confidence in them. You state that this doesn't make sense.
> > While I appreciate you may wish the IPCC to become involved at this
> > point, you must remember that each police force is responsible for
> > considering complaints made against that force and for recording your
> > complaint. If you are not happy with the police's decision on recording
> > your complaint, you have the right to appeal to us. Therefore, while I
> > acknowledge your frustration with the response, Ms Brown advice to you
> > was appropriate.
> >
> > You also raised 3 concerns following a new e-mail sent to Ms Fitzgerald
> > on 5th December 2007.
> > 1) How to deal with a letter from the police.
> > 2) How to deal with a letter from the IPCC, in connection with an
> > harassment episode on Walton Lane Police Station on 8/11.
> > 3) The problem with Mr. Gibbs not answering the e-mail sent on 10th
> > November 2007.
> >
> > You go on to say that you consider only the 2nd point to have been
> > answered by Sarah Brown. However I can see that Ms Brown contacted you
> > by e-mail on 11th December 2007 and stated that whilst the police are
> > conducting an investigation into your complaint the IPCC is unable to
> > intervene and is not able to dictate which department carries out this
> > investigation. She went on to say that you will need to speak to the
> > Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Merseyside Police to discuss
> > further. While I appreciate that this does not make specific reference
> > to the letter received from the police, dated 3rd December 2007, it is
> > quite clear that we were not able to intervene and that you should
> > contact the PSD. As for the 3rd point concerning Mr Gibbs not
> > responding, I assume that Mr Gibbs did not feel it was necessary to
> > contact you since Ms Brown was now dealing with the e-mail from you. Ms
> > Brown similarly did not make reference to Mr Gibbs since she had
> > informed you that she would be responding to the e-mail that you had
> > sent Miss Fitzgerald.
> >
> > The final point you make in your e-mail, dated 3rd January 2008, was,
> > broadly, that the latest complaint should perhaps be dealt with together
> > with the previously made complaints. As you will be aware, the Appeal
> > that you submitted to IPCC in August 2007 had already been upheld and
> > the Merseyside Force instructed to 'record' your complaint. Therefore
> > they were already looking into that matter and the IPCC would not have
> > been able to instruct them to add any new matters to the existing
> > complaint. However, it is entirely possible that they might have chosen
> > to add them together once the new complaint was submitted. Once the
> > Force had completed their enquiries into any of the complaints that you
> > raised, you would have had a right to Appeal to the IPCC.
> >
> > I hope that this e-mail addresses the concerns that you have raised and
> > helps to explain the process that the IPCC has to follow and the reasons
> > behind some of the decisions that we took.
> >
> > yours sincerely
> >
> >
> > Peter Crouch
> > Senior Casework Manager
> > Telephone Complaints Centre
> > Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
> > 90 High Holborn
> > London WC1V 6BH
> > Direct Line: 020 7166 3123
> > Personal Fax: 020 7166 3423
> > E-mail:
peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ******************************
************************************************
> > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> > privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
> > recipient
> > please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying
> > or
> > distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The
> > content of
> > this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily
> > those
> > of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
> > accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
> > computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of
> > your
> > receipt of this email.
> >
> > Independent Police Complaints Commission
> > 90 High Holborn
> > London,
> > WC1V 6BH.
> >
> > ******************************************************************************
> >
> > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> > Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On
> > leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> > recorded for legal purposes.
> >
>
>
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government
> Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership
> with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In case of
> problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>
>
>
>
> ******************************************************************************
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
> recipient
> please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
>
> distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content
> of
> this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily
> those
> of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
> accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
> computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
>
> receipt of this email.
>
> Independent Police Complaints Commission
> 90 High Holborn
> London,
> WC1V 6BH.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On
> leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment