The "Englishman's" Response to Drammens Tidende headline "Fine for Serious Sex Terror" of 16th November 2001 by Lars Arntzen

In accordance with his right to reply the Englishman referred to in the above articles states as follows:-
1. The Englishman did not attend the Court hearing on 30th October 2001 as he had no time to prepare for the case, particularly as his lawyer only received the police "evidence" the day before the hearing, a lot of which was in fact not proven and inadmissible to the Court.
2. No journalists attended the hearing. The above Drammens Tidende article is a complete misrepresentation of the Court proceedings.
3. The fact is that the Drammen police were prepared to settle the matter if the Englishman paid a 5,000 Kroner fine, which he refused on grounds of principle.
4. The evidence which convicted the Englishman consisted merely of 'reports' to the Norwegian public giving his side of the story to criminally libellous newspaper stories from 1995 which included provocative and wholly false allegations from the Norwegian woman - presently and in the past a psychiatric patient. There has never been any so called "16 years of Sex Terror", unless one counts the sex terror inflicted by Norwegian men on this woman.
5. The 'reports' were sent for a three year period, 1995 to 1998 and that in essence was the reason for the police prosecution.
6. Why did the Englishman respond in this manner? Only a handful of 'reports' on the woman's life history were initially sent due to extreme provocation by the Norwegian woman (a false allegation to the police of attempted rape), followed by more 'reports' after extreme provocation by Verdens Gang, Bergens Tidende and Drammens Tidende in 1995 and 1998, which newspapers showed many photographs of the woman and named her. The Norwegian woman had voluntarily waived her right to anonymity. However, the three newspapers did not think the Englishman would find out about the articles as he was of course living in England. But he did immediately find out as he had earlier, in December 1994, asked a Norwegian lawyer to investigate the woman for her attempts to pervert the course of justice.
7. The police charge of 30th October 2001 was for a strict liability offence, i.e. sending out details of the woman's life history, for which there is no defence available as the Norwegian woman was named in "the reports".
8. However, the Norwegian newspapers in targeting a defenceless foreigner did not name him, meaning that in the unlikely event that he did find out about the articles, he would have to face the almost impossible task of finding a Norwegian who recognised him from the articles in order to enable him to sue for criminal and civil libel and at enormous personal, financial and emotional cost.
9. By the time she was 18, the Norwegian woman had had two abortions to the same Norwegian man. She then claimed she got pregnant later to another lover carrying twins, but miscarried after discovering his infidelity. She then attempted suicide. Later she resumed sleeping with the unfaithful man and at the same time with yet another Norwegian man, trying to get pregnant to both, or either. The unfaithful man was injecting heroin having been in military prison previously. She succeeded in getting pregnant to the I.V. heroin user and a son was born. The father again rejected the girl and a further suicide attempt followed by the girl who said all she had in common with the father was "good sex". They had rarely lived together. The woman then entered a psychiatric clinic and in 1994 married a man who claimed to "speak in tongues". Her marriage failed and she was divorced in 2001.
10. Throughout the period 1982-1990 the Norwegian woman was asking the Englishman for help in solving her problems with men, but repeatedly kept on with disastrous liaisons, much to the exasperation of the Englishman, who naturally was forced to tell her some "home truths".
11. Drammens Tidende intimated that the Englishman betrayed the woman's confidences about her promiscuous private life and personal problems. The Englishman decided that by the woman's treachery towards him, she has waived her right to these confidences being kept.
12. In 1995, the Englishman discovered that in December 1986 the woman had complained to the Bergen police that the Englishman had attempted to rape her in April 1985. There was a delay of 20 months in making this (false) allegation, which complaint was made a mere two weeks after the Englishman had warned her family of her unsafe sexual practices and suicidal tendencies. The complaint was in revenge for the Englishman's revelations of her past to her own family who had been ignorant of the sex terror inflicted on her by Norwegian citizens.
13. At the Drammen Court hearing on 30th October 2001, the Norwegian woman admitted also that she made an allegation against a Bergen shopkeeper in the 1980s of rape. The police did not bring charges. In the 1980s, the Norwegian woman also claimed Greek men had tried to rape her at knifepoint. In 1995, she alleged to Drammens Tidende that the Englishman had attempted to rape her. In 1998, she changed her story. At the request of the Englishman of the Drammen police to investigate the allegation of attempted rape, the woman now claimed it was actual rape. The police have never brought charges. Notwithstanding this, these false allegations against the Englishman, designed to ruin him and at the very least get him arrested and questioned, were sufficient provocation for the Englishman to release the woman's past history to the public to highlight the problems he had been facing from a sick woman. Initially, only her neighbours were told.
14. The Drammen public must also be made aware that the woman told Drammens Tidende in 1995 that the Englishman had in 1988 allegedly threatened to murder her 2 year old son. Without any corroborative evidence Ingunn Røren printed this allegation as 'a fact'. Later enquiries revealed that the woman told police that the alleged murder threat was made by the Englishman in a letter which was "given to the Bergen police". The Bergen police told the Drammen police they had no such letter. Of course, the allegation is false and designed to cause much trouble to the Englishman, if not to ruin him.
Such a malicious allegation is surely provocation enough for the Englishman to be able to acquaint the Norwegian public with the truth of the girl's past so they knew the background of a woman making such allegations against him, via her national and local press. The Englishman had no other means to reply.
15. Besides which the Norwegian woman has admitted to the Drammen police that even after making allegations of attempted rape and threats to murder a 2 year old against the Englishman, she still proceeded in 1988 to request the Englishman's help in restraining the abusive father of her child. No woman in her right mind asks an alleged rapist and alleged potential child killer over to help her. The fact is that the father of her child assaulted her in 1990 and he was reported to the police.
16. In 1990, August, the Norwegian woman resumed a cosy friendship with the Englishman even sending him postcards and letters and Christian literature.
17. The Englishman believes the woman is a lunatic who far from being the "innocent victim" as portrayed by her xenophobic press, is a calculating, scheming opportunistic liar with little regard for normal standards of civilised behaviour.
18. The former Drammens Tidende journalist Ingunn Røren in on record as having given perjured evidence to the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission; facts presently with the Drammen City Court.
19. In England, Newspapers print the name of their victims if they've got their facts right. The extensive cover-up by the Norwegian establishment is a permanent stain on its reputation.