ACCforum: ACC REFORM ??? - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

ACC REFORM ??? NZ FIRST recognise serious problems with ACC

#1 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5623
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 11 May 2017 - 12:06 PM

For those of us who have had an horrific experience dealing with ACC and/or their AEP accredited employers and accredited agents, the question remains as to what a political party with the power can do to somehow re-establish ACC as a credible PUBLIC INJURY INSURANCE scheme that it was originally set up to be.

We now know that prior GOVERNMENTS have in effect scammed or skimmed $33 billion in funding away from the PUBLIC insurance pool which is invested in their ownership and paid by you & me, those who work, of course.

We also know that the CORPORATION has a very incestuous relationship with FAIRWAY RESOLUTIONS through the once secreted SERVICE AGREEMENT which now exposes the fact that FAIRWAY reviewers are under extreme pressure to find in favour of ACC which is highly illegal and contrary to legislation [its intent] and to many other HUMAN statutes.

In other words, it's a "jack-up".

We also know that ACC have heavily invested in immigrant doctors to make assessments that are quite literally dishonest and seriously dangerous to anyone who was to rely on them. These doctors are earning massive incomes from ACC to file such corrupted documents that might reduce ACC's exposure to legitimate claims.

Again, another rort.

We won't need to comment on lawyers who often represent ACC other than to say in my case they with-held critical evidence which made them out to be the skunks that many lawyers are.

As for the COURTS, I find it deplorable that JUDGES chosen to do the "road show" cases have a history fairly showing them to be apologists for ACC and the way they do their business, speaking from first hand experience here.

I was even horrified to find that perfectly legitimate claimants [one being a friend of mine] have been transferred to ACC's "remotes unit" because ACC or their agents had tried that many dodgy tricks on him that they couldn't even face up to him anymore, that's how weak they are.

But to treat someone like that and to make false allegations against them fairly shows that ACC have the ability to play bully-boy tactics which, from my own experiences, has been very much part of their culture.

So how can WINSTON PETERS "reform" a GOVERNMENT owned CORPORATION like this when there are so many shocking aspects to the way it is run????????????
0

#2 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7998
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 11 May 2017 - 12:29 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 11 May 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

For those of us who have had an horrific experience dealing with ACC and/or their AEP accredited employers and accredited agents, the question remains as to what a political party with the power can do to somehow re-establish ACC as a credible PUBLIC INJURY INSURANCE scheme that it was originally set up to be.

We now know that prior GOVERNMENTS have in effect scammed or skimmed $33 billion in funding away from the PUBLIC insurance pool which is invested in their ownership and paid by you & me, those who work, of course.

We also know that the CORPORATION has a very incestuous relationship with FAIRWAY RESOLUTIONS through the once secreted SERVICE AGREEMENT which now exposes the fact that FAIRWAY reviewers are under extreme pressure to find in favour of ACC which is highly illegal and contrary to legislation [its intent] and to many other HUMAN statutes.

In other words, it's a "jack-up".

We also know that ACC have heavily invested in immigrant doctors to make assessments that are quite literally dishonest and seriously dangerous to anyone who was to rely on them. These doctors are earning massive incomes from ACC to file such corrupted documents that might reduce ACC's exposure to legitimate claims.

Again, another rort.

We won't need to comment on lawyers who often represent ACC other than to say in my case they with-held critical evidence which made them out to be the skunks that many lawyers are.

As for the COURTS, I find it deplorable that JUDGES chosen to do the "road show" cases have a history fairly showing them to be apologists for ACC and the way they do their business, speaking from first hand experience here.

I was even horrified to find that perfectly legitimate claimants [one being a friend of mine] have been transferred to ACC's "remotes unit" because ACC or their agents had tried that many dodgy tricks on him that they couldn't even face up to him anymore, that's how weak they are.

But to treat someone like that and to make false allegations against them fairly shows that ACC have the ability to play bully-boy tactics which, from my own experiences, has been very much part of their culture.

So how can WINSTON PETERS "reform" a GOVERNMENT owned CORPORATION like this when there are so many shocking aspects to the way it is run????????????


This Forum is currently being subjected to Trolling by an individual who refers to himself as He who pays the piper, AKA Colin Wightman, and his forum girlfriend Battleaxe, AKA Lianne Mylie.


This Troll likes to throw around accusations so that people feel they have to justify themselves to him. This is standard Troll practice. No one owes this Troll any sort of explanation and anyone who engages with this Troll thus is simply making the Troll feel relevant.

This Troll likes to target women and Sensitive Claimants especially though the Troll will attack and abuse anyone who dares to fail to follow his line. He has made comments that could be seen as inciting criminal activity. The Troll likes to think he has some special secret process where he can make ACC accountable but this boasting is the actions of a Fantasist. New members are encouraged to avoid engagement with this Troll.


He who pays the piper, AKA Colin Wightman, made the following threats against a man called Douglas Weal, falsely believing me to be that person.

He who pays the piper said:



posting # 230562

... when I suggested the possibility of some very kind friends of mine dropping into see him in CROMWELL to give him some healthy advice.

Even more funny, I'm still waiting for the call from down there.

p.s. And no DOUGLAS, one of my mates trains Alsatian dogs, for the Police, so don't rely on that


Posting # =230434

...

They will take you to the outskirts of CROMWELL and give you two choices.


Posting # 230425


Get yourself a new name because I have a lot of friends in the CROMWELL area who, like me, hate scum-bags.


Posting # 230362


I can't wait to catch up with you in CROMWELL to see what sort of scum bag life you live.

I'll drop in at the local first to see if they can give me directions.




Posting # 231625

For those who haven't noticed, ever since "Brucey" was flushed out as to who he actually is, he not only went into defense mode against denying that he is DOUGLAS WEAL who ALAN THOMAS tells us is very dangerous, but has chosen not to make my upcoming visit to him in CROMWELL as welcome, suggesting that I will need to come well armed.

PIPER.

He who pays the piper, on 19 January 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:If DOUGLAS WEAL is not the person who has been stalking me on this FORUM [2000 postings on attack] then my meeting with him will not take long, except that I want to hear his version of the ALAN THOMAS "frame-up" before I leave this lovely town of CROMWELL on my way further south.




He who pays the piper, on 21 January 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

The only enemies he has are the fruitcakes that framed ALAN THOMAS.

He handed over the evidence of a death threat from DOUGLAS WEAL [Donald Duck with bullet holes around him] which showed that TOMCAT & ANGRYMAN were working with ACC to bring false charges against ALAN THOMAS as DAVID BUTLER knew the truth.

A "double crosser" who was under the 'gun'.

Discouraged from turning up at court.He who pays the piper, on 04 January 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

Just when I thought that at least 80% of contributors to ACC forum sites were fruitcakes, fraudsters and freaks, I kindly received today damning evidence that there is an almost conclusive chance that TOMCATS mate DOUGLAS WEAL is none other than our simpleton BRUCEY [Former: Angryman] who has spent the last 33 years trying to upgrade himself to ACC so that he can grow even fatter and lazier in his latest hiding place down there in CROMWELL.

For those less familiar, this is the bloke that ALAN THOMAS tells us master-minded the bomb plot frame-up against him and gave evidence to that effect as a CROWN WITNESS in the District Court.

Before I close the book on this little saga I would like to give this half-wit calling himself BRUCEY an opportunity to defend himself of this identity connection.

Rather than repeating himself for the last 1500 posts [the work of a total fruitcake] I will be so kind as to give him the chance to defend himself.

Over to you DOUGLAS.

PIPER.


He also had the following comments to make about my daughter who is a rape victim.



" Is your daughter a simpleton like you Brucey?

Brucey do you mind me asking please what does Lupine charge for a duped claim of “toxicity” and one for “promiscuity”?

Good to see simpleton Brucey coming up with something original. To think he bred his own kind. A downgrading of the human race.

I’m guessing Brucey is playing the “mentally ill” card [genetic related] while his daughter [a product of the old man] is playing the “sensitive claim” card. A family of scabbers.

While Brucey of course is on a “family deal”.

I’m sure they are looking after you. 10 years on the scab and growing. As for the “family deal” the apple never falls far from the “tree”.
And dear old simpleton Bruce with a daughter who is apparently as simple as him."

It would appear that Wightman has a history of trolling and causing trouble.
http://www.racecafe....an-here/&page=3


Battleaxe is on record as supporting piper in his attacks on me and has stated the following.



Silence speaks louder than words, Piper. I think that the above posting speaks volumes and that Douglas Weal is indeed "Brucey" previously "Angryman".

Perhaps Alan Thomas can fill in the gaps?




I don't argue against your position that members are free to use a moniker (nom de plume) and that you also respect their right to privacy, however, it is not fair or reasonable to think this with only certain members in this case ""Angryman" / "Brucey". So, while you jumped here to defend "Angryman's" / "Brucey's" right to privacy, you have remained silent on the right to privacy of Piper and myself. Why is this Alan? If the boot fits one foot it must surely fit the other foot?



Alan, you did take sides --- read your posting again please. I also ask that you point me to a posting where you have ever pointed out that Piper and I have a right to privacy too as obviously I missed that.

I did not speculate about who "Brucey" is. Piper did, but that said, I agree with his view that "Angryman" / "Brucey" is Douglas Weal. He was given the fair opportunity to respond but chose not to do so. As I have already commented, silence speaks volumes.

You are very different to other members, Alan, and if the truth be told this fourm has 'gone to hell in a handbasket' because of you and Lupine's cohort of "trolls" turning it into a battleground where innocent bystanders are being caught up in your fight for territory, power and control.

I bet that if you withdrew your membership from this forum then it would be returned to its former glory in a very short space of time.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





Angryman was my previous moniker, and does not belong to Douglas Weal.

I have never been involved in any way shape or form in any threats or in the bringing of false charges against anyone.


Because I think you are a very dangerous individual Colin Wightman and I believe Douglas Weal could very well be in danger I am telling you that My name is not Douglas Weal.

My name is Bruce, my friends call me Brucey, but you can call me sir.

I have let you rabbit on for long enough, time to show the forum what a complete fool and a danger to society you are.





(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim; and
/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim; and
© posting the communication causes harm to the victim.

(2) In determining whether a post would cause harm, the court may take into account any factors it considers relevant, including—
(a) the extremity of the language used:
(/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> the age and characteristics of the victim:
© whether the digital communication was anonymous:
(d) whether the digital communication was repeated:
(e) the extent of circulation of the digital communication:
(f) whether the digital communication is true or false:
(g) the context in which the digital communication appeared..

(3) A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to,—
(a) in the case of a natural person, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $50,000:
(/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $200,000.
(4) In this section, victim means the individual who is the target of a posted digital communication.


DON'T FEED THE TROLL Colin Wightman.or his mate Rex, AKA Philip Bonner.


This Forum is currently being subjected to Trolling by an individual who refers to himself as He who pays the piper, real name Colin Wightman. This Troll likes to throw around accusations so that people feel they have to justify themselves to him. This is standard Troll practice. No one owes this Troll any sort of explanation and anyone who engages with this Troll thus is simply making the Troll feel relevant.

This Troll likes to target women and Sensitive Claimants especially though the Troll will attack and abuse anyone who dares to fail to follow his line. He has made comments that could be seen as inciting criminal activity. The Troll likes to think he has some special secret process where he can make ACC accountable but this boasting is the actions of a Fantasist. New members are encouraged to avoid engagement with this Troll.

0

#3 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5623
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 11 May 2017 - 02:07 PM

And the other obvious element to reform is how can GOVERNMENT legislate to close loopholes in the present claim system where these ACC CAREER PROFESSIONALS known to us on here are sent back to work?

If say there were 2,000 of these "scab-bags", that is at least 2,000 legitimate claimants who might otherwise be denied cover each year, persons worthy of a claim.

So what can NZ FIRST do about them?
0

#4 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7998
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 11 May 2017 - 02:33 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 11 May 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

And the other obvious element to reform is how can GOVERNMENT legislate to close loopholes in the present claim system where these ACC CAREER PROFESSIONALS known to us on here are sent back to work?

If say there were 2,000 of these "scab-bags", that is at least 2,000 legitimate claimants who might otherwise be denied cover each year, persons worthy of a claim.

So what can NZ FIRST do about them?


This Forum is currently being subjected to Trolling by an individual who refers to himself as He who pays the piper, AKA Colin Wightman, and his forum girlfriend Battleaxe, AKA Lianne Mylie.


This Troll likes to throw around accusations so that people feel they have to justify themselves to him. This is standard Troll practice. No one owes this Troll any sort of explanation and anyone who engages with this Troll thus is simply making the Troll feel relevant.

This Troll likes to target women and Sensitive Claimants especially though the Troll will attack and abuse anyone who dares to fail to follow his line. He has made comments that could be seen as inciting criminal activity. The Troll likes to think he has some special secret process where he can make ACC accountable but this boasting is the actions of a Fantasist. New members are encouraged to avoid engagement with this Troll.


He who pays the piper, AKA Colin Wightman, made the following threats against a man called Douglas Weal, falsely believing me to be that person.

He who pays the piper said:



posting # 230562

... when I suggested the possibility of some very kind friends of mine dropping into see him in CROMWELL to give him some healthy advice.

Even more funny, I'm still waiting for the call from down there.

p.s. And no DOUGLAS, one of my mates trains Alsatian dogs, for the Police, so don't rely on that


Posting # =230434

...

They will take you to the outskirts of CROMWELL and give you two choices.


Posting # 230425


Get yourself a new name because I have a lot of friends in the CROMWELL area who, like me, hate scum-bags.


Posting # 230362


I can't wait to catch up with you in CROMWELL to see what sort of scum bag life you live.

I'll drop in at the local first to see if they can give me directions.




Posting # 231625

For those who haven't noticed, ever since "Brucey" was flushed out as to who he actually is, he not only went into defense mode against denying that he is DOUGLAS WEAL who ALAN THOMAS tells us is very dangerous, but has chosen not to make my upcoming visit to him in CROMWELL as welcome, suggesting that I will need to come well armed.

PIPER.

He who pays the piper, on 19 January 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:If DOUGLAS WEAL is not the person who has been stalking me on this FORUM [2000 postings on attack] then my meeting with him will not take long, except that I want to hear his version of the ALAN THOMAS "frame-up" before I leave this lovely town of CROMWELL on my way further south.




He who pays the piper, on 21 January 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

The only enemies he has are the fruitcakes that framed ALAN THOMAS.

He handed over the evidence of a death threat from DOUGLAS WEAL [Donald Duck with bullet holes around him] which showed that TOMCAT & ANGRYMAN were working with ACC to bring false charges against ALAN THOMAS as DAVID BUTLER knew the truth.

A "double crosser" who was under the 'gun'.

Discouraged from turning up at court.He who pays the piper, on 04 January 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

Just when I thought that at least 80% of contributors to ACC forum sites were fruitcakes, fraudsters and freaks, I kindly received today damning evidence that there is an almost conclusive chance that TOMCATS mate DOUGLAS WEAL is none other than our simpleton BRUCEY [Former: Angryman] who has spent the last 33 years trying to upgrade himself to ACC so that he can grow even fatter and lazier in his latest hiding place down there in CROMWELL.

For those less familiar, this is the bloke that ALAN THOMAS tells us master-minded the bomb plot frame-up against him and gave evidence to that effect as a CROWN WITNESS in the District Court.

Before I close the book on this little saga I would like to give this half-wit calling himself BRUCEY an opportunity to defend himself of this identity connection.

Rather than repeating himself for the last 1500 posts [the work of a total fruitcake] I will be so kind as to give him the chance to defend himself.

Over to you DOUGLAS.

PIPER.


He also had the following comments to make about my daughter who is a rape victim.



" Is your daughter a simpleton like you Brucey?

Brucey do you mind me asking please what does Lupine charge for a duped claim of “toxicity” and one for “promiscuity”?

Good to see simpleton Brucey coming up with something original. To think he bred his own kind. A downgrading of the human race.

I’m guessing Brucey is playing the “mentally ill” card [genetic related] while his daughter [a product of the old man] is playing the “sensitive claim” card. A family of scabbers.

While Brucey of course is on a “family deal”.

I’m sure they are looking after you. 10 years on the scab and growing. As for the “family deal” the apple never falls far from the “tree”.
And dear old simpleton Bruce with a daughter who is apparently as simple as him."

It would appear that Wightman has a history of trolling and causing trouble.
http://www.racecafe....an-here/&page=3


Battleaxe is on record as supporting piper in his attacks on me and has stated the following.



Silence speaks louder than words, Piper. I think that the above posting speaks volumes and that Douglas Weal is indeed "Brucey" previously "Angryman".

Perhaps Alan Thomas can fill in the gaps?




I don't argue against your position that members are free to use a moniker (nom de plume) and that you also respect their right to privacy, however, it is not fair or reasonable to think this with only certain members in this case ""Angryman" / "Brucey". So, while you jumped here to defend "Angryman's" / "Brucey's" right to privacy, you have remained silent on the right to privacy of Piper and myself. Why is this Alan? If the boot fits one foot it must surely fit the other foot?



Alan, you did take sides --- read your posting again please. I also ask that you point me to a posting where you have ever pointed out that Piper and I have a right to privacy too as obviously I missed that.

I did not speculate about who "Brucey" is. Piper did, but that said, I agree with his view that "Angryman" / "Brucey" is Douglas Weal. He was given the fair opportunity to respond but chose not to do so. As I have already commented, silence speaks volumes.

You are very different to other members, Alan, and if the truth be told this fourm has 'gone to hell in a handbasket' because of you and Lupine's cohort of "trolls" turning it into a battleground where innocent bystanders are being caught up in your fight for territory, power and control.

I bet that if you withdrew your membership from this forum then it would be returned to its former glory in a very short space of time.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





Angryman was my previous moniker, and does not belong to Douglas Weal.

I have never been involved in any way shape or form in any threats or in the bringing of false charges against anyone.


Because I think you are a very dangerous individual Colin Wightman and I believe Douglas Weal could very well be in danger I am telling you that My name is not Douglas Weal.

My name is Bruce, my friends call me Brucey, but you can call me sir.

I have let you rabbit on for long enough, time to show the forum what a complete fool and a danger to society you are.





(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim; and
/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim; and
© posting the communication causes harm to the victim.

(2) In determining whether a post would cause harm, the court may take into account any factors it considers relevant, including—
(a) the extremity of the language used:
(/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> the age and characteristics of the victim:
© whether the digital communication was anonymous:
(d) whether the digital communication was repeated:
(e) the extent of circulation of the digital communication:
(f) whether the digital communication is true or false:
(g) the context in which the digital communication appeared..

(3) A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to,—
(a) in the case of a natural person, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $50,000:
(/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $200,000.
(4) In this section, victim means the individual who is the target of a posted digital communication.


DON'T FEED THE TROLL Colin Wightman.or his mate Rex, AKA Philip Bonner.


This Forum is currently being subjected to Trolling by an individual who refers to himself as He who pays the piper, real name Colin Wightman. This Troll likes to throw around accusations so that people feel they have to justify themselves to him. This is standard Troll practice. No one owes this Troll any sort of explanation and anyone who engages with this Troll thus is simply making the Troll feel relevant.

This Troll likes to target women and Sensitive Claimants especially though the Troll will attack and abuse anyone who dares to fail to follow his line. He has made comments that could be seen as inciting criminal activity. The Troll likes to think he has some special secret process where he can make ACC accountable but this boasting is the actions of a Fantasist. New members are encouraged to avoid engagement with this Troll.

0

#5 User is offline   Battleaxe 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8087
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 11 May 2017 - 05:09 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 11 May 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

And the other obvious element to reform is how can GOVERNMENT legislate to close loopholes in the present claim system where these ACC CAREER PROFESSIONALS known to us on here are sent back to work?

If say there were 2,000 of these "scab-bags", that is at least 2,000 legitimate claimants who might otherwise be denied cover each year, persons worthy of a claim.

So what can NZ FIRST do about them?






Where did the workhouses go and why did they go I wonder when clearly there is a place for them still in society today.
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6792
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 May 2017 - 05:16 PM

View PostBattleaxe, on 11 May 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:



Where did the workhouses go and why did they go I wonder when clearly there is a place for them still in society today.


How are workhouses relevant to those who cannot work?
0

#7 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6631
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 11 May 2017 - 09:10 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 11 May 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

And the other obvious element to reform is how can GOVERNMENT legislate to close loopholes in the present claim system where these ACC CAREER PROFESSIONALS known to us on here are sent back to work?

If say there were 2,000 of these "scab-bags", that is at least 2,000 legitimate claimants who might otherwise be denied cover each year, persons worthy of a claim.

So what can NZ FIRST do about them?


Tell me How would NZ First recognise these people? If they are not prepared to stand up for their rights no matter what, they are not likely to seek help from anyone. In other words they believe what ACC have told them.

They don't know any different, because they don't know the law.

Mini
0

#8 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5623
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:23 AM

View PostBattleaxe, on 11 May 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:





Where did the workhouses go and why did they go I wonder when clearly there is a place for them still in society today.


Indeed, the SOCIAL WELFARE system in NZ creates a society of bludgers, in the same way that we have these ACC CAREER PROFESSIONALS out-playing ACC at their own game.

If ACC was disbanded and replaced with PRIVATE insurances it would no doubt remove the 'scab' element.
0

#9 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5623
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:24 AM

View PostMINI, on 11 May 2017 - 09:10 PM, said:

Tell me How would NZ First recognise these people? If they are not prepared to stand up for their rights no matter what, they are not likely to seek help from anyone. In other words they believe what ACC have told them.

They don't know any different, because they don't know the law.

Mini


They would only have to study the backgrounds of the RAT-PACK on here to work out how best to legislate against CAREER PROFESSIONALS.
0

#10 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7998
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:55 AM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 12 May 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

They would only have to study the backgrounds of the RAT-PACK on here to work out how best to legislate against CAREER PROFESSIONALS.


This Forum is currently being subjected to Trolling by an individual who refers to himself as He who pays the piper, AKA Colin Wightman, and his forum girlfriend Battleaxe, AKA Lianne Mylie.


This Troll likes to throw around accusations so that people feel they have to justify themselves to him. This is standard Troll practice. No one owes this Troll any sort of explanation and anyone who engages with this Troll thus is simply making the Troll feel relevant.

This Troll likes to target women and Sensitive Claimants especially though the Troll will attack and abuse anyone who dares to fail to follow his line. He has made comments that could be seen as inciting criminal activity. The Troll likes to think he has some special secret process where he can make ACC accountable but this boasting is the actions of a Fantasist. New members are encouraged to avoid engagement with this Troll.


He who pays the piper, AKA Colin Wightman, made the following threats against a man called Douglas Weal, falsely believing me to be that person.

He who pays the piper said:



posting # 230562

... when I suggested the possibility of some very kind friends of mine dropping into see him in CROMWELL to give him some healthy advice.

Even more funny, I'm still waiting for the call from down there.

p.s. And no DOUGLAS, one of my mates trains Alsatian dogs, for the Police, so don't rely on that


Posting # =230434

...

They will take you to the outskirts of CROMWELL and give you two choices.


Posting # 230425


Get yourself a new name because I have a lot of friends in the CROMWELL area who, like me, hate scum-bags.


Posting # 230362


I can't wait to catch up with you in CROMWELL to see what sort of scum bag life you live.

I'll drop in at the local first to see if they can give me directions.




Posting # 231625

For those who haven't noticed, ever since "Brucey" was flushed out as to who he actually is, he not only went into defense mode against denying that he is DOUGLAS WEAL who ALAN THOMAS tells us is very dangerous, but has chosen not to make my upcoming visit to him in CROMWELL as welcome, suggesting that I will need to come well armed.

PIPER.

He who pays the piper, on 19 January 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:If DOUGLAS WEAL is not the person who has been stalking me on this FORUM [2000 postings on attack] then my meeting with him will not take long, except that I want to hear his version of the ALAN THOMAS "frame-up" before I leave this lovely town of CROMWELL on my way further south.




He who pays the piper, on 21 January 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

The only enemies he has are the fruitcakes that framed ALAN THOMAS.

He handed over the evidence of a death threat from DOUGLAS WEAL [Donald Duck with bullet holes around him] which showed that TOMCAT & ANGRYMAN were working with ACC to bring false charges against ALAN THOMAS as DAVID BUTLER knew the truth.

A "double crosser" who was under the 'gun'.

Discouraged from turning up at court.He who pays the piper, on 04 January 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

Just when I thought that at least 80% of contributors to ACC forum sites were fruitcakes, fraudsters and freaks, I kindly received today damning evidence that there is an almost conclusive chance that TOMCATS mate DOUGLAS WEAL is none other than our simpleton BRUCEY [Former: Angryman] who has spent the last 33 years trying to upgrade himself to ACC so that he can grow even fatter and lazier in his latest hiding place down there in CROMWELL.

For those less familiar, this is the bloke that ALAN THOMAS tells us master-minded the bomb plot frame-up against him and gave evidence to that effect as a CROWN WITNESS in the District Court.

Before I close the book on this little saga I would like to give this half-wit calling himself BRUCEY an opportunity to defend himself of this identity connection.

Rather than repeating himself for the last 1500 posts [the work of a total fruitcake] I will be so kind as to give him the chance to defend himself.

Over to you DOUGLAS.

PIPER.


He also had the following comments to make about my daughter who is a rape victim.



" Is your daughter a simpleton like you Brucey?

Brucey do you mind me asking please what does Lupine charge for a duped claim of “toxicity” and one for “promiscuity”?

Good to see simpleton Brucey coming up with something original. To think he bred his own kind. A downgrading of the human race.

I’m guessing Brucey is playing the “mentally ill” card [genetic related] while his daughter [a product of the old man] is playing the “sensitive claim” card. A family of scabbers.

While Brucey of course is on a “family deal”.

I’m sure they are looking after you. 10 years on the scab and growing. As for the “family deal” the apple never falls far from the “tree”.
And dear old simpleton Bruce with a daughter who is apparently as simple as him."

It would appear that Wightman has a history of trolling and causing trouble.
http://www.racecafe....an-here/&page=3


Battleaxe is on record as supporting piper in his attacks on me and has stated the following.



Silence speaks louder than words, Piper. I think that the above posting speaks volumes and that Douglas Weal is indeed "Brucey" previously "Angryman".

Perhaps Alan Thomas can fill in the gaps?




I don't argue against your position that members are free to use a moniker (nom de plume) and that you also respect their right to privacy, however, it is not fair or reasonable to think this with only certain members in this case ""Angryman" / "Brucey". So, while you jumped here to defend "Angryman's" / "Brucey's" right to privacy, you have remained silent on the right to privacy of Piper and myself. Why is this Alan? If the boot fits one foot it must surely fit the other foot?



Alan, you did take sides --- read your posting again please. I also ask that you point me to a posting where you have ever pointed out that Piper and I have a right to privacy too as obviously I missed that.

I did not speculate about who "Brucey" is. Piper did, but that said, I agree with his view that "Angryman" / "Brucey" is Douglas Weal. He was given the fair opportunity to respond but chose not to do so. As I have already commented, silence speaks volumes.

You are very different to other members, Alan, and if the truth be told this fourm has 'gone to hell in a handbasket' because of you and Lupine's cohort of "trolls" turning it into a battleground where innocent bystanders are being caught up in your fight for territory, power and control.

I bet that if you withdrew your membership from this forum then it would be returned to its former glory in a very short space of time.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





Angryman was my previous moniker, and does not belong to Douglas Weal.

I have never been involved in any way shape or form in any threats or in the bringing of false charges against anyone.


Because I think you are a very dangerous individual Colin Wightman and I believe Douglas Weal could very well be in danger I am telling you that My name is not Douglas Weal.

My name is Bruce, my friends call me Brucey, but you can call me sir.

I have let you rabbit on for long enough, time to show the forum what a complete fool and a danger to society you are.





(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim; and
/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim; and
© posting the communication causes harm to the victim.

(2) In determining whether a post would cause harm, the court may take into account any factors it considers relevant, including—
(a) the extremity of the language used:
(/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> the age and characteristics of the victim:
© whether the digital communication was anonymous:
(d) whether the digital communication was repeated:
(e) the extent of circulation of the digital communication:
(f) whether the digital communication is true or false:
(g) the context in which the digital communication appeared..

(3) A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to,—
(a) in the case of a natural person, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $50,000:
(/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $200,000.
(4) In this section, victim means the individual who is the target of a posted digital communication.


DON'T FEED THE TROLL Colin Wightman.or his mate Rex, AKA Philip Bonner.


This Forum is currently being subjected to Trolling by an individual who refers to himself as He who pays the piper, real name Colin Wightman. This Troll likes to throw around accusations so that people feel they have to justify themselves to him. This is standard Troll practice. No one owes this Troll any sort of explanation and anyone who engages with this Troll thus is simply making the Troll feel relevant.

This Troll likes to target women and Sensitive Claimants especially though the Troll will attack and abuse anyone who dares to fail to follow his line. He has made comments that could be seen as inciting criminal activity. The Troll likes to think he has some special secret process where he can make ACC accountable but this boasting is the actions of a Fantasist. New members are encouraged to avoid engagement with this Troll.

0

#11 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5623
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:55 AM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 11 May 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

For those of us who have had an horrific experience dealing with ACC and/or their AEP accredited employers and accredited agents, the question remains as to what a political party with the power can do to somehow re-establish ACC as a credible PUBLIC INJURY INSURANCE scheme that it was originally set up to be.

We now know that prior GOVERNMENTS have in effect scammed or skimmed $33 billion in funding away from the PUBLIC insurance pool which is invested in their ownership and paid by you & me, those who work, of course.

We also know that the CORPORATION has a very incestuous relationship with FAIRWAY RESOLUTIONS through the once secreted SERVICE AGREEMENT which now exposes the fact that FAIRWAY reviewers are under extreme pressure to find in favour of ACC which is highly illegal and contrary to legislation [its intent] and to many other HUMAN statutes.

In other words, it's a "jack-up".

We also know that ACC have heavily invested in immigrant doctors to make assessments that are quite literally dishonest and seriously dangerous to anyone who was to rely on them. These doctors are earning massive incomes from ACC to file such corrupted documents that might reduce ACC's exposure to legitimate claims.

Again, another rort.

We won't need to comment on lawyers who often represent ACC other than to say in my case they with-held critical evidence which made them out to be the skunks that many lawyers are.

As for the COURTS, I find it deplorable that JUDGES chosen to do the "road show" cases have a history fairly showing them to be apologists for ACC and the way they do their business, speaking from first hand experience here.

I was even horrified to find that perfectly legitimate claimants [one being a friend of mine] have been transferred to ACC's "remotes unit" because ACC or their agents had tried that many dodgy tricks on him that they couldn't even face up to him anymore, that's how weak they are.

But to treat someone like that and to make false allegations against them fairly shows that ACC have the ability to play bully-boy tactics which, from my own experiences, has been very much part of their culture.

So how can WINSTON PETERS "reform" a GOVERNMENT owned CORPORATION like this when there are so many shocking aspects to the way it is run????????????


The problem being of course that the 8,000 plus victims of ACC each year who are cheated out of their entitlements often remain as "damaged goods" where rather than be operated on many must line up for SICKNESS BENEFITS and such like at an additional burden to this country.

In my case, if ACC and their agents had acted in GOOD FAITH [something that appears foreign to them], I could've probably returned to full work capacity within 8 or 9 months.

Instead, ACC, their dodgy AEP clients and equally dodgy agents have costed themselves considerably more in creating any number of delays that have not only been a drag on their resources, but also on mine.

Is that good for a supposed civilised country?

I think not.
0

#12 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6631
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 12 May 2017 - 01:07 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 May 2017 - 05:16 PM, said:

How are workhouses relevant to those who cannot work?



Battleaxe

You got your eyesight test done to show why you need to use big bold bright red colours on here when in May 2016 you did not need too. Hurry because it will form part of what you must present at the court case you are bringing against me.

There will be no court case until I get it.

Mini
0

#13 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6631
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 12 May 2017 - 01:08 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 May 2017 - 05:16 PM, said:

How are workhouses relevant to those who cannot work?



Battleaxe

You got your eyesight test done to show why you need to use big bold bright red colours on here when in May 2016 you did not need too. Hurry because it will form part of what you must present at the court case you are bringing against me.

There will be no court case until I get it.

Mini
0

#14 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5623
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 12 May 2017 - 01:41 PM

In response to the suggestion of work-houses, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for those who have become long term dependent on ACC where at least even on light duties those persons might be giving back something to society instead of sitting on these forums all day stalking those who 'are' more disposed to working for an honest living.

In saying that though, ACC must also be incentivised to "fix you up" in a reasonable period of time rather than following the usual line of trying to cheat up to 23% of injury claimants out of their due entitlements.

For starters, denying them surgery.
0

#15 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 979
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 May 2017 - 06:03 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 12 May 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

In response to the suggestion of work-houses, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for those who have become long term dependent on ACC where at least even on light duties those persons might be giving back something to society instead of sitting on these forums all day stalking those who 'are' more disposed to working for an honest living.

In saying that though, ACC must also be incentivised to "fix you up" in a reasonable period of time rather than following the usual line of trying to cheat up to 23% of injury claimants out of their due entitlements.

For starters, denying them surgery.


Why should ACC offer any support to claimants with pre-existing damage or conditions not related
to their claimed injury. ?.
0

#16 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7998
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 13 May 2017 - 08:33 AM

View PostBattleaxe, on 11 May 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:



Where did the workhouses go and why did they go I wonder when clearly there is a place for them still in society today.


This Forum is currently being subjected to Trolling by an individual who refers to himself as He who pays the piper, AKA Colin Wightman, and his forum girlfriend Battleaxe, AKA Lianne Mylie.


This Troll likes to throw around accusations so that people feel they have to justify themselves to him. This is standard Troll practice. No one owes this Troll any sort of explanation and anyone who engages with this Troll thus is simply making the Troll feel relevant.

This Troll likes to target women and Sensitive Claimants especially though the Troll will attack and abuse anyone who dares to fail to follow his line. He has made comments that could be seen as inciting criminal activity. The Troll likes to think he has some special secret process where he can make ACC accountable but this boasting is the actions of a Fantasist. New members are encouraged to avoid engagement with this Troll.


He who pays the piper, AKA Colin Wightman, made the following threats against a man called Douglas Weal, falsely believing me to be that person.

He who pays the piper said:



posting # 230562

... when I suggested the possibility of some very kind friends of mine dropping into see him in CROMWELL to give him some healthy advice.

Even more funny, I'm still waiting for the call from down there.

p.s. And no DOUGLAS, one of my mates trains Alsatian dogs, for the Police, so don't rely on that


Posting # =230434

...

They will take you to the outskirts of CROMWELL and give you two choices.


Posting # 230425


Get yourself a new name because I have a lot of friends in the CROMWELL area who, like me, hate scum-bags.


Posting # 230362


I can't wait to catch up with you in CROMWELL to see what sort of scum bag life you live.

I'll drop in at the local first to see if they can give me directions.




Posting # 231625

For those who haven't noticed, ever since "Brucey" was flushed out as to who he actually is, he not only went into defense mode against denying that he is DOUGLAS WEAL who ALAN THOMAS tells us is very dangerous, but has chosen not to make my upcoming visit to him in CROMWELL as welcome, suggesting that I will need to come well armed.

PIPER.

He who pays the piper, on 19 January 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:If DOUGLAS WEAL is not the person who has been stalking me on this FORUM [2000 postings on attack] then my meeting with him will not take long, except that I want to hear his version of the ALAN THOMAS "frame-up" before I leave this lovely town of CROMWELL on my way further south.




He who pays the piper, on 21 January 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

The only enemies he has are the fruitcakes that framed ALAN THOMAS.

He handed over the evidence of a death threat from DOUGLAS WEAL [Donald Duck with bullet holes around him] which showed that TOMCAT & ANGRYMAN were working with ACC to bring false charges against ALAN THOMAS as DAVID BUTLER knew the truth.

A "double crosser" who was under the 'gun'.

Discouraged from turning up at court.He who pays the piper, on 04 January 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

Just when I thought that at least 80% of contributors to ACC forum sites were fruitcakes, fraudsters and freaks, I kindly received today damning evidence that there is an almost conclusive chance that TOMCATS mate DOUGLAS WEAL is none other than our simpleton BRUCEY [Former: Angryman] who has spent the last 33 years trying to upgrade himself to ACC so that he can grow even fatter and lazier in his latest hiding place down there in CROMWELL.

For those less familiar, this is the bloke that ALAN THOMAS tells us master-minded the bomb plot frame-up against him and gave evidence to that effect as a CROWN WITNESS in the District Court.

Before I close the book on this little saga I would like to give this half-wit calling himself BRUCEY an opportunity to defend himself of this identity connection.

Rather than repeating himself for the last 1500 posts [the work of a total fruitcake] I will be so kind as to give him the chance to defend himself.

Over to you DOUGLAS.

PIPER.


He also had the following comments to make about my daughter who is a rape victim.



" Is your daughter a simpleton like you Brucey?

Brucey do you mind me asking please what does Lupine charge for a duped claim of “toxicity” and one for “promiscuity”?

Good to see simpleton Brucey coming up with something original. To think he bred his own kind. A downgrading of the human race.

I’m guessing Brucey is playing the “mentally ill” card [genetic related] while his daughter [a product of the old man] is playing the “sensitive claim” card. A family of scabbers.

While Brucey of course is on a “family deal”.

I’m sure they are looking after you. 10 years on the scab and growing. As for the “family deal” the apple never falls far from the “tree”.
And dear old simpleton Bruce with a daughter who is apparently as simple as him."

It would appear that Wightman has a history of trolling and causing trouble.
http://www.racecafe....an-here/&page=3


Battleaxe is on record as supporting piper in his attacks on me and has stated the following.



Silence speaks louder than words, Piper. I think that the above posting speaks volumes and that Douglas Weal is indeed "Brucey" previously "Angryman".

Perhaps Alan Thomas can fill in the gaps?




I don't argue against your position that members are free to use a moniker (nom de plume) and that you also respect their right to privacy, however, it is not fair or reasonable to think this with only certain members in this case ""Angryman" / "Brucey". So, while you jumped here to defend "Angryman's" / "Brucey's" right to privacy, you have remained silent on the right to privacy of Piper and myself. Why is this Alan? If the boot fits one foot it must surely fit the other foot?



Alan, you did take sides --- read your posting again please. I also ask that you point me to a posting where you have ever pointed out that Piper and I have a right to privacy too as obviously I missed that.

I did not speculate about who "Brucey" is. Piper did, but that said, I agree with his view that "Angryman" / "Brucey" is Douglas Weal. He was given the fair opportunity to respond but chose not to do so. As I have already commented, silence speaks volumes.

You are very different to other members, Alan, and if the truth be told this fourm has 'gone to hell in a handbasket' because of you and Lupine's cohort of "trolls" turning it into a battleground where innocent bystanders are being caught up in your fight for territory, power and control.

I bet that if you withdrew your membership from this forum then it would be returned to its former glory in a very short space of time.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





Angryman was my previous moniker, and does not belong to Douglas Weal.

I have never been involved in any way shape or form in any threats or in the bringing of false charges against anyone.


Because I think you are a very dangerous individual Colin Wightman and I believe Douglas Weal could very well be in danger I am telling you that My name is not Douglas Weal.

My name is Bruce, my friends call me Brucey, but you can call me sir.

I have let you rabbit on for long enough, time to show the forum what a complete fool and a danger to society you are.





(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim; and
/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim; and
© posting the communication causes harm to the victim.

(2) In determining whether a post would cause harm, the court may take into account any factors it considers relevant, including—
(a) the extremity of the language used:
(/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> the age and characteristics of the victim:
© whether the digital communication was anonymous:
(d) whether the digital communication was repeated:
(e) the extent of circulation of the digital communication:
(f) whether the digital communication is true or false:
(g) the context in which the digital communication appeared..

(3) A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to,—
(a) in the case of a natural person, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $50,000:
(/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $200,000.
(4) In this section, victim means the individual who is the target of a posted digital communication.


DON'T FEED THE TROLL Colin Wightman.or his mate Rex, AKA Philip Bonner.


This Forum is currently being subjected to Trolling by an individual who refers to himself as He who pays the piper, real name Colin Wightman. This Troll likes to throw around accusations so that people feel they have to justify themselves to him. This is standard Troll practice. No one owes this Troll any sort of explanation and anyone who engages with this Troll thus is simply making the Troll feel relevant.

This Troll likes to target women and Sensitive Claimants especially though the Troll will attack and abuse anyone who dares to fail to follow his line. He has made comments that could be seen as inciting criminal activity. The Troll likes to think he has some special secret process where he can make ACC accountable but this boasting is the actions of a Fantasist. New members are encouraged to avoid engagement with this Troll.

0

#17 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7998
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 13 May 2017 - 08:34 AM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 12 May 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

In response to the suggestion of work-houses, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for those who have become long term dependent on ACC where at least even on light duties those persons might be giving back something to society instead of sitting on these forums all day stalking those who 'are' more disposed to working for an honest living.

In saying that though, ACC must also be incentivised to "fix you up" in a reasonable period of time rather than following the usual line of trying to cheat up to 23% of injury claimants out of their due entitlements.

For starters, denying them surgery.


This Forum is currently being subjected to Trolling by an individual who refers to himself as He who pays the piper, AKA Colin Wightman, and his forum girlfriend Battleaxe, AKA Lianne Mylie.


This Troll likes to throw around accusations so that people feel they have to justify themselves to him. This is standard Troll practice. No one owes this Troll any sort of explanation and anyone who engages with this Troll thus is simply making the Troll feel relevant.

This Troll likes to target women and Sensitive Claimants especially though the Troll will attack and abuse anyone who dares to fail to follow his line. He has made comments that could be seen as inciting criminal activity. The Troll likes to think he has some special secret process where he can make ACC accountable but this boasting is the actions of a Fantasist. New members are encouraged to avoid engagement with this Troll.


He who pays the piper, AKA Colin Wightman, made the following threats against a man called Douglas Weal, falsely believing me to be that person.

He who pays the piper said:



posting # 230562

... when I suggested the possibility of some very kind friends of mine dropping into see him in CROMWELL to give him some healthy advice.

Even more funny, I'm still waiting for the call from down there.

p.s. And no DOUGLAS, one of my mates trains Alsatian dogs, for the Police, so don't rely on that


Posting # =230434

...

They will take you to the outskirts of CROMWELL and give you two choices.


Posting # 230425


Get yourself a new name because I have a lot of friends in the CROMWELL area who, like me, hate scum-bags.


Posting # 230362


I can't wait to catch up with you in CROMWELL to see what sort of scum bag life you live.

I'll drop in at the local first to see if they can give me directions.




Posting # 231625

For those who haven't noticed, ever since "Brucey" was flushed out as to who he actually is, he not only went into defense mode against denying that he is DOUGLAS WEAL who ALAN THOMAS tells us is very dangerous, but has chosen not to make my upcoming visit to him in CROMWELL as welcome, suggesting that I will need to come well armed.

PIPER.

He who pays the piper, on 19 January 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:If DOUGLAS WEAL is not the person who has been stalking me on this FORUM [2000 postings on attack] then my meeting with him will not take long, except that I want to hear his version of the ALAN THOMAS "frame-up" before I leave this lovely town of CROMWELL on my way further south.




He who pays the piper, on 21 January 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

The only enemies he has are the fruitcakes that framed ALAN THOMAS.

He handed over the evidence of a death threat from DOUGLAS WEAL [Donald Duck with bullet holes around him] which showed that TOMCAT & ANGRYMAN were working with ACC to bring false charges against ALAN THOMAS as DAVID BUTLER knew the truth.

A "double crosser" who was under the 'gun'.

Discouraged from turning up at court.He who pays the piper, on 04 January 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

Just when I thought that at least 80% of contributors to ACC forum sites were fruitcakes, fraudsters and freaks, I kindly received today damning evidence that there is an almost conclusive chance that TOMCATS mate DOUGLAS WEAL is none other than our simpleton BRUCEY [Former: Angryman] who has spent the last 33 years trying to upgrade himself to ACC so that he can grow even fatter and lazier in his latest hiding place down there in CROMWELL.

For those less familiar, this is the bloke that ALAN THOMAS tells us master-minded the bomb plot frame-up against him and gave evidence to that effect as a CROWN WITNESS in the District Court.

Before I close the book on this little saga I would like to give this half-wit calling himself BRUCEY an opportunity to defend himself of this identity connection.

Rather than repeating himself for the last 1500 posts [the work of a total fruitcake] I will be so kind as to give him the chance to defend himself.

Over to you DOUGLAS.

PIPER.


He also had the following comments to make about my daughter who is a rape victim.



" Is your daughter a simpleton like you Brucey?

Brucey do you mind me asking please what does Lupine charge for a duped claim of “toxicity” and one for “promiscuity”?

Good to see simpleton Brucey coming up with something original. To think he bred his own kind. A downgrading of the human race.

I’m guessing Brucey is playing the “mentally ill” card [genetic related] while his daughter [a product of the old man] is playing the “sensitive claim” card. A family of scabbers.

While Brucey of course is on a “family deal”.

I’m sure they are looking after you. 10 years on the scab and growing. As for the “family deal” the apple never falls far from the “tree”.
And dear old simpleton Bruce with a daughter who is apparently as simple as him."

It would appear that Wightman has a history of trolling and causing trouble.
http://www.racecafe....an-here/&page=3


Battleaxe is on record as supporting piper in his attacks on me and has stated the following.



Silence speaks louder than words, Piper. I think that the above posting speaks volumes and that Douglas Weal is indeed "Brucey" previously "Angryman".

Perhaps Alan Thomas can fill in the gaps?




I don't argue against your position that members are free to use a moniker (nom de plume) and that you also respect their right to privacy, however, it is not fair or reasonable to think this with only certain members in this case ""Angryman" / "Brucey". So, while you jumped here to defend "Angryman's" / "Brucey's" right to privacy, you have remained silent on the right to privacy of Piper and myself. Why is this Alan? If the boot fits one foot it must surely fit the other foot?



Alan, you did take sides --- read your posting again please. I also ask that you point me to a posting where you have ever pointed out that Piper and I have a right to privacy too as obviously I missed that.

I did not speculate about who "Brucey" is. Piper did, but that said, I agree with his view that "Angryman" / "Brucey" is Douglas Weal. He was given the fair opportunity to respond but chose not to do so. As I have already commented, silence speaks volumes.

You are very different to other members, Alan, and if the truth be told this fourm has 'gone to hell in a handbasket' because of you and Lupine's cohort of "trolls" turning it into a battleground where innocent bystanders are being caught up in your fight for territory, power and control.

I bet that if you withdrew your membership from this forum then it would be returned to its former glory in a very short space of time.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





Angryman was my previous moniker, and does not belong to Douglas Weal.

I have never been involved in any way shape or form in any threats or in the bringing of false charges against anyone.


Because I think you are a very dangerous individual Colin Wightman and I believe Douglas Weal could very well be in danger I am telling you that My name is not Douglas Weal.

My name is Bruce, my friends call me Brucey, but you can call me sir.

I have let you rabbit on for long enough, time to show the forum what a complete fool and a danger to society you are.





(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim; and
/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim; and
© posting the communication causes harm to the victim.

(2) In determining whether a post would cause harm, the court may take into account any factors it considers relevant, including—
(a) the extremity of the language used:
(/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> the age and characteristics of the victim:
© whether the digital communication was anonymous:
(d) whether the digital communication was repeated:
(e) the extent of circulation of the digital communication:
(f) whether the digital communication is true or false:
(g) the context in which the digital communication appeared..

(3) A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to,—
(a) in the case of a natural person, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $50,000:
(/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $200,000.
(4) In this section, victim means the individual who is the target of a posted digital communication.


DON'T FEED THE TROLL Colin Wightman.or his mate Rex, AKA Philip Bonner.


This Forum is currently being subjected to Trolling by an individual who refers to himself as He who pays the piper, real name Colin Wightman. This Troll likes to throw around accusations so that people feel they have to justify themselves to him. This is standard Troll practice. No one owes this Troll any sort of explanation and anyone who engages with this Troll thus is simply making the Troll feel relevant.

This Troll likes to target women and Sensitive Claimants especially though the Troll will attack and abuse anyone who dares to fail to follow his line. He has made comments that could be seen as inciting criminal activity. The Troll likes to think he has some special secret process where he can make ACC accountable but this boasting is the actions of a Fantasist. New members are encouraged to avoid engagement with this Troll.

0

#18 User is offline   Battleaxe 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8087
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 13 May 2017 - 09:50 AM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 12 May 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

Indeed, the SOCIAL WELFARE system in NZ creates a society of bludgers, in the same way that we have these ACC CAREER PROFESSIONALS out-playing ACC at their own game.

If ACC was disbanded and replaced with PRIVATE insurances it would no doubt remove the 'scab' element.






He who Pays the Piper, I have never believed that a 'cradle to grave' social welfare system is healthy or helpful. It certainly does not engender a mentality of personal responsibility in the citizenry. And it also injects the government into our lives in a sinister way to the extent, for example, that immediately upon claiming under the ACC scheme for cover this organisation thinks that it has unfettered and carte blanche rights to access all of your personal information; medical records being some of the most private of all. Some claimants also take the fact that there are government social welfare schemes to the extreme and literally believe that the government is responsible for catering to their every need, whim and fancy. Mini for instance with getting a computer off the ACC that is not an "entitlement" under the AC Act and which has nothing whatsoever to do with rehabilitation.


N.Z. is also the only country in the world where the government takes away our civil right to sue - a gross violation of human rights, local and international - in exchange for providing accident related, and in very limited circumstances work-related, cover and entitlements. Since the inception of the ACC scheme, Kiwi's have increasingly been 'short-changed' in terms of how the government has re-written the various versions of the AC Act, with the ACC tightening up the laws and limiting cover and entitlements, effectively clawing back what and how it now provides cover and entitlements compared to some years ago. Another issue, for example, is the Review Costs and Appeals Regulations. Last year I raised this subject at the forum and was ignored. I subsequently wrote to government pointing out that the last time the costs were increased was more than 11 years ago (as I recall it was without referring to my letter). I was advised in response by the Minister for the ACC that the government was looking into this issue and that the costs were going to be increased. The resultant adjustments were negligible. My thinking on this subject is if the government is going to insist on us using their ACC scheme, it has a duty and responsibility to do an annual cost of living adjustment. Likewise the WINZ accommodation supplement that has not increased (at least in respect of the Waikato region) for over 14 years while the cost of renting accommodation has virtually doubled in some suburbs over this same time-frame.


I also consider that the ACC is a massive government work scheme, not dissimilar to WINZ and other similar, but smaller, government organisations. Imagine if the ACC had to 'close up shop'? How many Kiwi's would be out of work and dependent on WINZ? Many of them would also not fit into other jobs since they have personality types that need the virtual shelter of protection that government organisations give them, and that shield them from dismissal that their controlling and bullying behaviours towards their customers would automatically result in if they were to work in any non-government organisation. In other words, the ACC and WINZ are, in my honest and genuine opinion, a 'safe harbour' for many social and moral misfits of various forms who would struggle to keep a job in anything but a government organisation.


Personally, I firmly believe that there should be an 'opt-out' clause in the AC Act for those of us who want to live independently of government interference, who have moral values that recognise they, and no-one else, are responsible for their welfare, and who also advocate the self-determination theory ... which I and my family members definitely do. Insofar as Acclaim Otago are concerned (following on your recent posts asking what this organiastion has done and is doing for the betterment of ACC claimants), my question is why do we not hear about Acclaim Otago writing to the ACC Minister, for example, asking why the abovementioned costs have not been adjusted for 11 years? Something that affects each and every claimant who goes through the review and appeal processes, with or without an advocate, Solicitor or Barrister representing them? Not to mention the unrealistic and niggardly costs provided through the abovementioned regulations compared to what professional, experienced and qualified legal representatives actually charge, and in my mind are worth, in New Zeaand. Is this not, after all, the sort of burning issue Acclaim Otago should be investigating and raising at government level on behalf of all ACC claimants?




0

#19 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5623
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 13 May 2017 - 01:10 PM

View Postgreg, on 12 May 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

Why should ACC offer any support to claimants with pre-existing damage or conditions not related
to their claimed injury. ?.


Pre-existing damage is still a liability to ACC.

If they didn't fix the injury properly in the first place, they should when it re-presents itself.

But instead they will get one of their dodgy immigrant doctors to concoct some story that it wasn't related.

That's how it works.
0

#20 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5623
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 13 May 2017 - 01:13 PM

View PostBattleaxe, on 13 May 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:



He who Pays the Piper, I have never believed that a 'cradle to grave' social welfare system is healthy or helpful. It certainly does not engender a mentality of personal responsibility in the citizenry. And it also injects the government into our lives in a sinister way to the extent, for example, that immediately upon claiming under the ACC scheme for cover this organisation thinks that it has unfettered and carte blanche rights to access all of your personal information; medical records being some of the most private of all. Some claimants also take the fact that there are government social welfare schemes to the extreme and literally believe that the government is responsible for catering to their every need, whim and fancy. Mini for instance with getting a computer off the ACC that is not an "entitlement" under the AC Act and which has nothing whatsoever to do with rehabilitation.


N.Z. is also the only country in the world where the government takes away our civil right to sue - a gross violation of human rights, local and international - in exchange for providing accident related, and in very limited circumstances work-related, cover and entitlements. Since the inception of the ACC scheme, Kiwi's have increasingly been 'short-changed' in terms of how the government has re-written the various versions of the AC Act, with the ACC tightening up the laws and limiting cover and entitlements, effectively clawing back what and how it now provides cover and entitlements compared to some years ago. Another issue, for example, is the Review Costs and Appeals Regulations. Last year I raised this subject at the forum and was ignored. I subsequently wrote to government pointing out that the last time the costs were increased was more than 11 years ago (as I recall it was without referring to my letter). I was advised in response by the Minister for the ACC that the government was looking into this issue and that the costs were going to be increased. The resultant adjustments were negligible. My thinking on this subject is if the government is going to insist on us using their ACC scheme, it has a duty and responsibility to do an annual cost of living adjustment. Likewise the WINZ accommodation supplement that has not increased (at least in respect of the Waikato region) for over 14 years while the cost of renting accommodation has virtually doubled in some suburbs over this same time-frame.


I also consider that the ACC is a massive government work scheme, not dissimilar to WINZ and other similar, but smaller, government organisations. Imagine if the ACC had to 'close up shop'? How many Kiwi's would be out of work and dependent on WINZ? Many of them would also not fit into other jobs since they have personality types that need the virtual shelter of protection that government organisations give them, and that shield them from dismissal that their controlling and bullying behaviours towards their customers would automatically result in if they were to work in any non-government organisation. In other words, the ACC and WINZ are, in my honest and genuine opinion, a 'safe harbour' for many social and moral misfits of various forms who would struggle to keep a job in anything but a government organisation.


Personally, I firmly believe that there should be an 'opt-out' clause in the AC Act for those of us who want to live independently of government interference, who have moral values that recognise they, and no-one else, are responsible for their welfare, and who also advocate the self-determination theory ... which I and my family members definitely do. Insofar as Acclaim Otago are concerned (following on your recent posts asking what this organiastion has done and is doing for the betterment of ACC claimants), my question is why do we not hear about Acclaim Otago writing to the ACC Minister, for example, asking why the abovementioned costs have not been adjusted for 11 years? Something that affects each and every claimant who goes through the review and appeal processes, with or without an advocate, Solicitor or Barrister representing them? Not to mention the unrealistic and niggardly costs provided through the abovementioned regulations compared to what professional, experienced and qualified legal representatives actually charge, and in my mind are worth, in New Zeaand. Is this not, after all, the sort of burning issue Acclaim Otago should be investigating and raising at government level on behalf of all ACC claimants?






Well said.

I agree that the problem we have in NZ is that there is too much incentive for lazy people, losers and criminally inclined people to make a career out of both benefit systems, WINZ and ACC.

To the point of studying law in finding loopholes.
0

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users