ACCforum: Privacy Commission Useless? - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Privacy Commission Useless? Roger Reynolds Middlemore's ACC toady consultant

#1 User is offline   Moeroa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 20-November 09
  • LocationWellington Central City

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:46 PM




Roger Reynolds, Middlemore's ACC go to specialist rheumatologist and treacherous toady doctor.

ACCwas twice found guilty of wrongfully accessing and using my friend's non-claimmedical files for two successive IMAs. Having agreed to destroy and/orreturn the records, ACC then used the same unlawfully obtained medicaldocuments for a subsequent IMA. Then again, in 2010 ACC contracted Middlemore's DrRoger Reynolds, who in turn also violated her medical privacy and accessedprivate non-claim hospital records without her consent, in order that ACC maydis-entitle her (which ACC/Leanne swiftly did). This caused my mate severefinancial hardship during the year off claim, and then once reinstated as well. However contrary to their website about financial harm, the Privacy Commission dismisses the economic penalties my mate suffered. Why?


Quote

Harm can be:
  • Financial loss, or injury
  • Adverse effect on a person’s rights, benefits, privileges, obligations or interests, or






When she was reinstated, she was then double taxed on the arrears (leaving her little more than Invalid benefit weekly rates) and she must also repay full Accommodation Supplement and Student Allowance for the periodwrongfully off ACC as well as the Student Loan repayments (for the Voc Rehab repeatedly denied byACC).


How can you pay $310 weekly rent out of $292 clear a week?


So she continues to suffer ongoing economic penalties because of Roger Reynolds' privacy invasion on ACC's behalf. This two faced little fairy cannot be trusted.



</h2>

Quote

<h2>How to complain
  • Scroll to the bottom of this page to download the Complaint Form.
  • You don't have to fill in a complaint form - you can put it in a letter instead. But please read the notes below to give you guidance on what information we will need so we can consider your complaint.
  • If you're unsure what to do, just contact our enquiries line (Phone 0800 803 909) or email, and our staff will help you.

What information do we need to know?

1. Your name and contact details

We need to keep in contact with you while we are considering your complaint. Since you may not want other people to know that you have made a complaint, give us an address, phone number or email address where we can contact you confidentially.


2. (a) The name and contact details of the person and/or organisation (“the agency”) about whose actions you are complaining

If you believe that someone has breached your privacy, and you want us to investigate what has happened, we will need to talk to that person, and/or the agency they work for. This is so that we can get their view of what has happened.


2. (B) What is your relationship to that agency (eg employee, client, family member, patient)?

We need to know the context of the dispute. This helps us to see how the law might apply to that situation.


3. Have you already contacted the agency about your complaint?

Before coming to us, you should contact the person or organisation and try to sort the problem out with them.

If the organisation has a privacy officer, that is the best person to talk to. If the agency doesn’t have a privacy officer, talk to someone senior, like the manager.

If you are not satisfied with the agency’s response, then send in a complaint. Give us as much relevant information as you can - this will speed up any investigation.

Include with your complaint form:

  • Copies of all letters/emails/other documents you have written and received about your complaint

If you don't have anything in writing, tell us:

  • Who you spoke to
  • The date you spoke to them
  • What you said
  • What their response was.

4. What types of action would resolve your complaint?

Think about what would make the problem go away for you. This gives us the ability to see whether the agency would agree to settling the dispute.

People ask for different things:

Maybe an apology is in order. This is all that many people want. You may want a promise that the same thing won’t happen to you again… or that it won’t happen to someone else. Maybe a meeting with the agency would resolve the problem. You may be able to think of something else which will allow you to move forward.

Sometimes, people get confused about what the Commissioner has power to do. For example:

  • she can’t force an agency to pay compensation
  • she can’t order that an agency sack someone
  • she doesn’t prosecute people.

See our Frequently Asked Questions for some further information on the Commissioner’s powers to resolve complaints.


5. What is the complaint about?

This information helps us to advise you and the agency on how the law applies to your case.

Tell us exactly what it is that the person or agency has done that you think breaches your privacy.

A complaint that involves only one area of law is just as serious as one involving many areas of law. So do not feel that you have to tick many boxes. Only choose what is relevant to what has happened.

If you can focus clearly on what your complaint is about, we will be able to consider it more quickly.

The check boxes indicate the most common areas of complaints. For more information about what each check box means, click on the links below.
(a) access
(B) correction.

If you tick these boxes, make sure you give us copies of your request for access or your request for correction. Also give us copies of the agency’s responses.

If you don’t have anything in writing, give us details of:

  • who you made the request to
  • what exactly the request was for
  • the date you made the request
  • what their response was.

© disclosure
(d) use
(e) collection
(f) security
(g) other.

In each of these cases, tell us exactly what information was disclosed/used etc. Give us background information or documents to show what happened. For example, tell us who the information was disclosed to and why, or who collected it and why.


6. Explain how this action/these actions have caused – or may cause – a negative effect on you (with evidence where available)

Under the Privacy Act, an interference with privacy usually only occurs when an agency has breached a privacy principle, and also has caused some sort of harm.

The only exceptions are in cases involving access and correction, where harm is not relevant.

Harm can be:

  • Financial loss, or injury
  • Adverse effect on a person’s rights, benefits, privileges, obligations or interests, or
  • Significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity, or significant injury to feelings.

Breaches of the privacy principles are serious, and should be brought to the attention of the Privacy Commissioner. Even if – legally speaking – there’s no “interference with an individual’s privacy”, the Commissioner still encourages agencies to improve how they deal with personal information.

But if the Commissioner is going to make a formal finding in your favour, you will need to show us that you have suffered, or may suffer, harm.






http://privacy.org.nz/how-to-complain/


Downloads
Posted Image Privacy-Complaint-Form-2010.doc DOC, 82 KB


3

#2 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1316
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:46 AM

The Privacy Commissioner is a mixed bag. The Privacy Act is much more useful as a preventative. For example using Rule 7 of the act to make sure your take on matters is firmly attached to any information flying around out there about you.

However when it comes to redress the Commission stamps and snorts like an angry elephant over breaches that are small in nature and but becomes all helpless and constrained when it comes to bigger issues.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled itself into irrelevancy when it decided that an agency could not be held accountable unless information was actually obtained and that it would only hear matters that the Privacy Commission agreed to hear making the Commission a gatekeeper. Now as far as I can see the Tribunal deals with technical irrelevancies while the bigger issues march on by. This has suited the Corporation very well.

They break all the rules. If they succeed in getting information then they take the hit (wet bus ticket) and use the information anyway. If they do not succeed they claim they cannot be held accountable. To bad for the stress and aggravation they claimant had to go through to defend themselves not to mention the cost.
0

#3 User is offline   Compassion 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 23-July 09

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:40 PM

 Lupine, on 23 November 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

The Privacy Commissioner is a mixed bag. The Privacy Act is much more useful as a preventative. For example using Rule 7 of the act to make sure your take on matters is firmly attached to any information flying around out there about you.

However when it comes to redress the Commission stamps and snorts like an angry elephant over breaches that are small in nature and but becomes all helpless and constrained when it comes to bigger issues.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled itself into irrelevancy when it decided that an agency could not be held accountable unless information was actually obtained and that it would only hear matters that the Privacy Commission agreed to hear making the Commission a gatekeeper. Now as far as I can see the Tribunal deals with technical irrelevancies while the bigger issues march on by. This has suited the Corporation very well.

They break all the rules. If they succeed in getting information then they take the hit (wet bus ticket) and use the information anyway. If they do not succeed they claim they cannot be held accountable. To bad for the stress and aggravation they claimant had to go through to defend themselves not to mention the cost.



Maybe there needs to be some training for the drs etc reading the reports, that it would be fair to have them summarise the corrections to show that they a( read them and B) took the corrections into consideration.

With files with HEAPS of correction on heaps of reports, I hope that they are paid extra to read these corrections, especially when ACC has misued and handled the info in the first place to which then YOU have to add the corrections. Surely an apology and added fee to ensure these are read and considered by the medical folk.

B)
0

#4 User is offline   Battleaxe 

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

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:05 PM

 Lupine, on 23 November 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

The Privacy Commissioner is a mixed bag. The Privacy Act is much more useful as a preventative. For example using Rule 7 of the act to make sure your take on matters is firmly attached to any information flying around out there about you.

However when it comes to redress the Commission stamps and snorts like an angry elephant over breaches that are small in nature and but becomes all helpless and constrained when it comes to bigger issues.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled itself into irrelevancy when it decided that an agency could not be held accountable unless information was actually obtained and that it would only hear matters that the Privacy Commission agreed to hear making the Commission a gatekeeper. Now as far as I can see the Tribunal deals with technical irrelevancies while the bigger issues march on by. This has suited the Corporation very well.

They break all the rules. If they succeed in getting information then they take the hit (wet bus ticket) and use the information anyway. If they do not succeed they claim they cannot be held accountable. To bad for the stress and aggravation they claimant had to go through to defend themselves not to mention the cost.

0

#5 User is offline   Brucey 

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

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:06 PM

Battleaxe said.




Yes I have a very clear picture of what you are ... in my honest and genuine opinion, a pathological liar, manipulator of the facts and the truth, someone who is pompous, rude and arrogant to his own detriment and who wrongly believes he is above me and the law, and a serious, repeated, stalker, harasser, verbal abuser and writer of false and defamatory statements about me and other forum members.

I did not have to any "research" about you. Your identity is glaringly obvious and your footprint is like that of an elephant in the snow (your words).

You have not had "one membership and the two moniker" (sic). The evidence is irrefutable. You had the "Brucey" moniker on 7 June 2014 which was 18 MONTHS BEFORE YOU CHANGED THE "ANGRYMAN" MONIKER TO THE "BRUCEY" MONIKER. Your member profile is evidence that you did the aforementioned change on 5 December 2015.

Your "explanation" is improbable and implausible. In fact I honestly and genuinely believe it to be another of your bald-faced lies.

It is NOT about the "Angryman" moniker. It IS about you using the "Brucey" moniker 18 MONTHS BEFORE YOU CHANGED YOUR "ANGRYMAN" MONIKER TO YOUR "BRUCEY" MONIKER. Not possible if you did have these two memberships at the same time.

I am not a "filthy lying troll", and, I do have plenty of examples of you using the "Brucey" moniker long before you changed your "Angryman" moniker to your "Brucey" moniker. Again, not possible if you did not have these two memberships at the same time.

There is no justification, cause or reason, to write false and defamatory statements about me the way you have been doing for months, Bruce, and I am NOT a "stupid bitch" or "dumb arse".

Every offensive and defamatory statement you write about me is going to cost you dearly.

I am not "clearly causing trouble" but you are.

I am committed to achieving justice and holding you and your "TrollWatch" friends accountable. This will not change no matter what obscenities and profanities you hurl at me. In fact, it only makes me more determined than I was before.







You absolutely are a troublemaker, my explanation is not improbable it is true. when you change your name the forum changes all of your previous posts to that name , as you know any quotes can not be changed, so they remain under the old name.

It is exactly the same as when you change or add a new signature, it is placed on all of your posts back to day one. FACT.

you will notice if you bother to look that all quotes prior to the change date are the old name, and all posts by me are the new name. Very simple explanation yet in your total ignorance and blinding fury to falsely pursue me for imagined wrong doing see you persist with the lie.




I only have the one membership, I have only ever had the one membership, you have no evidence at all to prove the lie you are putting forward, it is no different to the many previous lies you have told, and if you continue to travel down this path of persistent stalking and trouble making, it will end badly for you.





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.

http://www.100megspo...anna/010115.txt
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





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

#6 User is offline   Brucey 

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

Posted 18 May 2017 - 07:30 AM

Lianne Mylie has been up till all hours quote mining posts by members she does not like, namely Lupine.

From 9.06 pm to 4.15 am across the entire board Stalking harassing and filling the forum up with out of context information that makes no sense at all to anyone reading it.

Lianne Mylie has been up all night TROLLING. Seven hours worth.




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.

http://www.100megspo...anna/010115.txt
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





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

#7 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

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

Posted 18 May 2017 - 07:47 AM

Again, a fabulous reminder of how LUPINE, an ACC advocate, has changed sides from being an obsessed critic of ACC and those around the CORPORATION, to now being their "puppy dog".

Why, I wonder?
0

#8 User is offline   Brucey 

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

Posted 18 May 2017 - 07:49 AM

 He who pays the piper, on 18 May 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

Again, a fabulous reminder of how LUPINE, an ACC advocate, has changed sides from being an obsessed critic of ACC and those around the CORPORATION, to now being their "puppy dog".

Why, I wonder?


Lianne Mylie has been up till all hours quote mining posts by members she does not like, namely Lupine.

From 9.06 pm to 4.15 am across the entire board Stalking harassing and filling the forum up with out of context information that makes no sense at all to anyone reading it.

Lianne Mylie has been up all night TROLLING. Seven hours worth.




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.

http://www.100megspo...anna/010115.txt
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





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

#9 User is offline   Battleaxe 

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

Posted 18 May 2017 - 02:03 PM

 He who pays the piper, on 18 May 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

Again, a fabulous reminder of how LUPINE, an ACC advocate, has changed sides from being an obsessed critic of ACC and those around the CORPORATION, to now being their "puppy dog".

Why, I wonder?



He who Pays the Piper, see my post at: http://accforum.org/...post__p__249401

0

#10 User is offline   Brucey 

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

Posted 18 May 2017 - 02:26 PM

 Battleaxe, on 18 May 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:



He who Pays the Piper, see my post at: http://accforum.org/...post__p__249401



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.

http://www.100megspo...anna/010115.txt
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





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 19 May 2017 - 07:42 AM

View PostLupine, on 23 November 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

The Privacy Commissioner is a mixed bag. The Privacy Act is much more useful as a preventative. For example using Rule 7 of the act to make sure your take on matters is firmly attached to any information flying around out there about you.

However when it comes to redress the Commission stamps and snorts like an angry elephant over breaches that are small in nature and but becomes all helpless and constrained when it comes to bigger issues.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled itself into irrelevancy when it decided that an agency could not be held accountable unless information was actually obtained and that it would only hear matters that the Privacy Commission agreed to hear making the Commission a gatekeeper. Now as far as I can see the Tribunal deals with technical irrelevancies while the bigger issues march on by. This has suited the Corporation very well.

They break all the rules. If they succeed in getting information then they take the hit (wet bus ticket) and use the information anyway. If they do not succeed they claim they cannot be held accountable. To bad for the stress and aggravation they claimant had to go through to defend themselves not to mention the cost.


A wonderful piece of history.

A person, similar to BRUCE, who now defends all of these organisations, including ACC.

What does that tell you?
0

#12 User is offline   Brucey 

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

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:04 AM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 19 May 2017 - 07:42 AM, said:

A wonderful piece of history.

A person, similar to BRUCE, who now defends all of these organisations, including ACC.

What does that tell you?


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.

http://www.100megspo...anna/010115.txt
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





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

#13 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

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

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:29 PM

Answer:

That money is the key factor in their lives.

That some peoples views and opinions can be "bought off".
0

#14 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

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

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:30 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 18 May 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

Again, a fabulous reminder of how LUPINE, an ACC advocate, has changed sides from being an obsessed critic of ACC and those around the CORPORATION, to now being their "puppy dog".

Why, I wonder?


Oops, here's the question.
0

#15 User is offline   Brucey 

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

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:59 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 19 May 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Oops, here's the question.


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.

http://www.100megspo...anna/010115.txt
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





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

#16 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:41 PM

View PostLupine, on 23 November 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

The Privacy Commissioner is a mixed bag. The Privacy Act is much more useful as a preventative. For example using Rule 7 of the act to make sure your take on matters is firmly attached to any information flying around out there about you.

However when it comes to redress the Commission stamps and snorts like an angry elephant over breaches that are small in nature and but becomes all helpless and constrained when it comes to bigger issues.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled itself into irrelevancy when it decided that an agency could not be held accountable unless information was actually obtained and that it would only hear matters that the Privacy Commission agreed to hear making the Commission a gatekeeper. Now as far as I can see the Tribunal deals with technical irrelevancies while the bigger issues march on by. This has suited the Corporation very well.

They break all the rules. If they succeed in getting information then they take the hit (wet bus ticket) and use the information anyway. If they do not succeed they claim they cannot be held accountable. To bad for the stress and aggravation they claimant had to go through to defend themselves not to mention the cost.



Lupine

This is exactly why I have been screaming for the newspaper article between PM John key and the UN (via acclaim otago) which he said when answering a question from the UN that administravie stuff ups by ACC can be corrected because of the Human Rights at DC level. I am looking for that piece of paper as what you and others are finding out is that it is not so that Human Rights can be raised at the DC. Well, some one up high is lying and it aint us at the bottom. I am of the understanding that that includes technical issues as well but will not no more until I get the document.

Mini
0

#17 User is offline   Battleaxe 

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

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:04 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 19 May 2017 - 07:42 AM, said:

A wonderful piece of history.

A person, similar to BRUCE, who now defends all of these organisations, including ACC.

What does that tell you?


And what does the CassandraComplex "Trust Meter" - which is completely lacking in any verification as to the authenticity of the purported levels/degrees of supposed "trust" reflected there - tell you, He who Pays the Piper?

0

#18 User is offline   Brucey 

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

Posted 20 May 2017 - 08:17 AM

View PostBattleaxe, on 19 May 2017 - 09:04 PM, said:



And what does the CassandraComplex "Trust Meter" - which is completely lacking in any verification as to the authenticity of the purported levels/degrees of supposed "trust" reflected there - tell you, He who Pays the Piper?









Lianne Mylie the troll queen , always attacking, TORA TORA TORA.

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 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.

She also believes that people who at times need social support, are" Bludgers"

Lianne Mylie said


" I have never received even 1c from the N.Z. Government in any form of income or other social service type support, and I am proud of this fact. Unlike the many bludgers who frequent this forum".


Below is one example of many where Lianne Mylie concocts a malicious story to attack a genuine ACC claimant.




Battleaxe said.




Yes I have a very clear picture of what you are ... in my honest and genuine opinion, a pathological liar, manipulator of the facts and the truth, someone who is pompous, rude and arrogant to his own detriment and who wrongly believes he is above me and the law, and a serious, repeated, stalker, harasser, verbal abuser and writer of false and defamatory statements about me and other forum members.

I did not have to any "research" about you. Your identity is glaringly obvious and your footprint is like that of an elephant in the snow (your words).

You have not had "one membership and the two moniker" (sic). The evidence is irrefutable. You had the "Brucey" moniker on 7 June 2014 which was 18 MONTHS BEFORE YOU CHANGED THE "ANGRYMAN" MONIKER TO THE "BRUCEY" MONIKER. Your member profile is evidence that you did the aforementioned change on 5 December 2015.

Your "explanation" is improbable and implausible. In fact I honestly and genuinely believe it to be another of your bald-faced lies.

It is NOT about the "Angryman" moniker. It IS about you using the "Brucey" moniker 18 MONTHS BEFORE YOU CHANGED YOUR "ANGRYMAN" MONIKER TO YOUR "BRUCEY" MONIKER. Not possible if you did have these two memberships at the same time.

I am not a "filthy lying troll", and, I do have plenty of examples of you using the "Brucey" moniker long before you changed your "Angryman" moniker to your "Brucey" moniker. Again, not possible if you did not have these two memberships at the same time.

There is no justification, cause or reason, to write false and defamatory statements about me the way you have been doing for months, Bruce, and I am NOT a "stupid bitch" or "dumb arse".

Every offensive and defamatory statement you write about me is going to cost you dearly.

I am not "clearly causing trouble" but you are.

I am committed to achieving justice and holding you and your "TrollWatch" friends accountable. This will not change no matter what obscenities and profanities you hurl at me. In fact, it only makes me more determined than I was before.







You absolutely are a troublemaker, my explanation is not improbable it is true. when you change your name the forum changes all of your previous posts to that name , as you know any quotes can not be changed, so they remain under the old name.

It is exactly the same as when you change or add a new signature, it is placed on all of your posts back to day one. FACT.

you will notice if you bother to look that all quotes prior to the change date are the old name, and all posts by me are the new name. Very simple explanation yet in your total ignorance and blinding fury to falsely pursue me for imagined wrong doing see you persist with the lie.



http://www.100megspo...anna/010115.txt
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





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 TROLLS Colin Wightman, or Lianne Mylie


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

#19 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

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

Posted 20 May 2017 - 08:49 AM

View PostMoeroa, on 22 November 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:




Roger Reynolds, Middlemore's ACC go to specialist rheumatologist and treacherous toady doctor.

ACCwas twice found guilty of wrongfully accessing and using my friend's non-claimmedical files for two successive IMAs. Having agreed to destroy and/orreturn the records, ACC then used the same unlawfully obtained medicaldocuments for a subsequent IMA. Then again, in 2010 ACC contracted Middlemore's DrRoger Reynolds, who in turn also violated her medical privacy and accessedprivate non-claim hospital records without her consent, in order that ACC maydis-entitle her (which ACC/Leanne swiftly did). This caused my mate severefinancial hardship during the year off claim, and then once reinstated as well. However contrary to their website about financial harm, the Privacy Commission dismisses the economic penalties my mate suffered. Why?







When she was reinstated, she was then double taxed on the arrears (leaving her little more than Invalid benefit weekly rates) and she must also repay full Accommodation Supplement and Student Allowance for the periodwrongfully off ACC as well as the Student Loan repayments (for the Voc Rehab repeatedly denied byACC).


How can you pay $310 weekly rent out of $292 clear a week?


So she continues to suffer ongoing economic penalties because of Roger Reynolds' privacy invasion on ACC's behalf. This two faced little fairy cannot be trusted.



</h2>




http://privacy.org.nz/how-to-complain/


[b]Downloads

Posted Image Privacy-Complaint-Form-2010.doc DOC, 82 KB


To be fair to the PRIVACY COMMISSIONER, his outfit is nowhere as bad as the COMMISsIONER for health. That office should be made redundant.

As should the MEDICAL COUNCIL be brought to account for handing out annual practicing licenses to DOCTORS who can't 'lie' straight in bed and are merely puppets for ACC in writing out dodgy assessment reports.
0

#20 User is offline   Brucey 

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

Posted 20 May 2017 - 08:59 AM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 20 May 2017 - 08:49 AM, said:

To be fair to the PRIVACY COMMISSIONER, his outfit is nowhere as bad as the COMMISsIONER for health. That office should be made redundant.

As should the MEDICAL COUNCIL be brought to account for handing out annual practicing licenses to DOCTORS who can't 'lie' straight in bed and are merely puppets for ACC in writing out dodgy assessment reports.


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 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.

She also believes that people who at times need social support, are" Bludgers"

Lianne Mylie said


" I have never received even 1c from the N.Z. Government in any form of income or other social service type support, and I am proud of this fact. Unlike the many bludgers who frequent this forum".


Below is one example of many where Lianne Mylie concocts a malicious story to attack a genuine ACC claimant.




Battleaxe said.




Yes I have a very clear picture of what you are ... in my honest and genuine opinion, a pathological liar, manipulator of the facts and the truth, someone who is pompous, rude and arrogant to his own detriment and who wrongly believes he is above me and the law, and a serious, repeated, stalker, harasser, verbal abuser and writer of false and defamatory statements about me and other forum members.

I did not have to any "research" about you. Your identity is glaringly obvious and your footprint is like that of an elephant in the snow (your words).

You have not had "one membership and the two moniker" (sic). The evidence is irrefutable. You had the "Brucey" moniker on 7 June 2014 which was 18 MONTHS BEFORE YOU CHANGED THE "ANGRYMAN" MONIKER TO THE "BRUCEY" MONIKER. Your member profile is evidence that you did the aforementioned change on 5 December 2015.

Your "explanation" is improbable and implausible. In fact I honestly and genuinely believe it to be another of your bald-faced lies.

It is NOT about the "Angryman" moniker. It IS about you using the "Brucey" moniker 18 MONTHS BEFORE YOU CHANGED YOUR "ANGRYMAN" MONIKER TO YOUR "BRUCEY" MONIKER. Not possible if you did have these two memberships at the same time.

I am not a "filthy lying troll", and, I do have plenty of examples of you using the "Brucey" moniker long before you changed your "Angryman" moniker to your "Brucey" moniker. Again, not possible if you did not have these two memberships at the same time.

There is no justification, cause or reason, to write false and defamatory statements about me the way you have been doing for months, Bruce, and I am NOT a "stupid bitch" or "dumb arse".

Every offensive and defamatory statement you write about me is going to cost you dearly.

I am not "clearly causing trouble" but you are.

I am committed to achieving justice and holding you and your "TrollWatch" friends accountable. This will not change no matter what obscenities and profanities you hurl at me. In fact, it only makes me more determined than I was before.







You absolutely are a troublemaker, my explanation is not improbable it is true. when you change your name the forum changes all of your previous posts to that name , as you know any quotes can not be changed, so they remain under the old name.

It is exactly the same as when you change or add a new signature, it is placed on all of your posts back to day one. FACT.

you will notice if you bother to look that all quotes prior to the change date are the old name, and all posts by me are the new name. Very simple explanation yet in your total ignorance and blinding fury to falsely pursue me for imagined wrong doing see you persist with the lie.



http://www.100megspo...anna/010115.txt
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





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 TROLLS Colin Wightman, or Lianne Mylie


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

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • 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