ACCforum: Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 New Law Passed -Document for perusal

#101 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1323
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 23 November 2016 - 03:54 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 04 July 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

Interesting times ahead ,

David .




.Attachment Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015.pdf

yes there be some very interesting times ahead :D
0

#102 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 31 December 2016 - 02:12 PM

View PostHemi, on 23 November 2016 - 03:54 PM, said:

yes there be some very interesting times ahead :D/>


Not with that Act there not. Look at the date of Butler post. Six month too early.

Don't try to lead the readers astray Hemi/Butler.

Quite a day how NTV said Bye Bye David Butler and he disappeared just after hemi arrived after such a long lapse of time.

MMM interesting times been going on for some time me thinks.

Mini
0

#103 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 27 January 2017 - 12:27 PM

View PostREX, on 04 July 2015 - 09:37 PM, said:

It appears the legislation does not protect the MENTALLY deranged/unreasonable//// according to the wording of principle 3 "Reasonable person"


In court one may have to prove they are a "reasonable person" if asked :unsure:/>/>(Until this ambiguously used term is amended or given definition by case)

At this early stage this may need a psychiatrists support of being "Reasonable" It certainly rules out any chance for the likes of the disgusting life criminal TOMCAT to get a foot in the courts door with his neck brace.:rolleyes:/>/>




Just a query to Mini




How the hell would you go about proving that you are "reasonable" according to your posts, all your bitching, attempts to intimidate the forum members and administration...

That's NOT what I would describe posts of a"reasonable person".

You may have to wait till you can find a psychiatrist who would write/possibly lie and state you are "Reasonable" so you can take any such case.


Oh Rex you are so think

Did you not say that 'reasonable' may have to be deteremined by a psychiatrist. Well guess what pork pie I have one of those!!

Does a reasonable person make up lies about another for no apparent reason other than they are Rex. No, so you better get one as well. I will certainly show how you are not reasonable or factual. And you are not of reasonable mind.

Mini
0

#104 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 27 January 2017 - 04:20 PM

View PostREX, on 27 January 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

Stop threatening me Mini, I'm getting sick of it but not intimidated by mental cases.(I'm not you kids ):(/>/>



I don't doubt you have plenty of psychiatrist reports...:P/>/>




:rolleyes:/>/> after reading your constant harassment of forum members the judge would poke his/her tongue at you..:D/>/>

''Reasonable'' YEAH RIGHT...:)/>/>


You think Judges poke tougues out at applicants or anyone else for that matter and you are the one that thinks Need a psychiatrist!!!?

You are absurb!!! You call this threatening.....no where near it. I can show you threatening and lying and stalking (threatening to take photos of me etc.)

AND who is putting this thread over into my profile. A kindergarden kid would know the answer to that. Reported it will be.

xer

This is not unreasonable. You have taunted mini for years with the untruth. But Mini being the truthful person she is will give you a tip: If you have "mental caused by physical", it doesn't mean you are Mental you stupid shit, it simply means that you have over a certain % of long lasting effects from sometime during your DOA to the date you first approached a GP or Specialist for assistance for symptoms you are suffering.

Much different than PTSD. My symptoms are for me to know and you fathead to find out if you can. And please do what you like about taking me to court. Been there plenty of times representing myself. The judges have never laughed at my attempts to put the world right.
0

#105 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1026
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 27 January 2017 - 07:28 PM

View PostMINI, on 27 January 2017 - 04:20 PM, said:

You think Judges poke tougues out at applicants or anyone else for that matter and you are the one that thinks Need a psychiatrist!!!?

You are absurb!!! You call this threatening.....no where near it. I can show you threatening and lying and stalking (threatening to take photos of me etc.)

AND who is putting this thread over into my profile. A kindergarden kid would know the answer to that. Reported it will be.

xer

This is not unreasonable. You have taunted mini for years with the untruth. But Mini being the truthful person she is will give you a tip: If you have "mental caused by physical", it doesn't mean you are Mental you stupid shit, it simply means that you have over a certain % of long lasting effects from sometime during your DOA to the date you first approached a GP or Specialist for assistance for symptoms you are suffering.

Much different than PTSD. My symptoms are for me to know and you fathead to find out if you can. And please do what you like about taking me to court. Been there plenty of times representing myself. The judges have never laughed at my attempts to put the world right.


The gate keeper of that % is ACC.
0

#106 User is offline   Kewl 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 02-August 15

Posted 27 January 2017 - 09:43 PM

View Postgreg, on 27 January 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

The gate keeper of that % is ACC.


Correct Greg. For a judge as you well know receives a paper or electronic file that, et al, describes the alleged persona, personality and mental image of a person whose issue is to be " judged, and as you and I both know,
it is undeniable, for which I am grateful to personally experience, is the actual richness of a person , like yourself, whm only sought a fair deal whilst doing whatever it took to not only build and run a business and yet >10 years of an online presence people still fail to get there is, just like the mandate for police officers to target via KPI or similar means, to financially penalise and create on paper some identity to justify the, % KPI, target, just like all ACC systems.
Yet none of late know nor reveal how the original KPI targets and videos were sought and revealed.
nope
just personality and other tangent bitching between each other whilst the greater issues remain sidelined.
0

#107 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 28 January 2017 - 10:00 AM

Says kewl....
A nice little taunting writeup

what a sad legacy you leave where , not only energetically , but by other means, what you claim is undeniably a falsehood. Your life has been one great failure, it appears your only claim to some sort of , by definition, " rite of passage", appears to be the total failure of yourself as a person whom now claims publicly funded hospital care whilst being totally devious to have the energy to write something on some very obscure blog to try to make themselves feel better.

By definition you have lost, in life.
Well done.. How many alleged lives left, bring your best because a lifetime bludger creep like yourself might try to have some sort of short term emotional high, but i win in the long race because you do fail to know what i actually to day to day to help build people.

What a relief it is that you are way too old and dumb to use any more aliases to commit police recorded injuries against the community

as an additional thought, isnt it obvious no one from Acclaim support groups have ever ..............endorsed you?

By the way, if you ever reply with any cogent or evidential keyboard warrior failure of reply, think about this thread for one thought, if you could ever do that.

Magnacarta started this thread, i bet you could never tell any of us about their life, hopes, wishes nor dreams, nor their significant life partner and how as a team they, et al, helped many of us, you ken have never even spoken a great word about Darrel Pearce, i bet you never even met tehm, I deliberately took a day out to meet Darrel and their Partner, just like I have done with Greg and many more yet the same spiteful and hateful energy you brought to this medium of communication failed everyone.

Whilst there are legitimate issues here surrounding personal privacy, revealing of per sonal names et al, your shameful legacy KEN, is that it is you whom not only began such with the personal naming of this particular blog site user names whereas now the legacy of rightly infuriated forum users may seek some sort of remedy, the issues began in 2005 and those of you rightly concerned about personal safety need only get their legal team to inquire as to whom revealed accforum member names first....and it wasnt snoopy or their many aliases. Have a expensive and fun legal fight over that.

It has been written that of the recent history written that some might try to hold myself legally responsible. hahahahahhahahahahhahaha. You have been fooled, read above.
You lot forget people like, FLOWERS, Buddy and many more et at , WE stood up for each other

Ken you coward your shit between the ears blew the good relationships many of us grew.
Take that to court />
0

#108 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 28 January 2017 - 10:08 AM

Seems like you are seeking recognition for work in the past

For those who do good, they do it for the good of others,
not so you can turn up 10 years later, taunt a dying man

then expect all to kiss your feet....

You are obviously a worried man kewl...and you do have reason to be...

I suggest you go google "freedom of speech"
1

#109 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 January 2017 - 02:34 PM

View Postgreg, on 27 January 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

The gate keeper of that % is ACC.


greg

And the bible of the ACC is the AMA guidelines.

It is quite simple to hit them with a calculation error In physical injuries.

But I find it very differcult in the measurement of mental error.

Mini
0

#110 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 29 January 2017 - 10:17 AM

View PostREX, on 28 January 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

Mini

If you're trying to prove you're more mental than what your psychiatrist reports state, just refer them to this fine forum of good reasoning to support your cause, and I'm betting 'they' give you the maximum % allowable OR

Just be mindful that they may in fact decide to lock you away under section.B)/>/>/>/

And my view is the AMA guildlines are only used to bring the count down if it serves their purpose, the usual way acc deal with assessments that come back reporting a high % of impairment cause by an accident, is fly in a higher paid Rogue TOAD assessor to provide doubt by confliction to opinion. Then the OK we will settle in between.. HA ripped off

Why do you think HDC doesn't want to except jurisdictive authority over Acc third party assessors. Nor do the Acc complaints departments. Posted Image Corruption at its finest.


Rex

Your view of the AMA is wrong. Firstly the first number given is higher because it is not a percentage. It is a degree. Secondly it presumes that you have no % to omit because of ealier lump sum to be deducted and any degree of Medical to take off.

So have you learned a little more now. Once it is all changed into % from degree less the minus amounts as above then you have you % Total of Whole Person Impairement. If you are a person working in a avocates business to assist. You are rather thick to be there and you must be great buddies for him to allow you to stay there knowing so little. But then I suppose those who lose at court all the time would be none the wiser anyway.

Mini
0

#111 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1323
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 29 January 2017 - 10:22 AM

View PostMINI, on 29 January 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

Rex

Your view of the AMA is wrong. Firstly the first number given is higher because it is not a percentage. It is a degree. Secondly it presumes that you have no % to omit because of ealier lump sum to be deducted and any degree of Medical to take off.

So have you learned a little more now. Once it is all changed into % from degree less the minus amounts as above then you have you % Total of Whole Person Impairement. If you are a person working in a avocates business to assist. You are rather thick to be there and you must be great buddies for him to allow you to stay there knowing so little. But then I suppose those who lose at court all the time would be none the wiser anyway.

Mini


you FAILED to read what rex told you Posted Image
0

#112 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 29 January 2017 - 10:30 AM

View PostKewl, on 27 January 2017 - 09:43 PM, said:

Correct Greg. For a judge as you well know receives a paper or electronic file that, et al, describes the alleged persona, personality and mental image of a person whose issue is to be " judged, and as you and I both know,
it is undeniable, for which I am grateful to personally experience, is the actual richness of a person , like yourself, whm only sought a fair deal whilst doing whatever it took to not only build and run a business and yet >10 years of an online presence people still fail to get there is, just like the mandate for police officers to target via KPI or similar means, to financially penalise and create on paper some identity to justify the, % KPI, target, just like all ACC systems.
Yet none of late know nor reveal how the original KPI targets and videos were sought and revealed.
nope
just personality and other tangent bitching between each other whilst the greater issues remain sidelined.


Kewl

How did % KPI target get wrapped into % of Indendence Allowance.? Seems strange to change the flow of this issue being IA and how it is measured.

Mini
0

Share this topic:


  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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