ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

... .

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 31 July 2016 - 11:00 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 July 2016 - 11:11 PM

Answers to you questions have already been given

http://accforum.org/...im-alan-thomas/
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 July 2016 - 11:16 PM

I think you will find that only David Buttler has deleted his posting, about 700 or 800 of them. He never had any thing meaningful to add anyway so no real loss

I will not be repeating material already posted so enjoy yourself
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 July 2016 - 11:23 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 31 July 2016 - 11:17 PM, said:

I am trying to keep this as an EVIDENCE thread ...it is utterly useless imho ... for us to be sending readers to your old corrupted storytelling spaces Alan Posted Image


Can you please upload the DRSL Decision letter for me now ...

I would prefer it to be the same format as this IRD letter currently found in the NATIONAL GROUP = Is It Time? Should we look at national group? thread which was started by former member Hatikva.

Your IRD letter was posted 11 March 2007 - 11:12 PM #39 on page 2 of this discussion ...


What is important is what I have posted as they are the only factual posting as it is sauce material.

As I have just said the 1992 Reviewers decisions hare already there.
There is no such thing as a DRSL decision.
0

#5 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 31 July 2016 - 11:28 PM

Oh anonymousy

You are a psychiatrists dream researcher
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 July 2016 - 11:50 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 31 July 2016 - 11:28 PM, said:

Oh anonymousy

You are a psychiatrists dream researcher


You 2 can play on your own no.
You can start with the blind leading the blind
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 August 2016 - 12:36 AM

What makes you think I'm going to wade through 1500 posting for you? Are you nuts?

DRSL didn't have a single DRSL Reviewer
Reviewers are contracted by ACC and are independent, still are, its the law
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 August 2016 - 12:19 AM

My responces in blue

View Postanonymousey, on 01 August 2016 - 11:32 PM, said:

ookkkkkayyy ...so it appears you expect me and other readers to wade through 15 thousand postings ...to find this alleged document letter huh??
Yes
You lead and I'll follow. it should be fun dancing backwards

<b>
... you also clearly wasted my time with opening this thread for you ....
</b>
No you aree taking thee lead remember.


Also as I am seeing ....that you may be playing some wordgame or toxic mindgame here ...
What exactly are you seeing?
or
What exactly are you imagining you are seeing?
Please show actual facts to prove you aren't just imagining stuff

... perhaps you could explain who or what was DRSL in relation to ACC when your alleged 1992 decision letter was issued
I thought you said you knew ACC stuff well before that time period.
DRSL didn't come into existence until years and years later.
This was under the 1982 Act remember

... and who or what did DRSL provided to you or any other ACC claimants .... was it just some cups of tea & scones in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and some of the years of this century too perhaps
Duh, as above

Goodness gracious Alan ... does your alleged 1992 decision letter even have the words ACC or DRSL written anywhere with a signature and title perhaps?
ACC but not DRSL
ACC would only be in the content of the decision letter anf of cause no ACC
signature and title. duh!

I could go on and on obviously but this nonsense you play also .... bores me
So you better have a nice sleep but please stop dreaming about me, especially the dancing

Clearly unlike you Alan ... I may in fact be more familiar with differnt reviewers who will operate in comparable roles within multiple settings
reviewers are not allowed to operate defferent roles in multiple settings

...and of course whenever these reviewers are tasked to evaluate or explore the decisions rendered by others ...there may be different terms used by me and blah blah ......
reviewers must be independent so must not evaluate or explore the decisions rendered by others. law require obedience to the legislated criteria. please get a copy of the ACC act and read read read


So ... if can you provide your special code words
I have no code words

...for discerning any differences between Independent Reviewers contracted by ACC or DRSL or Fairway ...and of course Independent Reviewers found in first tier processes with WINZ and DWP and blah blah ...
Gain, law require obedience to the legislated criteria. please get a copy of the ACC act and read read read

You can fill in the gaps here if you wish & it makes it easier for you to follow Alan Posted Image

1/ Independent Reviewers who have an administrative relationship with DRSL are called ***********
ACC reviewers are not aloud such a relationship

2/ Independent Reviewers who have an administrative relationship with Fairway are called ***********
ACC reviewers are not aloud such a relationship

3/ Independent Reviewers who have an administrative relationship with WINZ are called ***********
ACC reviewers are not aloud such a relationship

4/ Independent Reviewers who have an administrative relationship with other Personal Injury Providers are called ***********
ACC reviewers are not aloud such a relationship




ps
I also thought I should write to you ... that while I still can NOT download your attachments that were allegedly uploaded yesterday ... weirdly yep I can still download other PDF attachments within various of our threads ...

... so if perhaps my WIN 10 operating system is just blocking the download of your specific documents ... ie this is usually due to files being seen as unsafe eg virus
I don't know. What makes you ask?
Ask your mother

0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 August 2016 - 11:04 PM

ANON you have posted almosty 100% guess work and got it wrong.
You don't even what the ACC Review Unit was

If you want facts go to the ACC legislation!
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 August 2016 - 11:34 PM

Telling you to turn you attention to the ACC Act is not playing a word games, double standards and hypocrisy as everything else is irrelevant. I am not going to teach you, you will have to study the ACC Act yourself
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