ACCforum: Choose your weapon - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Choose your weapon

#1 User is offline   rayw 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 22-November 17

Posted 01 October 2018 - 01:31 PM

Lies, deceit, misinformation, bullying, the abuse of power, disregarding the rule of law, denying a claimant the right to justice, are all part of ACC’s culture of moral corruption and unlawful behaviour where the end justifies the means.


In my experience this moral corruption is systemic. It has spread through ACC like a cancer. In my humble opinion the cause is far too much power concentrated in the hands of an individual employee pursuing their own agendas. Eg; Case Managers wield enormous power over claimants but have no training in or understanding of the principles of administrative law.


How many hundreds or thousands of claimants have had their weekly compensation or other entitlements stopped at the stroke of a pen by a Case Manager ignorant of due process and then told if they are not happy with the decision they can apply for a review?


The decision making process is inconsistent with the rule of law (corrupt) because the claimant is denied their right to be heard before a decision is made to stop a lawful entitlement. (Long line of authority from the higher courts on that). Disregarding due process is the enabler to exert power and maintain control over the claimant.


The only way ACC can be held to account for this corrupt process is for the claimant to challenge the legality of the decision. If the decision remains unchallenged, the corruption and unlawful behaviour continues unchecked.


ACC is an administrative arm of the state and the state does not like its citizens challenging their power and exposing their unlawful behaviour. ACC will do whatever it takes to crush any challenge to their power.


I have fought ACC at a local level, at a corporate level and eventually in litigation. At every level, the pattern of behavior remained the same, and included a senior ACC staffer making a deliberate false statement to the High Court in a failed attempt to derail the judicial process.


In litigation ACC never gave a second thought to spending tens of thousands of dollars engaging one of NZ’s top corporate law firms to crush and defeat me because I dared to challenge and expose their unlawful behaviour. They failed.


In a morally corrupt ACC, the ends justify the means and it is anyone’s guess how many thousands of injured claimants have suffered adverse consequences as the result.


Holding ACC to account for unlawful behaviour or questionable decisions can be a daunting prospect for an injured and vulnerable claimant. But unless claimants fight back and stand up for their rights under the law this corruption continues unchecked.


In my humble opinion there are two options available to hold ACC accountable for their unlawful behaviour. Much has been written about the ACC review and appeal process in this forum and in other media, so I will not repeat here what has previously been said and is widely known.


While the ACC review and appeal process has its limitations and even its faults, it remains a pathway for those who wish to challenge the substantive merits of a questionable ACC decision and engaging an experienced advocate can be cost effective in achieving the desired result.


But the ACC review and appeal system is not amenable to challenging the lawfulness of the decision making process. Questions of law can only be determined by the court and requires litigation.


For those who demand justice and wish to uphold their rights under administrative law, the second option is what I call the nuclear option; weaponising the law to challenge ACC’s corrupt/unlawful behaviour/abuse of power through the judicial process. A good place to start is a powerful legislative weapon, the NZ Bill of Rights Act Section 27(1)(2)(3). Another very useful legislative weapon is Principle 8 of the Privacy Act 1993.



1

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9353
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 October 2018 - 02:40 PM

Ray W
It seems that you may have gone through the machinery is well. I note with interest that you make reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights section 27 and principle eight of the privacy act thinking that ACC may somehow be submissive to the law in this regard. I can confirm that ACC routinely disregards these sections as if they simply did not exist. I as has been the case with quite a large number of others been falsely accused by the ACC with the ACC claim to possess information that they simply did not and refused to make any disclosure, even when directed by the court to do so. This did not stop the legal machinery achieving the objectives of the ACC. This has dramatic results on extraordinary are large numbers of people.

0

#3 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 01 October 2018 - 03:51 PM

Rayw - In light of your message I would send it to the ACC Minister [email protected]

Reminding him of the following ACC published Vision and Values

Our vision

Our vision is to create a unique partnership with every New Zealander, improving their quality of life by minimising the incidence and impact of injury.

We touch the lives of a large number of New Zealanders. The health, rehabilitation and service providers who help people who are injured, the businesses, vehicle owners and workers who contribute to the Scheme, and any New Zealander or visitor to New Zealand who's injured in an accident.

Our role is to make sure that all these groups’ needs are met, and making sure our clients get the right care at the right time, while keeping levies fair and stable. The Accident Compensation Act 2001 sets out how we run.

Accident Compensation Act 2001

Our values
1
Safe kiwis
We motivate New Zealanders to live, work and play safely, so they can lead full and active lives.
2
Good partners
We build close relationships with our partners in accident prevention and care, as well as within cultural groups and the wider community.
3
Responsible stewards
We gather and wisely invest our income to meet the needs of today’s and tomorrow’s Kiwis.
4
People before process
We're responsive to each person’s physical and emotional needs, making it easy for people to engage with us.
5
Fair and open
We're fair and transparent about each person’s situation, applying common sense solutions when they're called for.
1

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9353
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 October 2018 - 05:07 PM

Magna Carta when I read your post I wonder why no one realises that the ACC is not making any statements concerning the fact that the prime reason for their existence is to fund a rehabilitative treatments, fund compensation and suchlike. Why is the obvious not challenged such as the ACC referring to all the providers as being interested parties when in fact they are nothing more than the suppliers to the only ones that an parties, the injured.
1

#5 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 02 October 2018 - 08:52 AM

This dicta from the Court of Appeal needs to be cited

[25] The purpose of the ACC Act is set out in s 3:

3 Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to enhance the public good and reinforce the social contract represented by the first accident compensation scheme by providing for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury that has, as its overriding goals, minimising both the overall incidence of injury in the community, and the impact of injury on the community (including economic, social, and personal costs) ...

(Emphasis added.)

[26] The ACC Act expresses the goals of the original accident compensation scheme, which was based on the report of the Royal Commission in 1967, generally referred to as the “Woodhouse Report” after its chair, Sir Owen Woodhouse.[13] The scheme was originally implemented by the Accident Compensation Act 1972 (the 1972 Act). The Woodhouse Report noted that only a small number of accident victims received adequate or any compensation through an action for damages at common law. Claims for damages at common law were described as a “lottery” liable to “erratic achievements” and “inconsistent solutions” due to the need to prove fault.[14] It also noted the very high costs involved in the common law system. The Woodhouse Report identified that a no-fault scheme with low administration costs would channel much of those funds to victims, rather than participants in the common law system such as insurers and lawyers.[15] The social problem caused by personal injuries required a coordinated and comprehensive response, rather than a fragmented and capricious system of common law liability.[16] Importantly for the purposes of this appeal, it was stated:[17]

We recommend, therefore, that the Court action based on fault should now be abolished in respect of all cases of personal injury, no matter how occurring.

[27] The Woodhouse Report concluded “common law rights in respect of personal injury should be abolished” and “[t]he procedures and techniques of private litigation” should be replaced by a comprehensive compensation scheme.[18] Individual liability should disappear in favour of national responsibility.[19] In the Parliamentary debates leading to the Accident Compensation Act 1982, the Hon J B Bolger said:[20]

[T]he New Zealand experiment, as it has been deemed, has been watched with interest by many countries. All I have spoken to envy the New Zealand legislation, because it guarantees compensation, and avoids the lottery that exists in many countries where the right to sue for negligence under common law remains. Not only is there a considerable element of luck in the compensation under the old common law rights, but, of equal importance, to succeed with a claim in the court of law it must be proved that someone else was at fault. I raise that point because one of the witnesses from the Law Society suggested that in certain circumstances he might seek to return to the common law right to sue. Such an approach would be a retrograde step, and should not be contemplated.

[28] An essential component of the ACC scheme is the social contract in which those who suffer personal injury covered by the ACC Act receive a set of entitlements funded by the community in exchange for relinquishing their right to sue for compensatory damages at common law.[21] The scheme aims to spread the economic consequences of negligent conduct across the community and provide for rehabilitation and compensation regardless of fault.[22
2

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9353
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 October 2018 - 10:50 AM

Magna Carta it goes without saying that we would present your suggestion to the courts given that it seems to be quite compelling. The problem is both the ACC and the lower courts are currently and continuously ignoring such advice followed by courts of appeal failing to grant leaves of appeal using what you have just suggested.
0

#7 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 02 October 2018 - 11:52 AM

Hi alan, as a matter of law the courts below the Court of Appeal are bound to apply the stare decisis principle (established judicial precedent) of the more senior e.g. Court of Appeal, as in the latest 2018 findings in the CA case above.

Just as the Court of Appeal is bound to apply the precedent on the points of law set by the Supreme Court.

If the principle is argued in the same Court - i.e. High Court v High Court - then it become persuasive and not binding.

Effectively, it's a hierarchy of judicial precedent but you must then ensure that the case law argument is directly on point and is not distinguished in any way.
2

#8 User is offline   spacefish 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 19-February 14

Posted 02 October 2018 - 02:09 PM

magnacarta can you please provide a link to the CA case in your post beginning with "This dicta from the Court of Appeal needs to be cited ..."


Thanks! Posted Image
0

#9 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 02 October 2018 - 04:25 PM

Spacefish, Here it is

1.McGougan v Depuy International Limited [2018] NZCA 91 (13 April 2018) [100%]
(From Court of Appeal of New Zealand; 13 April 2018; 103 KB) View LawCite record.

The relevant paragraphs are as above.
1

#10 User is offline   rayw 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 22-November 17

Posted 02 October 2018 - 04:39 PM

AT and magnacarta, your comments are noted.

ACC can disregard S27 as often as they like. The fact remains that like any other administrative body, they are also subject to judicial oversight and can be held accountable through Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.
If as you say AT they are repeatedly disregarding their obligations under the P8 of privacy act, they are exposing themselves to multiple complaints of breaches of privacy act. Given ACC's track record of privacy breaches and given that ACC are on the public record as saying they take their privacy obligations seriously, and any breaches will be investigated promptly its difficult to understand why they would be so reckless.
1

#11 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 03 October 2018 - 08:22 AM

rayw, It's all very well noting the comments above but are you going to use the case law, as I suggested above, to the ACC Minister.

Moreover, I have been advised by the Privacy Commissioner, the Auditor-General and even the Ombudsman that they have no enforcement mechanism.

They can provide an opinion or make a recommendation but they are not legally enforceable because ACC is the decision-maker, not them.

It's only the senior Courts who have a legal inherent jurisdiction.

Those are reasons why ACC continually thumbs its nose and gets away with it - unless and until its taken to a senor Court and even there its doubtful.

Try the ACC Minister with your first post above and let us all know of your success - or otherwise.
2

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9353
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 October 2018 - 09:59 AM

View Postmagnacarta, on 02 October 2018 - 11:52 AM, said:

Hi alan, as a matter of law the courts below the Court of Appeal are bound to apply the stare decisis principle (established judicial precedent) of the more senior e.g. Court of Appeal, as in the latest 2018 findings in the CA case above.

Just as the Court of Appeal is bound to apply the precedent on the points of law set by the Supreme Court.

If the principle is argued in the same Court - i.e. High Court v High Court - then it become persuasive and not binding.

Effectively, it's a hierarchy of judicial precedent but you must then ensure that the case law argument is directly on point and is not distinguished in any way.


Magna Carter what you are saying is 100% correct and I wholeheartedly agree with you. On that basis that is what I presented to the Court of Appeal. However the Court of Appeal decided to totally disregard those fundamental principles and did not allow me the opportunity to appeal. For ACC claims there is no higher authority so that has allowed the ACC a level of awareness that they may defy the law with regards to others. It is my understanding that my experience is becoming more and more commonplace. You will be aware of other areas whereby injured incapacitated and financially depleted claimants have experienced a reduced capacity for judicial remedies which has followed with the United Nations making relevant recommendation.
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9353
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 October 2018 - 10:02 AM

View Postrayw, on 02 October 2018 - 04:39 PM, said:

AT and magnacarta, your comments are noted.

ACC can disregard S27 as often as they like. The fact remains that like any other administrative body, they are also subject to judicial oversight and can be held accountable through Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.
If as you say AT they are repeatedly disregarding their obligations under the P8 of privacy act, they are exposing themselves to multiple complaints of breaches of privacy act. Given ACC's track record of privacy breaches and given that ACC are on the public record as saying they take their privacy obligations seriously, and any breaches will be investigated promptly its difficult to understand why they would be so reckless.


Sadly other agencies such as the ombudsman, privacy Commissioner and suchlike have become overwhelmed with the workload far greater than they can deal with with the result that they have become very defensive with a gatekeeper mentality to prevent anyone being serviced unless they have an extraordinarily professional level of approach which in reality is well beyond the average claimants means both financially and intellectually. My own case is a case in point.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9353
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 October 2018 - 10:07 AM

View Postmagnacarta, on 03 October 2018 - 08:22 AM, said:

rayw, It's all very well noting the comments above but are you going to use the case law, as I suggested above, to the ACC Minister.

Moreover, I have been advised by the Privacy Commissioner, the Auditor-General and even the Ombudsman that they have no enforcement mechanism.

They can provide an opinion or make a recommendation but they are not legally enforceable because ACC is the decision-maker, not them.

It's only the senior Courts who have a legal inherent jurisdiction.

Those are reasons why ACC continually thumbs its nose and gets away with it - unless and until its taken to a senor Court and even there its doubtful.

Try the ACC Minister with your first post above and let us all know of your success - or otherwise.


The same goes for the criminal court whereby any time ACC put a case to the criminal court with regards to the ACC legislation the criminal court become subservient to the ACC viewpoint on the point of law. Following criminal conviction achieved on the basis of the ACC interpretation of the law the lower court, the civil Court, the subservient to the criminal court with regards to how it interpreted how the fact relate to the law creating a fait accompli to the extent that the criminal court judge makes a decision that he does not even need to listen to the claimant's submissions resulting all written submissions being totally disregarded. The labyrinth only his dead ends when the ACC adopts this strategy.
When I have approached the Minister of ACC I am told that the relationship between the lawmakers in the ACC is rather like herding cats with the result that the ACC legislation has been continually changes over the is far greater than any other legislation.

-1

#15 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 03 October 2018 - 11:33 AM

There will be no respite for injured people in NZ until there is some kind of collective representation of voices.

Each of us is different - i.e.we may not like unions - but, like them, we all have the same-kind of collective voice about ACC which is sadly lacking publicly from this forum.

There is strength in numbers which is not sadly coming to the public collectively by way of this forum.

Nature abhors a vacuum and that's precisely what we have from this forum.

Until we fix that situation we are not going anywhere. Currently, we are not on the public's radar and never will be as long as things stand.
3

#16 User is offline   rayw 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 22-November 17

Posted 03 October 2018 - 12:26 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 03 October 2018 - 08:22 AM, said:

rayw, It's all very well noting the comments above but are you going to use the case law, as I suggested above, to the ACC Minister.

Moreover, I have been advised by the Privacy Commissioner, the Auditor-General and even the Ombudsman that they have no enforcement mechanism.

They can provide an opinion or make a recommendation but they are not legally enforceable because ACC is the decision-maker, not them.

It's only the senior Courts who have a legal inherent jurisdiction.

Those are reasons why ACC continually thumbs its nose and gets away with it - unless and until its taken to a senor Court and even there its doubtful.

Try the ACC Minister with your first post above and let us all know of your success - or otherwise.


Magnacarta,
I have previously written to Minister Lees Galloway raising my concerns about ACC in a well drafted 6 page letter. I submitted a number of questions to him and asked for a response.
Here is the response: "Thank you for taking the time to write and please be assured that your comments will be read by the Minister. However, there may be no further response to you."


Kind regards,


Office of Hon Iain Lees-Galloway

I am still waiting for his response so that tells you everything you need to know. I will not be wasting my time writing again.






1

#17 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 03 October 2018 - 12:55 PM

Hi rayw, Based on the content of your first post above, I suspected you had written to the Minister but wasn't sure.

In light of your contact to the Minister's office, see if you can bring your questions to the Minister under the OIA and he then has to answer.

I have experienced the same adverse conduct as you and I later found out that his office staff are acting as gatekeepers who do not place correspondence before the Minister - so you get substantially nothing.

Even MP's acknowledge this.

If we had a voice/group/association collectively speaking for all of us then we might achieve something better by also engaging in mega-phone diplomacy (like the unions) through the media. Perhaps we should all try and collectively arrange that group or association.

Put simply, as things stand, the bureaucrats can pick us off one-by-one - but history shows there is strength in numbers.


Meanwhile, it's only requests made under the OIA left to us.
3

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9353
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 October 2018 - 01:23 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 03 October 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

There will be no respite for injured people in NZ until there is some kind of collective representation of voices.

Each of us is different - i.e.we may not like unions - but, like them, we all have the same-kind of collective voice about ACC which is sadly lacking publicly from this forum.

There is strength in numbers which is not sadly coming to the public collectively by way of this forum.

Nature abhors a vacuum and that's precisely what we have from this forum.

Until we fix that situation we are not going anywhere. Currently, we are not on the public's radar and never will be as long as things stand.


ACC is a socialist constructed and is doomed to failure. That much is certain.
Likewise any thoughts of some kind of union is also a socialist type mechanism that has likewise no prospects of success.

In addition the fact that the only interested party in caring for the injured and infirm as the injured and infirm themselves together with whatever is left of their families (only 15% of marriages survive)we must accept the fact that the injured and infirm have no capacity to work and therefore will not be able to muster any kind of power which of course is needed for any kind of collective voice. It serves no use howling at the gates of the ACC or any other superior power having oversight of the ACC as there is little to no motivation to affect any kind of change. The only potential interested party is those who fund the ACC scheme who might become injured themselves one day. To address this very large number is fixed for there the expense of particularly since the ACC spends millions of dollars every year persuading the population at large to sing their song and be happy.

This forum has been and always will be simply a collection of like-minded individuals helping one another and where possible helping others that cannot help themselves. It is not realistic at this forum ever do any more than just that.

We have already suffered at the hands of those who attempted to take over the site and then when failing to do so accuse me of planning to blow up the ACC while telling the ACC and the police that the site was one from my home with the thought that they could set up another site in accordance with their will for the power that they wish to exert but their mind thought that the site had to be destroyed first.


The collective group that is known as the tagteam who planned to have a collective voice his without question failed to achieve that objective. When we look at the calibre of these individuals we find that they are criminally minded and even some had significant criminal records with regards to matters of violence and dishonesty while others had participated in some very questionable commercial activities that deprive their partners of significant funds. Indeed a significant and complex plan to frighten the hell out of the ACC was hatched by way of what was viewed by them and engineered profile to cause the ACC to believe that they were going to be blown up. One of the members posted to me that as the ACC has many threats of violence that it would be comparatively easy to convince the ACC that's one or more individuals were actually planning to do such. When individual such as the inventor of that scheme harbour such stratagem it is only a very small step for them to actually go through with such an invention particularly since they boast extensive skills to achieve that objective.

The age-old difficulty of coordinating a group of individuals to speak in unison against their oppressor is that there will always be an infinite number of opinions as to how to go about this. While my opinion is the lawful approach in accordance with part five of the ACC legislation others have placed their hopes in marchers, speeches and waving of flags while yet others planned violence and terror. Our past experiences that there has been numerous individuals thinking that they should lead everybody which has generated significant in fighting. Injured persons who have suffered the trauma of great losses are not likely to be very trusting of those who have no history in succeeding any kind of objective is along the lines of any kind of pressure group particularly since invalids that are no longer part of the functioning community simply cannot exert any kind of pressure at all.


THE WAY FORWARD
The legislators saw that to provide claimants with the means to secure legitimate entitlements by way of part five of the act. Throughout history the the process of securing rights through the courts has without doubt is been the most successful way. The current obstacle we are finding in this regard is the lack of competence legal counsel. Indeed the small number of reasonably competent legal counsel are overwhelmed. Other services such as the ombudsman and by the motor are likewise overwhelmed. The courts themselves have found themselves overwhelmed with a very large backlog of cases unheard or even larger numbers of individuals surrender their rights and entitlements on the basis that they can either find legal counsel will have faith in the legal system. This is the nature of the problem.

Way forward is to somehow promote the existence of competent legal counsel. It will serve no useful purpose carrying flaming torches and pitchforks trying to achieve some kind of voice particularly since there is not one among us who has the necessary competence to run any kind of organisation in this regard equal or greater than that of the opposing force, a multibillion-dollar Corporation. Any thoughts along those lines were just be sheer lunacy.

Some of us have managed to study law and even practice what we have learnt by not only helping ourselves but helping others. I believe this to be the starting point toward a more functional way forward. Indeed there are some of us that may not be able to return to our preinjury occupation but might very well take up law. We should support these individuals. Such individuals after all a far more likely to have a greater sense of empathy given that they have been going through the same circumstances as ourselves.

-3

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9353
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 October 2018 - 01:27 PM

View Postrayw, on 03 October 2018 - 12:26 PM, said:

Magnacarta,
I have previously written to Minister Lees Galloway raising my concerns about ACC in a well drafted 6 page letter. I submitted a number of questions to him and asked for a response.
Here is the response: "Thank you for taking the time to write and please be assured that your comments will be read by the Minister. However, there may be no further response to you."


Kind regards,


Office of Hon Iain Lees-Galloway

I am still waiting for his response so that tells you everything you need to know. I will not be wasting my time writing again.







Do you think it would have made a difference of 1000 or even 10,000 people signed your letter. You must remember that the non-injured people carry more votes than those who are injured and that the only thing that is going to gain the attention of any minister is the potential failure to be re-elected. That means you need to go to his own electorate and knock on every single door of that electorate and get the signature addressing your concerns from the majority of his potential voters. Something like that could be a wake up call. The logistics of knocking on every door of a distract is an enormous undertaking. Don't forget that the only people that are likely to provide such assistance as other injured people such as ourselves most of whom are not going to be able to carry out the necessary "work" of doing the great door knock.
0

#20 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1473
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 03 October 2018 - 07:15 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 03 October 2018 - 01:27 PM, said:

Do you think it would have made a difference of 1000 or even 10,000 people signed your letter. You must remember that the non-injured people carry more votes than those who are injured and that the only thing that is going to gain the attention of any minister is the potential failure to be re-elected. That means you need to go to his own electorate and knock on every single door of that electorate and get the signature addressing your concerns from the majority of his potential voters. Something like that could be a wake up call. The logistics of knocking on every door of a distract is an enormous undertaking. Don't forget that the only people that are likely to provide such assistance as other injured people such as ourselves most of whom are not going to be able to carry out the necessary "work" of doing the great door knock.

nothing has changed as insures , the point remains what choice does one have ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :rolleyes:/>
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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