April 12, 2011

Peter Jansen Shows his true colours

In January 2009, I applied to ACC to restart counselling for sexual abuse. I was not going to be of those "ones" on that new shady downward spiral into the abyss where ACC filed all their new claims cause, apparently, I was an existing client. 

Understandably and without fuss, I attended one assessment by some woman I'd never met before who concluded I had PTSD and recommended the re-commencement of counselling. 

Seven months later (after my official DSM-IV assessment) I was still waiting a simple reply to "Well, where's the counsellor?" I got a reply back stating some woman in the Wairapapa, no phone details, no address, just a time to meet her.... but where? Several enduring emails later and nothing. 

In the meantime, back in the jungle, I started writing to Peter Jansen. After all, he's the top wig, he should know what the hell is going on. His response to me was that my email had been referred to the Media department. And, as far as I know, that is where it still remains... nearly 18 months later. 

I am still waiting for my counsellor to magically appear from outside the buttocks of ACC's filing cabinet, all majestic and angelic like but, understandably, I have not held my breath. A lot of things have happened. I've got a pending trial, all to do with child abuse - just the sort of thing I'd kind of need counselling on really but there you go - and my daughter and I have had to relocate. Please note, no one that I know of has had to relocate their email address and I most certainly haven't so, sorry, no excuses why no contact has been made on that side of the fence either ACC.

But wait... 

Today, I have had contact! Yes, after nearly two years, I was served with Court papers!!! 

Apparently my calling Peter Jansen an "completely incompetent prick" is defamatory. He's suing me for $200,000.00 in general damages, an additional $50,000.00 in aggravated damages, and any "other relief" as the Honourable Court deems just (Whatever the fuck that means!), and all Court and Legal costs.

All this as a result of a blog I posted, whereby I satirically referred to Mr Jansen having self diagnosed himself with DSM-CIP - (Completely Incompetent Prick) syndrome. 

Mr Jansen, in response, "has been greatly injured in his professional and personal reputation; has been exposed and held up to ridicule and contempt; and has been seriously injured in his reputation and character."

So let me see if I get this straight... a blog of 15 followers has done more than $250,000.00 worth of damage to a man who has NEVER granted a single woman seeking compensation for sexual abuse a mere percentage of that amount? 

Furthermore, if having a mental illness is not suppose to be such a stigma then what's with the David and Goliath attitude to a nobody who thinks, rightly so, that he's incompetent and writes about it to her mammoth blog following of 15 people? I don't get it... I mean, if mental illness is not so damaging as Mr Jansen likes to claim (and often does when it comes to people making claims!) then why sue when a person even jokingly claiming to think you are! 

Or, and here's another thought... maybe if ACC had got off their ass and given me the "mental illness" treatment I was assessed for, then maybe, just maybe, this sort of shit would not have happened? 

Or is it that ACC can deny your claim, fog you off, and then try the old bullying tactics when that same person gets a little fucked off with being palmed off?

In any event, the last I heard DSM CIP wasn't listed on the official ACC assessment calculations and thank fuck for that! Imagine how many people would be referred to ACC then!

In closing:
I wonder if his lawyer knows the person he hired to serve papers on me was my mother's ex-lover, an ex-cop, and since both my daughter and I are formally in hiding due to a pending historical sex abuse Court case, could only have had access to my CONFIDENTIAL HOME ADDRESS through police files. 

Not a fucking smart move that Jansen!


Correction: Ex cop called me this morning. He did not access Police files. I checked. He's right. But I did get an interesting tip on how my address was accessed. Interesting. Makes sense even. Still an incredible abuse of power and... the Privacy Act, so I have been told.  



160 comments:

  1. Pity Mr Jansen doesn't put in the same amount of effort to help ACC claimants, as he does in sueing them, the media will love this im sure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Righto. So how come he can suffer finanical loss and shame etc from your blog post and then sue you for such huge damages when ACC Sensitive Claimants can't get no where near the same money for the same damage from sexual assualt?? Nor can they sue ACC for the hurt, shame and finiancial loss caused by there joke of a pathway? Something is clearly a miss in this society that all you need is money and power to bully someone.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Take his arse to Court. All us Sensitive Claimants will be there to support you (and the News media... I'm sure).

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.3news.co.nz/ACC-property-manager-pleads-guilty-to-corruption/tabid/423/articleID/198379/Default.aspx

    A property manager who had worked for ACC since he was 18 has pleaded guilty to two charges of bribery and corruption.

    Malcolm Mason, 50, also pleaded guilty to one charge of breaching the secret commission act.

    Mason was in court due to charges related to providing a third party information on ACC's new Whangerei Office in return for $160,000.

    He also accepted the equivalent of $9000 in relation to a Singapore holiday.

    Mason is already making a payment of $160,000 in compensation to the crown.



    ACC will love more spotlight on them, given this fiasco, talk about abusing your position!

    ReplyDelete
  5. What a fucking ass.... bullying alright. And using some ex cop, ex lover of your mother too to find out where you are... go to the Police Complaints Authority cause someone used the "old boys network"..... and screw him Jax.... Bullying byt this ass wipe.. he's been promoted, so what fucking loss of income has he had? He's made his money on the asses of women being raped... dont' eeven get me started on the MAORI facade!!!! You go Girl and you GO HARD!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maybe if he spent more time focusing on his job than reading blogs of someone`s thoughts and experiances, he would not be sueing you ...

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is nothing more than an utter disgrace.

    Who does he think he is?! He cannnot maintain his role in ACC with this behaviour.

    What you have told ACC you are dealing with is sensitive and hard enough to handle, let alone trying to hold yourself together through all this.

    Absolutlely disgusting!! It is a shame for our country that this type of behaviour is even able to go own, even the negligence of your case, it should not have even gone as far as you having to contact Peter Jansen.

    You stand tall and fight for your rights. You will have many behind you with I'm sure similar stories. Lead the way and talk to whoever you need to talk to.

    I applaud you for your bravery and honesty! Go David you get that Golaith. New Zealand has had enough!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. So is he going to use the DSM-IV to prove the damages caused to him by that blog? Afterall, that's the only way to assess mental injury isn't it Dr. Jansen?? LOL Any guesses to what his mental illness would be? Clearly, you hit a nerve Jax with that blog you are being sued for. You think maybe it is a bit to close to home for him? PMSL

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stats from May 2010:

    ... for every $19 million spent annually on administrating the Sensitive Claims Unit, only $2 million actually goes to counselling...

    Wonder how much goes to Lawyers?

    ReplyDelete
  10. And the second story in this whole thing is the person he used to serve papers on you. Heads will roll for his using his 'connections' to get to you. You must make sure they do! And the cheek of the man Jansen to serve you! Its bullying alight - and theres you still waiting for councilling!. Its an utter disgrace and totally shameful behaviour by him. This will gather momentum and his bullying will be exposed. Keep up the good fight.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What comes around goes around.Maybe you need to shut the fuck up on here.Thats the problem with people on the internet.Think they can say crap about people on a blog & think they are intouchable.Hope Mr Jansen sues your ass.No support here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peter Jansen you are a completely incompetent prick, are you going to sue me for my personal opinion too??

    So Peter is suing, for a ridiculous amount of money, a victim of sexual abuse who has been waiting for ACC to do it's job and provide counselling which their own assessor recommended?! Sorry my mistake, you not an incompetent prick, you are also a low life and total scum!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Even if he does win a damages claim and can prove that he deserves or lost finanically that much money directly from your blog rather than the Independant Review Team report about the Sensitive Claims Unit Pathway late last year, in which, reading between the lines also said he is "incompetant" then he has to try and get blood from a stone (the stone being you who has NOTHING to give or lose). Who pays the lawyers bill and Court costs when you're bankrupt??

    The only person who gets rich here is his lawyer who must be rubbing his hands together and smiling.

    Sorry to hear you are also another person who ACC treated so badly. All the best!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm sorry this is happening to you Jax, especially considering what else that is happening in your life. The guy appears to be paranoid (yes a certifiable ailment in DSM IV) and must also by now be suffering Anxiety and a hint of depression (you do that to people that get in your way :) ) Seriously though, you have more support than he has so keep fighting for your "right to free speech" and for "those that can't fight".

    ReplyDelete
  15. Whoa!
    This guy is loose in the wilds ?
    What a nut case !

    GregTheWestie

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey I see you're not the only one who writes about him clearly not being fit for the post he holds.

    I read this the other week:

    http://www.psychotherapy.org.nz/index.php?page=blog

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh yest and don't for get that Dr Jansen and the very cosy outfit called the Medical Assurance Protection Society (maybe someone could check the full name of this place in Wellington) will be paying for this legal action against you.

    Called looking after the old boys I reckon.

    Probably ACC also - taxpayers money, the GOVT even.

    And seriously are you all ware of the legal action now started agains an Emaployee of ACC, and the Police and ACC's Private Investigators...

    And more coming.

    And hey the one negative message thus far - well I suspect that person problably is a sensitive claims unit case manager - or along those lines.

    Go for it Jax...100% behind you

    ReplyDelete
  18. When I first saw your original satirical post about Jackass I thought it rather funny. I gather Jackass does not have a sense of humour or perhaps he is insecure about his competency. In my opinion, he mush be a real wanker to take legal action against a sensitive claimant who has been subjected to the SCU incompetencies, which was highlighted by last years review and a number of internet postings and media stories.

    Hey Jax, if Jackass goes through with the action, why don't all those who have an opinion about Jackass and the SCU use it as an opportunity to show their support for you and also use it to highlight the inadequacies of the SCU and have a protest outside the courthouse, complete with placards and major newspapers, Campellive, the Walrus on One etc in toe. I would definitely be a starter!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Keep your head up.

    Pretty sure you have more than 15 followers atm, especially seeing as someone has posted a link on TradeMe mesage boards.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'd hate to be reading that sort of vicious stuff about my dad or my husband or my brother. People need to learn that they can't say whatever they want on the internet, especially if they're not very smart about covering their tracks.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ignored Sensitve ClaimantApril 14, 2011 at 10:53 AM

    He is dreaming. There are many of us sensitive claim clients who hold the same honest opinion, and like me, have plenty of concrete evidence to support the opinion. Let us know when your Court date is. I'm sure there are many quite happy to be a witness to the incompetency of this man and the department he heads. If he can't 'handle the jandal' perhaps he should stop accepting his amble wage. I post this as I wait by my letter box, for a copy of my file I've been told is on it's way, five times in the last 2 years.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just curious... have you associated your full name with this blog in any way? If not, how did he find out your name, let alone your address? Surely ACC information wasn't used to match up your story here to your case file...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well I hadn't heard of Dr Peter Jansen OR your blog until today when I suddenly landed on ACCforum.

    Sounds like crap to me....hope the media checks this out. Maybe more victims of CIP will be identified and hopefully given appropriate treatment by ACC. I'd hate to think they treated doctors differently to sexual abuse vics.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Seriously pissing myself laughing at the DSM-CIP - (Completely Incompetent Prick) diagnosis! I diagnosed Nick Smith on twitter as having a DSM-IV of something which included assaholic tendencies. I'm not being sued yet. Stink. But getting your address? Not cool.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Conducted a TV ONE interview tonight, TV 3 over the phone, and my mobile is still ringing with other journalists.... I like the idea of whoever it was that suggested this is a stand for all victims. I know I am not the only one that has been shafted by ACC. I just seem to be the only one Jansen's focused on revenging.... as I said to the Journalists today.... I didn't survive child sex abuse to be told to "sit down and shut up" by a MAN paid to provide support.....

    I won't say this hasn't heard me. I've had to come out of hiding, (thanks to TV one for clocking out my face etc on TV, which is what I requested)but... getting served with a Court action in front of my employers was inexcusable.

    I came to another city to start a new life with my child. Not even my new boss knew what was going on... he does now, no thanks to Jansen! It should be MY CHOICE who I share my sexual abuse past with... not his. I should never have been "forced" into disclosing in order to preserve my way of living but there you go....

    My heart goes out tonight to the women who didn't survive this fight..... the ones that killed themselves because of the insane Clinical Pathways system (I have blogged about them too) and to all those who protested (TV One News showed them on TV tonight).... they were the ones that knew this ACC system was faulty even before they pushed it through Parliament.

    Hats off to you ladies....

    And now? Now....I dunno. I can't afford the same level of legal advise as Jansen... so I have decided to defend myself in Court. I am hoping, against hope maybe, that a Judge will see this is an incredible abuse of power and rule in my favour. If all else fails.... well, I dunno, how much blood can one get from a stone these days? ......... I will keep you all posted.

    Thank you so much for your support.
    JAX

    ReplyDelete
  26. It would appear I need a proofreader.... sorry for spelling errors.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ACC has designated employees who have as their job descriptions, a responsibility to literally spend their working days 'trolling' through various ACC unfriendly (in ACC's eyes that is) web sites, blogs, forums etc. Ask the high number of clients sensitive claimants or other with injuries how come their postings on such internet places (most in the usual anonymous internet style).

    ACC learns very qickly the actual names of people who post/comment etc and that's where the trouble starts.ACC is paranoid about their reputation being tarnished in public (but hey, they have destroyed their own reputation all by themselves).

    Nothing should be taken for granted about alot of what ACC does behind the scenes.SO MUCH UNDERHANDNESS, DEVIOUSNESS, LIES...THE LIST IS ENDLESS.

    SO THAT'S HOW ACC GET TO KNOW WHO PEOPLE ARE.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Both Jansen and ACC have a problem.

    Firstly, ACC's problem. Jansen is in a position of power in relation to you as a claimant. He can access your files and participate in decision about your claim. Also, he was the poster-boy of the clinical pathways that was introduced, that was subsequently found to be deficient. It is just not going to be a good look especially if those who were affected by the SCU's actions, including Jansen, decide this is their opportunity to be heard.

    Jansen's problem: He may have to prove that you were not expressing an honest opinion, even if you were motivated by malice.

    I would suggest that is going to be a very tough ask. If I was the Judge I don't think I would be having a lot of sympathy for Jansen given his position at ACC and yours as a sensitive claimant.

    Count me in on any protest outside the Court or ACC's SCU offices.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0105/latest/DLM280687.html

    Section 11. Defendant not required to prove truth of every statement of fact
    In proceedings for defamation in respect of matter that consists partly of statements of fact and partly of statements of opinion, a defence of honest opinion shall not fail merely because the defendant does not prove the truth of every statement of fact if the opinion is shown to be genuine opinion having regard to—
    (a) those facts (being facts that are alleged or referred to in the publication containing the matter that is the subject of the proceedings) that are proved to be true, or not materially different from the truth; or
    (b) any other facts that were generally known at the time of the publication and are proved to be true



    Section 12. Honest opinion where corrupt motive attributed to plaintiff
    In any proceedings for defamation in which the defendant relies on a defence of honest opinion, the fact that the matter that is the subject of the proceedings attributes a dishonourable, corrupt, or base motive to the plaintiff does not require the defendant to prove anything that the defendant would not be required to prove if the matter did not attribute any such motive

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jax, you post: Mr Jansen, in response, "has been greatly injured in his professional and personal reputation; has been exposed and held up to ridicule and contempt; and has been seriously injured in his reputation and character."

    In my honest opinion; Jansen has managed that all by himself and his legal action would only be adding to that. Anything you have posted would have had a negligible contribution to making him the laughing stock of his peers, if that is what he is claiming.

    How about you send him a gold coin and call it even.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I have serious doubts as to whether he could make that claim stick. The comment is obviously opinion based and satirical in nature. If one calls another party an incompetent dick head that is honest opinion. The fact that you genuinely believe the party is incompetent provides a second defence and the satirical nature (or joke) of the comment sums those defences up nicely. He has exposed himself to a huge legal bill and put himself at risks of wearing your costs as well. It will also take years before it will come to court if your lawyer adopts the traditional anti tort legal processes in response.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You have nothing to be sorry for Jax, you're experiencing an emotional rollercoaster right now and where this goes is now out of your hands. Stand tall, be brave and yes do it for the ones that haven't survived, but also for those (men women girls and boys) that don't have the voice or the sheer guts it takes to do this. Yes you are well supported. Right about now, after the TV1 news even Mrs Jansen will be wishing she was somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ignored sensitive claimantApril 14, 2011 at 8:08 PM

    Jax you could try contacting your local community law office. I am sure if you could prove you were more than justified in forming the opinion about Dr Jensen, you would win your defence. I suspect Dr Jensen will want to settle out of Court, which is what usually happens. He will probably request you stop blogging about him and ACC in return he will drop the case. In short, he is using the law as a means of blocking you and advancing his own career.

    You have many on your side, who, like me, are more than happy to assist you any way way we can.

    This man is no better than those who stole our lives in other ways. He is nothing more than a 'mental rapist', playing control games with your mind. Shame on him and those that support him, including the government that allows him to get away with this manipulation and control of victims of sexual abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The man clearly lacks insight as well as suffering from CIP. Love the new diagnosis and think it deserves a place in the next DSM - genius! I hope you find a way to get the support you need and that this man's bruised ego doesn't stop you living the life you want.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jax you have many people behind you supporting you 100%. It is so sad to see such a state of affairs to a person who is suffering significantly from past history. I know how ACC operate and have been involved with them against my will for way too many years.

    Although I confess to not being a sexual abuse victim I feel whole heartedly for you. I have had to stand up to ACC's abuse for so long and with the help of media broke out some wonderful, trutful and factual stories of ACC and its fraud unit.

    I have also been diagnosed with mental injuries, one from the injury and one from the stressors that ACC have inflicted on me and even though clinically dioagnosed ACC are doing their utmost to prevent me from having cover.

    So I have some understanding of what you must be going through and I opffer my support 100% in your battle with this corrupt organisation.

    It is really hard coming out into the media with it but believe me it empowers you so much knowing that your disclosure will help not only you but many other victims of abuse and I take my hat off to you.

    If you ever want to contact me feel free to do so, go to accforum and look up my name (same as here) and contact me if you ever feel the need.

    Good luck and I for one will be watching this like a hawk as justice needs to be done to these criminals who hurt and attack vulnarable people.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi Jax
    Please let us know if our esteemed Dr Peter Jansen actually goes through with his brave legal action against you and free speech. I would like to be at the Court to support you in defending your right to free speech about this clown*.

    Please note: I am not claiming Dr Jansen works as a clown, just that he acts like one, in my honest opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Sorry to hear about this Jax, your right, it should have been your decision as to who to share that part of your history with. Seems like you should be the one taking him to court and suing for damages. Seems he is doing more damage to himself and his reputation than any blog could EVER do.

    Be strong girl. I take my hat off to you for having the strength to do what so many people unfortunately couldn't. (Not meant in any way to be derogatory to anyone)

    You have my support as well as many others.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dr Jansen has managed quite nicely to prove that what you wrote about him is absolutely accurate and he has also managed to probably embarrass himself far more than anyone else ever could....hmmmm I wonder if he can sue himself?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anyone wishing to provide Dr Jansen with their honest opinion are welcome to email him at: peter.jansen@acc.co.nz

    ReplyDelete
  39. Brave woman Jax. Good on you! It all seems completely off the wall. It's not like talk back hosts get sued for their terrible remarks about people. It's not what National need in election year.... just when ACC was out of the media too. Ouch!!

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'll be a witness in court for you... but Jansen might go after me for expressing my honest opinion of the way I believe/feel he has personally destroyed my life.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Im wondering if he can sue himself too!!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yay- This might just be the catalist needed for a good shake up and possibly a legislative change to bring in some form of accountability for these untouchable people in power in ACC .Time for claimants to make a noise, be heard or vote Nick Smith out

    ReplyDelete
  43. I fully agree.

    it would not be hard to guess that ACC will have been in Crisis Mode talks today.

    Also wondering what the pompous ACC woman - DENISE COSGROVE's spin is going to be on this serious issue that affects so many sensitive claimants - or has the potential to.

    SO TOTALLY WITH YOU 100% JAX.

    Kia Kaha.

    I too will be joining in any protest about this issue; which in my honest opinion, is about Dr Jackass Jansen's mental stability; his questionalable ethics and conduct against another ACC sensitive claimant and, in what I view as his total incompetence to practice as Medical Doctor, let alone advising on sensitive claim issues and injuries.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hey Jax.
    Haven't been online until today as been suicidal wondering if I'll really truly safely be able to get the help I need to get well. Today I made it to therapy, not even 10 sessions this year (in over 18 months kinda as you know) and they hitting me with a DATA.
    I 100% believe the vindictive culture within SCU.
    You've supported and backed me all the way since my troubles started with them, if it wasn't for you and half a dozen others, my personal experiences with Peter Jensen and Denise Cosgrove blatant public lies about my claim, I'm not sure I would have made it through last year. Thank you Jax.
    So now it's my turn - I am here for you all the way. I'm not so hot with words at the mo, but I wanted to send you my love and let you know you are in my thoughts.
    And I am praying to my Higher Power that the Universe is going to show some real Justice to those whose careless actions have disabled innocent victims. And 'careless' could be an understatement.

    Sending you the most uplifting pink fluffy warm hugs I can conjure up!

    ReplyDelete
  45. ...Just thought Jax, the stuff Peter Jensen & Denise Cosgrove said about me publicly were shown over the year to be the lies they were - do you think that means I get $250,000 from each?

    ReplyDelete
  46. For Justagirl:h
    ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vTGuB-eQkA

    ReplyDelete
  47. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vTGuB-eQkA

    ReplyDelete
  48. Karl (who has also been through thye ACC mill ....)April 15, 2011 at 5:44 AM

    So this idiot thinks that words on a blog can cause him damage worth $250 000. But sexual abuse can best be handed with the bureaucratic fiasco that he is paid to manage?

    You go girl. Hold them up to the light and like cockroaches, they'll squirm.

    This may offend Dr Jansen; I consent to the operator of this blog releasing my IP address to his lawyer if Dr Jansen wishes to compound his mistake and sue me for having an opinion about the behaviour of one of our public servants.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Found this blog via google search, after reading an article on Stuff.

    If it's any comfort, he's totally embarrassed himself far more now from media coverage than any tiny little amount of damage from your (justified in my opinion) venting on this blog.

    I hope you can find some legal help free somehow, my understanding is that defamation cases are very difficult to prove, so hopefully it will all turn out alright.

    Best of luck
    Someone who wouldn't have survived without ACC counselling many years ago, and who deeply resents and opposes the recent changes.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Good luck in your case - it must be terribly stressful for you having to fight this court case but in the process you will be able to highlight the failings of ACC in the way they manage cases of sexual abuse, which of course means they don't manage them at all well. I think it is an absolute disgrace that Peter Jansen can sue you for damages over a satirical blog. I have never read your blog until this morning, and I can see that a lot of other people are the same, so you have gained a large audience for your struggle. Try to remain strong and take this opportunity to strike back at powerful social forces that keep on trying to deny the damage caused by sexual assault. Lots of love xxx

    ReplyDelete
  51. "a blog of 15 followers has done more than $250,000.00 worth of damage to a man" - now that there's a lawsuit, you have a fair few more than 15 followers. Seems that any injury to Dr Jansen's reputation is self-inflicted.

    ReplyDelete
  52. go girl, as an existing sexual abuse client I say good one you for standing up while many of us are to fractured to do the same, they have no clue and dont seem to care, good luck

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dr Peter Jansen is nothing but a complete incompetent F#^kwit as are the rest of SCU . By His own admission , He has No Qualification nor does He have Experience in dealing Sexual Abuse Victims . He should be Sacked for posing as something He's clearly not . I wonder . If this is a Private Case , then He dosent have the Protection of Acc , Counter Sue Him . He might then realise how We as Victims feel .With a bit of luck , He might have put the nail in his own coffin . On behalf of Male Survivors everywhere . We are with You all the way .

    ReplyDelete
  54. I would lend my voice and support to everything you have to do.
    I too have the same story as you, in fact when I read it I broke down thinking someone was writing my story. Every single step the SCU off ACC has put you through has been the same for me.
    I was diagnosed with PTDS and was told in a letter from ACC my councelling would be on going for life and hey surprise surprise just as you it stopped and no response when you contact them.
    I feel your frustration and pain and your now loss of privacy, once again your pesonal space has been invaded. It so astounds me that it is men in these positions that can tell us vicims what we can and cant have when in most cases it is men that are our abusers, go figure that one out ACC, wouldn't a women in this position be more understanding????????????

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hi, I read about this on Stuff, and I thought I'd check your blog out. Man, I always knew ACC was difficult to deal with, but this is ridiculous. How on Earth can this man face himself in the mirror?

    I think taking to the internet to express your frustration in a coherent way is completely understandable, and should be encouraged! Things like this are what's wrong with the system.

    I also find it a bit hilarious that by issuing you with this ridiculous suit, he's only calling attention to his horrible, unprofessional, incompetent behaviour.

    Good luck, my thoughts are with you.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jansen has withdrwn the proceeding after Minister Nick Smith intervened. Jansen should not be allowed to continue to work at ACC, his employment should be terminated immediately.

    Let this be a warning to Dr's who are supposed to protect the vulnarable and not inflict harm on them.

    Well done Jax for exposing such a disgusting issue.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Jax, as a legal advocate for ACC claimants I applaud your stance. I only started undertaking advocacy in this area over the last few years after a career in the more commercial areas of law. I have been appalled at much of what I have seen.

    I accept that money may be tight at ACC and the law may restrict ACC's ability to asssit claimants. However there is no excuse for the bullying that occurs. I am horrified at how vulnerable claimants are often treated by ACC and their favoured consultants.

    Most challenges of ACC through the Review process end up proving ACC have made mistakes ... if the Review is run properly. That, in itself, shows that something is amiss.

    Sadly, most claimants are unable to stand up against the overwhleming might of ACC. There are few advocates, and funding for advocacy support is restrictive.

    However the biggest barrier to challenging ACC is often a lack of belief on the part of the claimant.

    Your stand will inspire hundreds of claimants. It may instill a belief in many that you can say to ACC "No! - I will not be treated this way!"

    Congratulations. You have sent a powerful message to many who have lost hope.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Jax, I read about your case on stuff.co.nz and I just wanted to say how incredibly sorry I am that you have been put through all of this. Quite frankly, I am appalled that someone in charge of the so-called "sensitive-claims" unit could put an abuse survivor through such a stressful ordeal! He should know better and he is really digging his own grave here. Sensitive my ass! I am fully behind you on this and I am in awe of your courage and bravery in standing up to the system and fighting back on behalf of all sexual abuse survivors. You are truly an inspiration.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It's obvious why he said he is withdrawing the suit due to the material being taken down.....It stops people looking for it. They are desperate to keep a lid on this, too late. Good on you for being a whistleblower....

    ReplyDelete
  60. Good for you for highlighting this man's abysmal incompetence. All strength to you.

    ReplyDelete
  61. life has been collectively harder for survivors and their families since the essential 'closure' of the scu about two years ago - working at the coal face with the determination still to challenge those changes and these days rnz provides so little political comedic relief . . . Three times same issue - funnier each time - you go gurl! With any justice not only will the author of the scu changes have to rethink his power complex but perhaps the power complex the current government has will start to tumble down like the merciless stack of cards it is :-) chea!

    ReplyDelete
  62. I would contend that your blog is a news medium under the interpretation of the Defamation Act 1992, therefore you should have good grounds to have the statement of claim struck out because

    43 Claims for damages

    (1) In any proceedings for defamation in which a news medium is the defendant, the plaintiff shall not specify in the plaintiff's statement of claim the amount of any damages claimed by the plaintiff in the proceedings.

    They've clearly stuffed up!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Curious, all of this is making me wonder how he found your comments on such an inconspicuous blog in the first place!! You're right up until now you've had a very small following comparatively speaking...

    Does this mean he sits on the net each morning googling his own name over cornflakes or (like many other top level managers - organisationally speaking, definitely not a performance based assessment) does he have someone in the media dept at ACC trawling the net for him???

    ReplyDelete
  64. Funny, now it's been in the news you are going to have a lot more followers than the 15 that the idiot was worried about. I've had my own issues with ACC but was too ill to fight. Good on you for standing up. You have the love and support of all those victims that have been victimised by ACC behind you.

    ReplyDelete
  65. It's on the radio, all over the internet news sites, on TV, in Parliament and is now being reviewed by ACC Minister Nick Smith ...I bet Jansen is regretting his decision to sue right about now lol

    ReplyDelete
  66. Good luck with your journey.
    100% behind you!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Good for you Jax, and good on Carmel Sepoloni (sp) for speaking out about this cretin of a bully Jansen. The culture he is showing, and which is being endorsed by the Minister is typical of ACC. We need brave people like you to give us all the courage to tell these wankers that enough is enough. Thankyou I admire your courage, I do hope it leads you to healing and happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  68. You are super brave and I fully support you in not taking this post down. The ACC process is terrible, and your example is just one of many. I may have to blog about this some time soon.
    So many people are behind you, heard you on the radio this morning and you were brilliant :).
    If anything, Jansen's idiocy has just made your blog more popular. 57 comments!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Jax, this guy sucks as does a lot of ACC practises and decisions. They have totally incompetent office workers making decisions on someones sickness, where they will read between the lines and YET AGAIN, go back to False Claim Cover headings.
    I am currently in a Dispute Resolution with ACC and the best person that you can contact to back you is Andrew Cadenhead. Been taking on ACC for some 26 years and he is nothing short of fantastic. Really knows his stuff and definitely knows all the flaws with ACC. Contact him he works through out the whole of NZ and does most of his work over the phone and via email.
    You go get them girl. They need to know that NZ'ers are fed up with this bureaucratic bullshit and all the puppets that hide behind it. Believe you me, Dr Jansen is not the only problem. There are other doctors that ACC use, that also write what ACC want, rather than what is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  70. he's a dickhead alright,incompetent,bully, unprofessional,slimebag.It's amazing,after 20+ years of treatment for accident related injuries..docs meds physio,i now are unable to work.so no more funding for meds,docs,wtf? but,still want levies you pricks. rot in hell. I'm just hopeing the cancer kills me before i carn't wipe my bum no more

    ReplyDelete
  71. Several points come to mind here

    1/Dr Jansens position in the 'sensitive' claims section of ACC has been grossly compromised. Sexual assault victims are just that - victims and sensitive. The Dr. has shown himself to be ill equipped and obviously not the correct person to deal with 'sensitive' claims. I would consider his resignation from this position as the very least he should do.

    2/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is long, on going and requires intervention on many levels. Jax is displaying anger, fear, aggression and disbelief in a situation that is out of her control. Surely this should have alerted the Dr to her precarious situation? No, instead he chose to ignore her plea for support and assistance and seek remunerations far and away above anything that Jax will ever receive.

    3/ This highlights a problem within the health system when an abuse victim has to apply to an authority, set up to deal with accidents, for help. Sexual assault is not an accident! It is a crime and there is a victim who needs support, understanding and sensitivity at all points in their progress towards accepting and living with that crime.

    4/Did the Dr. not think that by his very actions he may have now discouraged victims from seeking support? Sexual assault is an under reported crime because of the stigma that is associated with it or because of threats to the person by the perpetrator.

    There needs to be a completely seperate authority set up to facilitate this that is able to deal with a psychologically and physically overwhelming assault. This Dr. has now shown to all victims that they will not be considered as 'sensitive' and in fact can be assaulted again by the very authority that is supposedly there to support them.

    5/How was this woman who is in hiding (that alone indicates how bad this situation must be for her) still able to be served papers for defamation? Another form of assault. He indicates by this action that she isn't safe anywhere, that she is able to be found.

    6/Another concern is that there appears to be no acceptance that people suffering as a result of a sexual assault require long term and on going care and support. Some people do go on and recover control over their lives in a shorter time frame - but others don't. Many decades may pass and, as indicated by Jax, something new will trigger new fears, phobias or reactions. Help should always be available.

    Dare I suggest that NZ be a world leader here and take this opportunity to set up a system whereby sexual assault victims are supported and helped by a totally seperate, private and professional organisation? Where a victim can feel secure and supported but most importantly understood by the people within it. From their very first interaction with Police through the court system and into the future.

    This Dr may have done us a favour by showing up the failings within this system - here is a victim who has been sexually assaulted and now is being assaulted again. Jax has every right to be angry with a system that has let her down. Jax my deepest sympathies go out to you and I do completely understand why you're so angry and lashing out and you most certainly have every right to feel victimised again.

    In fact if it wasn't for his law suit this would never have become public at all. My congratulations must go to the Minister who raised this in Parliament - this would have gone under the radar without your concern for this victim.

    Dr Jansen you are not entitled to money for what you have done, you failed to obtain appropriate support for a person within your system. Don't act surprised and aggrieved that when you fail someone they are angry and hurt. Fifteen people MAY have read Jaxs' comments - now the whole country is aware of your incompetent reactions.

    Support is not a finite thing - it should be available to one and all for as long as they need it without fear of reprisal or retribution.

    Concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  72. The problem is that costs are rising and employers and workers complain whenever ACC premiums rise. So ACC is clamping down in many areas apart from counseling- ask the Orthopedic surgeons.

    Since the bureaucrat you blame cannot conjure money to satisfy you from thin air, perhaps you need to turn the spite on the community that isn't willing to keep paying more.

    I wonder what has been achieved by targeting the bureaucrat? Sure it's caused drama and drawn attention which will be great fun for a little while... but you watch how quickly people who enjoy this sort of thing get bored and seek some other furore.

    I wish you luck for the future. No matter what else happens, remember that in the end we are all responsible for our own happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I'm right behind you. We should name and shame people responsible for further perpetrating violence toward sexual abuse survivors. Their names should be published right up there with the perpetrators themselves.
    "The person who sexually assaulted me is responsible for this injury, but because of ACC’s policies and procedures they unfortunately placed themselves in the situation of unwittingly coming across as HIS support network, not mine"
    http://k1w1jax.blogspot.com/2010/05/acc-scu-review-forum.html - I'm Margaret :)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Can I ask why though as a wage earner I should continue to fund your therapy? I have every sympathy for you and am not unaware of the harm mentally sexual abuse victims suffer. I have a cousin who was molested by her father for a couple of years. Through help and support not only from professionals but family and friends she is better. It certainly did not take 10 years. However I think that ACC is not the right place for this. I think also that by opening this up to the world and naming publicly the person you have come across as just angry and petty. You have got your bit of media attention and that's great. I think however that you should have aimed your triade of anger at the ACC process and not one particular person. Even if it is the head honcho for that area.

    I hope you get better soon and help in some form is provided.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I am a male childhood sexual abuse survivor and I fully support your stance.

    A lot of this fiasco can be blamed on the present government with their penny-pinching "budget cuts" while at the same time, spending good money on ridiculous scams like $2,0000 dollars on a Waka for a rugby match, and a further $9,0000 on a pathetic referendum back in 2009. All of this money could have helped sexual abuse victims.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "Can I ask why though as a wage earner I should continue to fund your therapy?"

    Because who the hell else is going to fund it, dickhead? Quite often sexual abuse survivors are so unwell that they are unable to work. They often don't come from wealthy backgrounds. They NEED the support of the welfare system, because THERE IS NO OTHER WAY that they are going to be able to get help. Didn't you see the article in the news recently about the woman who killed herself after she was refused ACC counseling for historic sexual abuse? You have no idea, NO IDEA how painful it is to be used and abused, and then left in the cold by the welfare system.
    You don't like that ACC deals with mental injury from sexual assault? Guess what buddy, it's all set out in the legislation, it's been that way for years. I suppose a right douche bag like you would probably suggest something like "sexual abuse insurance". The very fact that I just said those words out loud just about makes me want to throw up in my mouth. Is society really that fucked that WE OURSELVES have to internalise the risk that we will get assaulted through the actions of SOMEONE ELSE. You need to go get a reality check buddy.
    Clearly, the ACC isn't working properly if people like Jax are falling through the cracks in this way and the culture of the organisation has been exposed by her being BULLIED by the head honcho.
    If you think that opening up about sexual abuse and how difficult it can be to get the care that survivors desperately need is "angry and petty", then you can just fuck right off. You have no idea how much strength it takes to speak out about this kind of thing, how dare you come here and accuse Jax of being "petty" when she has been so incredibly courageous!!! We refuse to be silenced by privileged, ignorant and insensitive jerks like yourself and you know what? We have a right to be angry! Angry at a system that does not support victims of sexual abuse in the way that it should.
    I don't think you have any idea how much of an asshole you are coming across as now, and a coward too, given that you are posting anonymously.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Power to the people of sexual abuse who have, and are being stuffed around by ACC.
    Jansen seems to have inadvertently given the victims a public platform, so go change the world of ACC Jax. Do it for all your brothers and sisters who have had their lives screwed by sexual abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Hi Jax,

    Have never posted on a blog before but feel the need to do so now. My children and I have been in a similar position - relocating, trial etc etc, have even legally changed our names - still we get found! I would like to know what info you were given by the ex-cop about how you were found. Can you share this information? Good luck with ACC, the big problem is that providers will not work for them anymore - crap money, outrageous amounts paperwork and ethically challenging in their expectations.

    Cheers B

    ReplyDelete
  79. Nigel says: I don't get it. Do you have any proof that your long wait was caused by any incompetence on the part of Dr J? It seems he is highly qualified and has an impressive CV. One has to work very hard and to sacrifice a lot in life to achieve all that. For all you know his skill and care may have been of enormous help to many unfortunate people. Your tragic past invokes sympathy but does not give you an automatic right to lash out in frustration to try and destroy someone else's life? There are better ways to get what you want in life. Time to shut up and issue a sincere apology. Same applies to you other "bluggers" here who have sounded off in a state of ignorance of the facts. ----- I have put my name at the beginning because I had a problem with "Select profile" and lost my first attempt - so I have to select Anonymous. See - we all have our problems with ignorance and incompetence.

    ReplyDelete
  80. George get a grip. I don't believe that ACC is the correct organisation for Sexual abuse "compensation". I am fully aware of what is in the ACT. Having worked for ACC in the past I know exactly whats in there.

    And as a matter of fact i am all for the privatisation of ACC. This will be a fairer and easier system. And for women in Jax situation would have access to better support that through a qango such as ACC is.

    Not once have I said that Jax shouldn't be helped. I just don't believe that ACC is the correct avenue for this any more. And yes it is petty going after one person. It is the Act itself and not a person that is the issue. A retraction with some good grace i think is in order. On both sides. Not emotionally clouded bullshit.

    So to you George perhaps you need some help to. I suggest some anger management. But since ACC won't cover that will you have a cry about it and start a blog about it?

    ReplyDelete
  81. re comment at 12.11 a.m. on 14/4/11 - you need to be aware that the Medical Assurance Society and Medical Protection Society are two completely separate organisations (I am a member of both). The former is a welfare and insurance organisation, the latter function as legal counsel. Both are for doctors, dentists, vets, other allied health professionals and their families.

    If you are being threatened with legal action for the opinion you expressed on Peter Jansen's competence, I can't see him winning in court (I imagine he would have to prove that he suffered harm as a result), but then again I'm no lawyer!

    ReplyDelete
  82. Nigel,

    Jax has absolutely nothing to apologize for!! Those that should offer an apology are the perpetrators and paedophiles who inflicted the abuse along with those who caused ACC to become so incompetent that it has now become totally incapable of providing appropriate support for those unable to defend themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  83. What is wrong with Jax having an opinion on the competency of Dr Jansen? On the other hand, I see plenty wrong with Dr Jansen trying to suppress freedom of speech. Is he that insecure about his own competency. His drawing attention to the blog several months old, which none had even commented on, speaks volumes about the guy.

    Dr Jansen, a bit of free advice. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Nigel. Your opinions have some merits except for one thing:-

    If Dr Jansen were a pilot and he 'pushed' the wrong button on his cockpit, then all the passengers would no doubt be dead as the plane has crashed.

    See the analogy? Dr Jansen is a Medical Practitioner who has and has, in my honest opinion has made clinical medical decisions re sensitive claimants that without a doubt about life and death situations.

    He pushed the wrong clinical medical buttons in so many ways - reports in the media state that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

    It is more than what has occurred for Jax - as shameful as that is however.

    I am another vicitim of Dr Peter Jansen's (mis)management of my sensitive claim - along the same lines as Jax I might point out.

    I think you should wait and see to see what out comes out in the wash - the dirty wash me thinks, then see if you have the same viewpoints.

    KIA KAHA JAX
    "RACHEL"

    ReplyDelete
  85. Nigel, if Jax was the only person who has experienced the incompetence of Dr Jensen and his team, then you may have a point, however she is not. There are many who have experienced similar and at times worse.

    You accuse Jax of trying to destroy Dr Jensen's life for stating her opinion, and yet you fail to offer him any criticism for attempting to sue her for $250,000.

    You can rest assured Nigel, if any victim of sexual abuse had that sort of money, they would never involve themselves with the SCU of ACC but rather seek less intrusive and more efficient private assistance. Knowing full well Jax did not have the means, Dr Jensen made the decision to issue the defamation papers. He did so with the knowledge that the issue could never go to Court, and I believe he did it in an attempt to intimidate her into submission.

    Such behaviour from any medical professional is shocking, but from a person who holds a position of power, it is actually illegal. I sincerely hope Jax takes legal action against this man who should be stripped of any merit that allows him access to vulnerable people again.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Congratulations on your courageous stand. We fully support your position, and it is disgraceful that Peter Jansen wants to sue you. However, it has brought this very important issue to public attention, and hopefully the politicians will act and remedy the current position by re-instating lump sum payments and an unrestricted amount of counselling.

    ReplyDelete
  87. ACC doctor drops lawsuit against sex abuse victim. Just seen it at Stuff.co.nz

    The gummint musta told him to pull his head in because they knew ACC was in the wrong. A public outcry would have been good to raise the problems of ACC and the way they treat sexual abuse victims.
    Good on ya for standing your ground Jax.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Nigel says: "For all you know his skill and care may have been of enormous help to many unfortunate people."
    April 15, 2011 1:19 PM

    Nigel, for all you know Dr Jay has used his skills to brown-nose and get himself into a position to cream it of the tax payer and do immeasurable damage in his role of an ACC clinical advisor.

    But that is not really the issue is it. Its about an ACC clinical advisor using legal threats in an attempt to suppress a claimants opinion made in a satirical fashion about his competency as an ACC clinical advisor.

    Really, why would be bother when the blog in question had not been commented on until today and probably only read by a handful of people.

    Nigel, do you honestly believe Dr Jansen's peers had read the blog and then held him up to ridicule before his ill-advised legal action?

    ReplyDelete
  89. "Nigel says: I don't get it." Well Nigel just because you don't get it, you seem to feel that people have to justify themselves to you. That is one of the reasons why being in our position is so difficult. It seems hypocritical to say that Jax has a tragic past and then go on to call her and the rest of us "bludgers" So until it happens to you I think that it is time you shut up and stopped going around judging people who couldn't give a rats ass what you think anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  90. The thing is Anonymous poster (11.46am), we're all responsible for those victimised in our society - that's what society means. You can't have it both ways - otherwise it's the law of the jungle. Don't complain about neighbours who didn't help you when you called out etc. if you want to absent yourself (and your taxes) from any community responsibility. ACC may not be the best system but that's not this blogger's or any sexual abuse victim's fault.

    It's remarkable that Dr Jansen claims injury and so speedily, yet the institution he heads can't get it together over a 2 year period to sort out counselling for a claimant. Did his legal advisor point out how this looked? Taking a survivor of abuse and suing despite the obvious administrative incompetence of ACC? Either it wasn't pointed out or he didn't listen and now he's hoist in his own petard - unless he still feels that his 'injury' is so much greater than that of Jax's.

    To an extent, ACC is only as good as Govt. policy and this Govt. has been steadily eroding the rights of sexual abuse survivors. I recall them having to rescind some of their more punitive policies (ACC only approved doctors??) so I lay the ultimate responsibility there. Adding to that - all the recent proposed funding cuts to girls' self-defence and domestic violence programmes! When the sad cases of future abuse come to light, they'll probably have to do an about face on some of this. Sigh.
    Good luck Jax and to the others also having to deal with ACC.

    ReplyDelete
  91. CIP seems a fairly innocuous commnet. The manmust be an idiot. By making all this fuss he has ensured that the comment receives the widest possible currency. If had not been so pompous and precious nobody would have sen the commnet.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Hey, anonymous idiot that posted April 15 at 1:19PM. You don't need proof to have an opinion. Sick and tired of fucking fascists in this country running wild and abusing their position and power to swell their egos.

    Jax, don't let anything discourage you. You have exposed yet another moron at the ACC. Another moron working for the government. Overpaid, and over-spoiled. Destroy that arsehole.

    Jensen, come after me too you idiot. I can tell you are incompetent - you have proven that because you have taken offense to a negative opinion about you. And in my experience, only incompetent idiots do that. You are the epitome of everything wrong with NZ. I hope you lose your job and are unable to find another one. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Jax, you have got yourself in one awful mess, you should apologise and back down, this will hurt you both.

    ReplyDelete
  94. So, if he takes you to court does he have to prove he isn't an incompetant prick? Or just the lower threshhold - that he isn't a 'Completely' incompetant. What if the court finds him to be incompetant but not a prick? or vice versa?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Suggest you make a full copy of your blog just in case it is terminated / wiped by the legal wires through A) Court order B) Internet Provider C)'Accidental' loss of connection.

    ReplyDelete
  96. To Anonymous April 15 7:23 pm:

    Why should Jax "back down" and apologize? Jansen is using bully boy tactics which makes him a coward and a weakling as well as an unprofessional medical advisor.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Aaron says: My god!! I get so frustrated with people who automatically take the side of the victim. I also want to say that I know there are many people that legitimately need the help and are trying their best to get on with life. If ten years of sessions with a counsellor haven't helped you move past your issues then maybe it is time to try something else. How much do advocates make from getting acc to fork out cash- $20 a week retainer + $400 for every reveiw they lodge whatever the outcome? How much do counsellors get paid, and don't they charge a top up fee on top of that maybe $60 per session? only to make no difference to a persons life after 10 years... i figure $100+ per session, 40 sessions per year, ten years so 40K?? and that is just 1 person. No wonder my acc preiums keep going up and no wonder ACC tried to stop unlimited counsellor sessions without getting some sort of idea on the best course of treatment i.e. find the best way to help someone rather than just forking out millions per year while not actually helping the victims. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that I think are influenced by their counsellor/advocate to push for more 'treatment' when the only person who is benefitting is the counsellor/advocate... on top of that how much does acc pay out to people for things like this in weekly payments or lump sums? I know people that have been a victim of sexual abuse and rather than bludging the system they get on with their life, get a job, learn to value themselves and teach their kids that no matter what happens you can always make your life better rather than waiting for someone else to do it all for you. As far as this doctor guy goes is he the one that abused you? It sounds to me that ACC as opposed to this particular doctor is trying to make sure that people get the best treatment while not costing taxpayers too much money especially when 10 years haven't resolved the issues. Sounds reasonable to me. Personally I think ACC should be scrapped anyway so go National... see how a private insurer would treat people!

    ReplyDelete
  98. Dr Rosalene BradburyApril 15, 2011 at 8:08 PM

    Hi Jax
    So SORRY to hear what you have been through. Keep going, many many people, people you might not imagine, support you. The real problem is political - my guess is that ACC is being treated as an insurance company prior to setting it up for sale, and sexual abuse victims cost too much to the bottom line to make it look like an attractive option to prospective buyers! That said in my guestimate the staff in question were just doing their jobs - poor guys! Indeed they are likely to be honourable people. Blame the policy they have to work with.

    On a quite unrelated tack, do check out Antony's opinion of Brutus in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar Act 3. Scene II.

    ReplyDelete
  99. extract from ACC News (Sept 2009)
    "Our expectation is that the Pathways will be
    continually reviewed to ensure we implement
    evidence-based best practice in line with
    ACC’s commitment to continuous
    improvement. If you have any questions,
    please contact Dr Peter Jansen at
    Peter.Jansen@acc.co.nz.
    "

    ReplyDelete
  100. Hi Jax,

    I also have a life story to tell:

    Go to:
    http://www.angelfire.com/sk/abuse/index.html

    This is my true life story. I haven't been sued for telling it as yet. I would like to see them try those bully tactics with me!

    I look forward to seeing Jansen's legal suit turn to custard - along with his reputation. And with the application of basic common sense, that outcome is inevitable.

    Kudos.

    ReplyDelete
  101. jax you rock.
    Funny whitty and the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Aaron,

    Get a life!!!

    It has taken me at least 50 years and I still suffer from the effects of my childhood sexual abuse. Take your message to a paedophile blog site where, no doubt you will receive a rapturous applause for your ridiculous comments!!!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Seems to me he should be suing himself as you were only exercising your right to an opinion - it is Peter Jansen himself who has confirmed that opinion!

    ReplyDelete
  104. Damn it seems that he is still after Jax. Best the rest of us be ready to provide evidence of what goes on at ACC SCU. I personally have heaps of evidence on them. If he keeps going after Jax we have to swarm in her defence. This is about all of us. Jax we need direction on who we contact to help provide proof. He wants some well lets give it to him.

    ReplyDelete
  105. U are lucky its gone political. You are probably safe now.

    Learn from this - you should not insult other people through your blog or any other way! You have no right to do so. If you are agrieved, you have to take the issue up through normal channels.

    You can complain about ACC or the government but you really shouldn't go personal against anyone (other than politicians - perhaps). That person you insult has a right to defend themselves, and will take you to court. You will not win the case, sorry.

    Would you write something insulting about a neighbour who has done something you don't agree with? What if they do the same about you? Or even worse.

    The doctor has one way to fight, and its through the courts. He can't insult you: he is not allowed to do so!

    ReplyDelete
  106. Wow Anonymous...you've got no guts and clearly you've got connections to the doctor involved.

    The problem with people like Dr Jansen is they never actually have to face their victims. Their victims are the people who they've been commissioned to help but don't for any number of reasons - most of which are to do with money.

    No, they never have to be there when your life is crumbling around you and you're slowly falling into a big black hole. They never have to be there when you just can't cope anymore. The one thing they should have been doing was to be there when you asked for professional help but they can't be bothered cos they don't understand and it's not important enough for them to try. BUT clearly what they can do is spend more money hiring lawyers to fuck you over, when you get upset about it all, than it would have cost to treat you in the first place. Well that takes no effort at all does it. Now there's a false economy. Or is it?

    I wonder if there's a big fat bonus at the end of the year for saving money in that department aye?

    In fact ACC is no longer serving its original purpose now is it? As I understand it, it was created to help NZ citizens and to avoid them having to sue people for compensation and medical costs. Now it seems its there to create profit in the insurance industry. It's costing the NZ people a great deal of money very a very poor service indeed. It's a have and its gotta go.

    ReplyDelete
  107. It never ceases to amaze me how some pumped up bureaucrat with a few letters after their name have their heads shoved up their arse so far that they have lost touch with reality. Perhaps you should counter sue for the mental anguish and damages caused by ACC not providing you with the counselling they have already deemed that you need.

    Personally I think that ACC has got their attitude towards sexual abuse victims 100% wrong. They should shut the fuck up and just provide the counselling for those who need it. Problem is that they (ACC) seem to be more concerned about cutting costs by not providing these services than helping the victims of these heinous crimes.

    The sad thing is that these victims are still being abused - this time by ACC....

    If they (ACC) had any balls they should make the bastards who abused these victims pay for all the counselling the victims ever need.

    As for my opinion on this Peter Jansen - sounds like he is suffering from an extra bad case of head up the arse (of course this is just my opinion). My advice on how to rectify this is to do what he was paid to do or get out. All he is successfully doing is adding undue stress to someone who has suffered enough during their life. It is ACC's job to help these people - not victimise them.

    Shame of Peter Jansen for his actions on many levels - especially by abusing the privacy act.

    100% behind you.

    ReplyDelete
  108. There are a number of defenses for defamation. I know, I set up a website against a private school whose owners work-placed bullied the principal who was a close friend of mine. I had expensive Queen Street Lawyers after me. They closed my website down twice (cease and desist orders I think they call them) on the basis that the publisher of defamitory material is jointly liable – so the threat to the ISP was enough – like how do they know it is defamatory without going through the Court process themselves? - and they are only getting $10 a month to host the site. Now that is an abuse of the legal system. Anyway, once it was hosted in Manila, they went quiet and gave up, but it must have cost them thousands in legal fees haha.. The bottom line is that what you say must be true and it must be of public interest. Another defense which can bring about a result is to inform the person you are going to make a public comment about, what it is you are going to say, and invite them to tell you what bits are wrong – that should get them blowing hot and cold. I think it is of great public interest when we have people such as Peter Jansen apparently acting poorly in their professional capacity. All such people who deal with the public on very sensitive matters should be open to balanced public scrutiny – we all should know what sort of people we are dealing with. I think a complaint to his “professional” body should also be made. Sure the club will all band together to protect him, but it would add more to potential publicity and will drag his professional body into the fore when they say what a jolly good chap his is!!! I currently have complaints outstanding against the Forensic Psychiatric Service in Auckland and the Northland DBH. I know how their games work and I shall be doing my best to expose their short-coming of which there are many. Good luck to all you who have to deal with such people as Peter Jansen. I have been taking a friend to my meetings and I had been considering recording all my meetings. I realise I should have been doing this earlier, and all my future meetings will be recorded. If there is a refusal to have the meetings recorded, then that will be the subject of an official complaint.... I know it is hard not to get emotional about such sensitive issues, but it is really important to think clearly if you want to being about a result, that is either to bring someone to account or to make positive moves in ourselves. Miles

    ReplyDelete
  109. This is quite the situation and all of us need to ponder on how we can provide practical support to the woman who has put herself on the line. If Jax loses or if she is forced to back down we all lose period. With this in mind I call on all who would stand up and fight to come forward and support our Sister. We need to be organised, focused and effective. Many of us have evidence of what really goes on at the SCU and this evidence needs to be gathered and prepared in a way that allows us to fight alongside Jax. I for one will not leave our Sister to fight this thing alone. It is time that we demonstrate that we will not put up with this crap anymore and that we have long sharp teeth. I say that we declare Total War on an enemy that has hurt so many of us for so long. Let us fight and let us fight well and show these people for once and for all who they are messing with.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Aaron's reposnse to anonymous comments-
    I'm not sure what a paedophile blog has to do with anything. Maybe victims could sue the paedophile and get them to pay for treatment... sounds like a reasonable idea.
    The point I am making is that if 10 years of treatment isn't working then try something else as the only person who benefited is the counsellor or psycologist.
    If someone had a back injury and 10 years of treatment wasn't working(or 6 months for that matter) then yeah I reckon ACC should be able to make alternative treatment arrangements. Remember that guy that was on ACC for years with a back injury that was filmed carrying rocks around etc? How much money was spent on him and how much paid to doctos and advocates to ensure he could milk the system.
    One problem with NZ is that many people expect others to sort their problems out, but they could do a lot for themselves if they wanted to- this is a general comment and not aimed specifically at any person in the blog. Shit happens and sometimes you've just got to move on... other times you can't and you need some help so lets make sure you get the RIGHT help. Unfortunately the govt foots the bill for dole, dpb, acc, sickness benefit etc and that means the tax payer.
    As a tax payer I say get rid of acc and make it private insurance. Target long term bludgers and cut their benefits. Take all that money that is saved and put it in hospitals etc... and then the hospitals could maybe provide all the services and treat people independantly where they are not counting how much money they will get from ACC.
    Unfortunately I can't see any government doing this any time soon as all polititians are self serving and their number 1 priority is getting re-elected, so they try to keep everyone happy and foot the bill which means people with jobs, people that want to make a go of life end up supporting people that maybe don't have the same desire to do something with ther life.

    Jax- I hope things go well for you. My comments are on the situation in general and not targeted to you, however I would say that the policies come from higher up that this Dr Jansen.. maybe not fair to have a go at him personally. That horse has bolted so nothing to be done... if he didn't bite then only 15 people in the whole world would know so unfortunate for him that he did bite, but at last it gets people talking about the wider issues.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I have a good idea to appease all those objecting to sexual abuse victims needing to suck off the taxpayer tit for counseling.

    ALL THOSE DIRTY MEN WHO CAN'T KEEP THEIR PENIS IN THEIR PANTS, WHO PRAY ON DEFENSELESS CHILDREN AND WOMEN, TAKE UP BLOODY MACRAME, OR KNITTING TO FILL YOUR DAYS WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T DAMAGE THOSE YOU PREY ON, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
    YOU....................... ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THE VICTIMS OF YOUR SEXUAL DEVIANCY. YOU ARE THE FILTHY SCUM, LOWEST OF THE LOW. HOW DARE YOU TAKE AWAY THE PRODUCTIVE LIVES OF SO MANY AND LEAVE THEM A LIFETIME OF TORTURE.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Nigel again: I made a mistake getting involved here - to assume that logic would prevail on this blogsite, but there is all too much hysterical claptrap to make it worthwhile. We all need to aware of the maxim "A lie can be halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on" Statements that Dr J probably brown-nosed his way to the top are of no value if the person saying it has no proof. I had no proof that he had done good, but he is a Distinguised Fellow dah-dah-dah. You don't get that far without having some skills and good qualities. Someone says Jax is a victim of Dr J. She is a victim of sexual abuse no doubt, but in this issue it could well be that Dr J, as a recipient of her abuse, is the victim here. That would be the job of a defamation case jury to judge. Jax has said on TV that she is unhappy with what Dr J has put her through in the last 24 hours. I was waiting for her to be asked whether she had the self awareness to realise that these things work both ways, but it didn't happen. What has happened is this - someone has said something about someone else that may or may not be true. The recipient has regarded it as defamatory and may sue if the comments are not taken down. That is the usual sensible next step for a person who feels they have been defamed. Because a defamation claim is very hard to win in NZ the point of threatening to sue is in some ways a bluff to have comments withdrawn and then a settlement out of court. I don't know what else one would expect Dr J to do. I don't know why Jax doesn't realise that that is what the game is. But no, now she is a victim again. She needs to either withdraw and apologise or to stand her ground and put up the defence that the comments are true and fair (showing proof) or that they are fair comment. I don't want anyone claiming that I am defending Dr J or attacking Jax. I hope I am talking common sense. This is my last comment ("For this relief, much thanks" some may say) You can say what you like about me now I have gone. One correction - I said "bluggers" (a weak attempt at humour - sorry. My Dickensian outlook has never permitted me to use the word "bludger"

    ReplyDelete
  113. Dr Jansen -

    I pay your wages, and I am not happy with your performance, that gives me to right to comment about you when I see you not giving me value for my money. You seem to forget this. You need to start showing some respect and gratitude, and you need to do it quick, because soon there is another way to make sure incompetent bullies like you don't win - I may seem insignificant to you as a poster on Jax's blog, but come November, I get to place a vote, and right now, it will go to the party that promises you, and all of your incompetent collegues, lose the power to inflict your particular kind of mental torment on your clients.

    You are more than a prick, you are a special kind of prick, because you have a sign on your door that implies, you should know better.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Nigel, after all that has been said on here, and other forums by people who have also been effected by the incompetent management and actions of Dr Peter Jensen, you bother to suggest she has no defence? She has given plenty of information to suggest her opinion was justified.

    Others have given plenty of indication that they too, believe her comment was justificed.

    Do not forget, this person is not a private businessman, he is paid by the state, and therefore, accountable to us all, we have a right to complain if he is not doing his job in an inefficient and appropriate manner. When our complaints to ACC Complaints department fall on deaf ears, we have the right to make those complaints and our opinions public.

    ReplyDelete
  115. You lot are a tedious burden on the taxpayer - better you all got a boat and left our country to those who want to work and do not want to whine like a lot of bitches on heat - now sue me !!!

    ReplyDelete
  116. To Anonymous April 15 2.51am - I've never been a bureaucrat, but I have more than a few letters after my name which took me 22 years of hard slog to get. As a result I know a bit about a bit and am well aware that I still have a lot to learn. You on the other hand appear to be an expert on how far up various orifices educated peoples' heads are. You have some training in this area do you? Remember the saying "If you think education costs, have you tried ignorance?"

    ReplyDelete
  117. Aaron and Nigel,
    You are no doubt secure in your view that the things that happened to us would never happen to you. However when it comes to ACC you are actually only a car accident or a fall away from discovering that General Claimants are also being unfairly treated. If the day comes when you are in constant pain and unable to work and you find the entitlements you are entitled to under law are taken from you by ACC’s corrupt processes then remember your words of wisdom here. The cost of funding Counselling for ten years would amount to $40000 which is probably the cost of a single knee reconstruction for a Rugby player who went on the field by choice. Perhaps you would like to talk about the cost of alcohol related harm that costs the country billions a year. After all that is what really adds to the cost of your precious levies.
    As far as suing the Paedophiles is concerned the law prevents us from doing so. Even so if your grand vision was invoked perhaps you would be satisfied to see the offender’s families lose their homes thus adding more victims to the pile. Would that satisfy you? Perhaps you would like to see compulsory trials before compensation which would cost over $100000 per trial added to the taxpayers tab. Then add the cost of legal aid to for the Civil trial that would follow so add another $100000. The current system allows the country to try and respond to this vexed issue relatively cheaply. Your approach costs the country $200000 per victim before we even get started. That’s why this system is in place. It’s cheap. It’s not because people feel really sorry for us.
    The reason why treatment goes on for years is because the ramifications of the original events go on for years. You have noticed of course Jax is currently pursuing whoever it was that put her in this position through the courts. I would assume that even the meanest intelligence could reason she may need some help with dealing with this. You really don’t know what you are talking about. I hope you never have to learn the hard way.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Nigel... have been following your comments with interest... Thanks for your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  119. And in answer to your dilemma....this is just the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  120. LUPINE - I agree, we need to make sure Jax doesn't lose, because if she does, we all do and more importantly the truth needs to be known, then people like Dr Jansen can't hide behind their fancy titles and continue to cause harm.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Lupine - you must be talking to another Nigel. In my blogs I have said nothing about ACC. I remember the days before it existed - not good. Justice Woodhouse deserves an award for its creation (I'm sure he got one) But in recent decades various governments have been trimming the ACC budget whilst medical costs have soared. So the situation as you describe it above has come about. We are all put at more risk as you say. I agree with you entirely. My blogs have been about an issue involving a public servant who as a rule would be restricted by his contract and convention from fighting back. All complaints about ACC should go to the government. Make sure you take proof though if you allege corruption rather than just budget constraints. It is kind of important to do that if you want to be taken seriously. Please please, don't manufacture an argument with me when none exist. Yes I know, I said I'd stopped, but I lied.

    ReplyDelete
  122. SO, WHEN DO WE ALL MEET TO GETHER IN WELLINGTON TO PROTEST AND, SUPPORT JAX, AND ALL THE OTHERS WHO HAVVE BEEN ABOUSED BY DR JANSEN, THE SENSITIVE CLAIMS UNIT, DR SMITH...

    LET"S MAKE A DATE TO MOBILISE

    ReplyDelete
  123. Protest in Process... check in with dates and details. TY all. x

    ReplyDelete
  124. So here's an observation - a comment on the process if you will . . . it's long so I'll break it up into a few pieces :-)

    Dr Jansen developed a pathway for sexual abuse survivors to fulfill a government policy intended to privatise ACC. In doing that ACC were able to rationalise a populist, non specialist view of the impact of sexual violence. This view encouraged the NZ public to remain ignorant and prejudiced about the issue of sexual abuse and effects whilst justifying the ultimate redundancy of now over 600 (a majority) of those specialists - all professionals and ACC accredited.

    PJ's authorship of the new pathways corrupted, misrepresented, took out of context . . . something like that, the 'Massey Guidelines' (best practice on sexual abuse counselling in Aotearoa - an internationally respected work); a research paid for by ACC. PJ did the work he was employed to do by his employers: ACC, the National government.

    Psychologists were 'set up' to take on the role left empty by the marginalised/redundant therapists who quit "because to work within the pathways is unethical". Interestingly the college of psychologists and their allied professional bodies generally remain united against the ACC SCU pathways and this view was in turn endorsed by the Independent Review, chaired by Barbara Disley, paid for by ACC, the National government.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Hmmmm . . .

    Everyone impacted: (internationally and) nationally those informed survivors and supporters: their families, friends,counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists, psychiatrists social workers and their professional associations, including many gps and the nurses council of NZ essentially remain united in this view.

    The situation we find ourselves in is a long term social train wreck getting ready to happen... Team this with the increase in living costs and general and child poverty and Aotearoa is starting to look like a pretty scary place, nothing like I ever imagined.

    After 3 decades of sexual abuse counselling the population of Aotearoa was beginning to "get it" that their sexually abused mothers, fathers, grandparents, partners and children don't live in isolation and that the effects of single and multiple occasions of sexual violence have a vast range of impacts - 2.6 billion dollars (2004 Julich) per annum is estimated (yes in NZ) and that's conservative.

    90% of people in our mental health system; the majority of people imprisoned (men and women), suicides and those with substance abuse problems - include cigarettes as well as drugs and alcohol are statistically (Aotearoa, Canada, Australia, Britain and USA - yes the western world has these statistics) are purported to have been sexually abused.

    Peter Jansen is an agent of the state, well qualified. He was employed to create, implement and I guess justify the National government agenda. Another international statistic (Rape Crisis - Auckland) 1 in 4 girls under 16 and 1 in 6 boys under 18 have experienced some form of sexual assault - these are y/our families, partners, parents and friends - Have you ever asked them?

    ReplyDelete
  126. For ACC and the government to explicitly, implicitly or complicitly collude and perpetuate the social discourse of ignorance is dumb! No amount of the minister or Tony Ryall on his behalf burbling on and wringing their hands about "constant concern for sexual abuse victims" will cut it. Everyone who has read, discussed and deeply considered this knows that if they really felt like that the actual Massey Guidelines would have been implemented - Ryall and the ACC minister appear to be telling political fibs!

    Did PJ knowingly decide to become ACC and the National government's Icarus-like poster boy role for this issue? I doubt it. He did appear to believe himself when he performed and compared the impact of sexual abuse with a rugby injury at the first public roll out of his new pathways in Wellington 2009 though. I guess he represented the level of social ignorance held by his employers and their view of how the voting public might view sexual abuse - I don't know . . .

    Just for a moment consider how the population of Christchurch and return service people are socially entitled to their 'right' to the effects of trauma. The trauma of earthquake, a mining disaster or war are public events: the cause and effect are seen and heard.

    Sexual abuse and violence occur in private usually perpetrated by family members or associates, rarely by strangers.

    In the circumstance of an earthquake we are encouraged and can all affirm the impact of that trauma to the survivors, it helps us all.

    But for the survivor of sexual violence the only "observer" of the abuse is the abuser themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Jax represents the people who have been sexually abused in private and continue to be denied in so many ways - socially; and based on the blog here regarding ACC communications and the absence of follow through on them - institutionally. PJ as an agent of the National government and ACC SCU seem in this analysis to represent the denier and denying.

    PJ was employed to "improve the process for ACC SCU and it's claimants" as defined by the government's agenda "with the mandate" of the public vote (J Key). Time will and I suggest is telling the value - human and fiscal - of the scu pathways.

    Do not be fooled into thinking this issue is isolated to Jax and PJ - they represent aspects of the current political psyche in us all. I hope we will see at election time what the outcome is.

    Meanwhile the actual effects of the 'secret domestic violence' need to be explicitly discussed by politicians and their agents rather than sweeping them out of sight, mind and kept in dusty drawers or hard drives in ACC. The 'secret domestic violence is not ok".

    This situation is a part of that overall issue.

    Good fortune Jax.

    Icarus was set up by his father Daedelos: the political agenda and social discourse, on a fast trip to a fantasy of freedom: an inexperienced and enthusiastic but dumb National government, to fast track the ridding of ACC . . .

    You know, ACC Sensitive claims before they made the new pathways changes paid out 2 million dollars for face to face counselling and spent 30 million to administer that!! - well more or less. ACC still pays psychiatrists $2000.00 (an hour to hour and half interview and the time it takes to type that up) to assess SCU claimants - that's how they can tell the public this is not about cost cutting and privatisation. Some clients have many psychiatric assessments especially when the first psychiatrist suggests the survivor may need more therapy! At the pre and current ACC SCU rate of funding to counsel a sexual abuse survivor $2000 would achieve 30 hours of therapy - the majority of survivors need less than this. About 4% of survivors need more - this is in keeping with western world statistics and not peculiar to NZ.

    But further, those counsellors and therapists who continue to work for ACC SCU are not allowed to provide 'counselling or psychotherapy' in the first 16 sessions - they are paid to provide "support" - sort of like what your auntie does when you feel sad. With respect to aunties everywhere this kind of "support" is at best a superficial intervention with no long term effects; especially given that auntie ACC is an agent of the government; and the government has a different agenda entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Jax if dates can be provided as early as possible so as air tickets can be bought at a reasonable price then I would fly up from Dunedin and be involved in any protest action.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Nigel,
    I am glad that we have found some common ground and you strike me as a person of sincerity. I can see the logic in your reasoning in certain areas. Yet people need to understand what we are dealing with here. Peter Jansan is a highly paid influential individual with the ear of the Minister and the backing of a Corporation that is as ruthless as it is corrupt. On the other side we have Jax. Jax is a woman dealing with the Criminal Justice System as well as looking after a child and left bereft of resource and assistance that she is entitled to by law.
    Her only weapon to fight the great bully of our times is her blog which until recent events had a following of 15 people most of whom are struggling with their own situations. When examined in this light it does seem a tad trite that people would take the stance that Jax needs to be careful not to upset Mr Jansan to appease the sensibilities of those who do not understand what it means to be us.
    With this in mind I move to my next point. People believe that we all lay about whining and demanding sympathy. If we fight back we are angry people. If we don’t we are weak people. Well for those people (and I am not including Nigel here) hear this. We don’t care what you think; your false sympathy means less than the steaming mound deposited under my dogs’ tail. Your inability to deal with our reality is your own problem. In your own words, get over it.
    We know that we will never be respected or understood but we are not taking your mindless drivel anymore. If that means we have to deal in a currency which everyone understands then so be it. As the Romans used to say “Let them hate us as long as they fear us.”

    ReplyDelete
  130. We need more than a protest. We need to identify what we want and how to get it. We need to put processes in place with definable outcomes. In short we need a defined purpose. Jax you are our leader. Might I suggest that you choose your lieutenants and consider a method that will allow us to communicate and plan in private. You need to be certain that the people you choose are genuine and effective. Your lieutenants need to be aware that personalities and patch pissing are unhelpful. This is about all of us and none of us dare lose sight of that fact. We are facing a ruthless and well-resourced enemy that can only be bought down if we all work together.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Although it is important to stand up and be counted, I suggest a 'masked' protest. Face masks to emphasise the point that victims of sexual abuse must now hide their identities from ACC for fear of reprecussions should they dare to complain or vent their frustration about the inadequate systm.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Masked...mixed ideas....masked as it continuing the shame, must hide factor, or controlling how much WE reveal?

    ReplyDelete
  133. Jesus Jansen...you are so fucked now! Killed your own reputation. What a looser.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Aaron responds: if acc didn't exist and I was in a car accident then my health insurance would cover medical expenses- I've actually had some claims with my insurance where I have been told that if ACC didn't cover it then insurance would, but for me ACC have always been ok. My income protection insurance would provide me with funds to pay my bills. Sexual abuse is an interesting one in that I don't think you could get private insurance to cover that, and I assume that most abuse happens to kids and they wouldn't have their own insurance, and families that abuse their kids would be unlikely to pay premiums anyway. However funnelling acc premiums (and the benefit money from people who just want to live off the government) into public health could make treatment available to everyone and this treatment would be provided hopefully by people that weren't trying to get a quota filled so they could buy a new BMW- especially if the numbers people are quoting are accuate for paying ACC staff wages and lawyers etc. I'm not sure on the history of ACC but I think that sexual abuse wouldn't have been originally planned to be covered as it's not an accident... the evil buggers that abuse kids should pay and maybe forcing their family to give up their home would be unfair to the family, but maybe take a % of their income when they get out of jail and give it to the victim. Maybe harvest their organs??? In China I believe you can get good money for a kidney?? I'm not sure what all the answers are on how to best cover sexual abuse and luckily for me I have not been a victim myself, but I just don't believe that after 10 years of supposed treatment that hasn't resolved issues that another 10 will. If organising a protest makes you all feel better then go for gold but to all the counsellors and advocates who have been posting I think the only thing that would keep you happy is for the gold mine to remain open. To the victims I would imagine that you actually want to deal with what has happened and get on with your life... don't get sucked in by people who are interested in lining their own pockets... find some way to have a good life and best of luck. If having a protest makes you feel better then good for you, and I agree with an earlier post that said you need to come up with your demands and how things should work... If it's a good idea that is fair to everyone in NZ then I would support it.
    As far as me being secure that it will never happen to me... no I'm not. At my age I would be surprised if anyone would want to sexually abuse me. If it was my kids though then yeah that is a concern but if it happened to my kids then the perpetrator better watch out as I'll be coming round to harvest some organs, and I would do whatever was required to help my kids... get a second job to pay for treatment or whatever. Its just unfortunate that not everyone comes from a family where that sort of support would be available, but it's not the governments or ACCs fault that some people come from shit families and most abuse I understand is done by family / friends of family.The wider issue is how to stop this sort of sexual abuse happening to others... maybe start thinking about that? Solve that problem and it may help with your own? Maybe not...if you have a march on parliament and a protest about not enough being done to stop abuse of kids (lets face it the anti smacking law is a joke)then I will be there too. I'm not going to check this blog any more as it frustrates me almost as much as the dole bludgers, ACC fraudsters,reading about another kid abused or killed nearly every week, and bullshit polititians who only care about being re elected does... nothing will change as there are too many bleeding hearts out there and too many differing opinions on what is the right way to run the country so someone is always going to feel shafted.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Aaron,
    It’s strange that you can be so angry due to your perception of all these people bludging off the system yet if you had been used as someone’s sex toy you would simply move on and get on with it. As for your cliché stance that you would do this and that to the offender if they did anything to your kids I would ask you why would you? Why would it matter? A couple of counselling sessions, a cup of tea and some noble words from you and hey all would be restored and the taxpayer would be free of the burden of it all. The truth of it is Aaron if something did happen to your kids then you would do what everyone else does when confronted with the reality of it all especially if the offender was close to you. You would do nothing to the offender at all. What you would do is make the situation all about you. The victim would then have to carry your ass through the experience. How do I know? That’s what always happens. The sad reality is that somewhere someone like us is sitting really close to you and you won’t even know it. Hell for all you know you could have married someone like us and you would never know. I know so many wives and many more husbands who have no idea who their spouses are at all. When they find out then their little world collapses and all hell breaks loose sometimes 25 to 30 years after the offending took place. You think that our world can’t touch you but you are very wrong. It probably already is. As I said earlier why don’t you target the drunks who add billions of dollars in costs to the scheme? Is it because you like drinking so much yourself? What about all the sport injuries? Is it because you enjoy watching sport so much or indeed playing sport yourself? No it would be far easier to target a group of people who are living in a situation you believe will never touch you. You could see our situation altered to suit your world view without a single sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part. How noble. Also just so you know there are no counsellors or money making advocates here. They are no doubt to busy sailing around the Bay of Islands in their gold plated yachts. Actually the professionals rarely involve themselves in these issues because professionally they can’t. I repeat you have no idea on what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Aaron, you say (quote)"The evil buggers that abuse kids should pay and maybe forcing their family to give up their home would be unfair to the family, but maybe take a % of their income when they get out of jail and give it to the victim."

    Good point. But Section 321 of Accident Compensation Act 2001 gives ACC the power to bring proceedings against any person who may be liable: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM103479.html?search=ts_act_injury+prevention%2c+rehabilitation%2c+and+compensation+act+2001_resel#DLM103479

    Heard of any such cases?

    Also, ACC is charged with injury prevention. Seen any ACC funded TV ads about "sexual abuse if not OK"?

    So you see, we pay levies but how is that money being spent. Once you lodge a claim of any significance you find it is being spent on the likes of the Dr Jansens of this world.

    ReplyDelete
  137. This blog demonstrates that PC cotton wooling and payment of Government funds has led to some serious, serious problems.

    Regarding the link at

    http://www.angelfire.com/sk/abuse/index.html

    I have two observations

    (a) The "abuse" suffered under todays definition would have been suffered by the vast majority of children in school at that time.

    (b) I too have had issues with self multilation, suicidal thoughts etc etc. Many people do. I do not blame it on what was, based on the authors description, a pretty normal childhood.

    and finally, we come to

    (c) If you read the authors notes, from age 5 when the Government paid for the authors education, through to every job the author has taken to every bit of help the author received, it is entirely 100% Government money.

    From beginning to end, the author has been supported by the state the entire time and, as their story concludes, will live out their days in this state.

    This is the real abuse, of the author themselves, and of taxpayers.

    Limitless money has not helped, in this case, it has clearly cultivated a mindset (largely due to idleness probably) of anger and entitlement.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Don't you love the way the comments that don't jump on the bandwagon of abusing one person are just removed and what's left is a bullying schoolyard rant targeting one person showing one side. Jax how fricken old are you in your mind, 12? Are you afraid to have a balance of comments on your blog? Why do you get to hide behind anonymity while you expose another and try to singlehandedly ruin their life and livlihood, one who hasn't had as much weight in ruining yours. Why should you get to hide behind your daughters' skirt while you attack and expose another? Considering your passion for what you think's right, how right is this? You must be a hypocrite.
    Take responsibility for yourself now, it's time to stop being a victim and move forward and let your baggage go. To target one man for the system is childish and not a very mature outlook on things. Perhaps you're not capable or your need to do some emotional maturing. Most people get wronged by something or somebody, that's life. Not all of those people seek to ruin the life of the person who they think wronged them. It's not very big of you.

    ReplyDelete
  139. I love the 'your comment will be visible after approval' that's hilarious. You should rewrite that to say 'your comment will be visible if it meets my (childish) agenda of targeting another human being in an abusive way which could ruin their life, which by the way I am opposed to when that human is me'
    Post your propoganda! So you decide who get's freedom of speech while you ignorantly and inidignantly assert your own right for the same. HA, how's the irony!

    ReplyDelete
  140. The person targeted by this blog deserved the criticism he got. His actions are incompetent, and I say that from my own personal experience with him and ACC. He has proved beyond all doubt he is a prick by the manner in which he is attempting to manipulate and intimidate people.

    I see a thread on Trademe has been deleted in which this topic is discussed. No doubt the pathetic Dr is responsible for that, as his lawyer also represents Fairfax who own trademe.

    Try as you might Dr Jansen, you can't shut us all up. You can't intimidate Google into shutting the blogs down, and you can't remove the right to complain, and believe me, complain we will, and we won't stop until you are done and dusted.

    You're nothing but a bully.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Hello Jax- Do not let them bully you. You have the moral and legal high ground. Given; it is illegal for anyone to access your private information.

    Unauthorized Access by any employee to your private Information held by a Government department(for their own private use and ends) is a Sacking offence! That is Government Policy. (I have had similar wars.)

    They hoped you (and countless others)are going to drop off. This is directly related to Government overspending and mismanagement.

    The Government are still trying to cover their a$$ for overspending $300 Million Dollars and counting. So they are targeting all Benefits, beneficiaries and ACC Claimants to try and put the money back.

    You have the upper hand now. It is right in the Ministers face and in the public domain where its messy and they want it to "Go away"- fast. The National Government do not need bad press.

    Its a bad look for a Government who wants to stay in power. I took my fight to the Minister and the public too- The question for you is- how much are you willing to accept to make this mess go away for them? And it works! lol All the best to you and your daughter. God Bless Phil Randall

    ReplyDelete
  142. Regarding:
    http://www.angelfire.com/sk/abuse/index.html

    The author had a job for the earlier part of life and paid the counselling costs. It was after having to medically retire, resulting from the childhood abuse, that the state had to take the counselling bill. Judging from the comment above, perhaps the author should have commented suicide to save taxpayer’s money.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Ok let’s see here. Jax has experienced events at the hands of another that could potentially result in someone getting a 20 year jail sentence. However those experiences are merely emotional baggage that Jax needs to move on from and get over because she is such an angry person. If only Jax could see that what happened to her does not matter and her life will be magically elevated to happiness. Apparently the real victim here, poor guy is Peter Jansan. The incredibly malignant Jax is ruining his life because gasp shock horror she said something negative about Dear old Dr Jansan on blog which had an original following of about 15 people. How will he ever get over it? I mean he only has a super high salary and connections all the way to the government and highly paid lawyers. How does a guy survive when equipped with such meagre resources. Thankfully it seems that Dr Jansan has a group of supporters who are only too keen to tell others how to deal with their lives. I am sure they are providing comfort to a helpless guy who really isn’t there to support the bottom line of a Corporation. He is there because he cares. What a guy.

    ReplyDelete
  144. more interesting comment here.
    http://nostalgia-nz.blogspot.com/2011/04/unprecedented-event-doctor-peter-jansen.html

    ReplyDelete
  145. Some of the comments made here reflect the heartless society we now live in. New Zealand society has completely lost its soul.

    Those who have been forced out of their jobs through redundancy or suffered childhood abuse and had their lives devastated through no fault of their own are now labelled bludgers. So the following should be implemented by the State:

    Those who have lost their jobs and have to go to WINZ for assistance and abuse victims who have to seek support from ACC – these agencies should now give all of these bludgers a cyanide tablet. Each tablet will only cost a few cents so would be much cheaper than having to dish out the dole, sickness or invalids benefit or pay out for ACC counselling. This will save heaps in taxpayer’s money.

    I am an abuse victim and apparently am a bludger, so I will be willing to accept the tablet and take it. This option would be far better than continuing with the ongoing pain and suffering caused by the childhood abuse and being a burden to the taxpayer.

    Our society is as sick as this posting.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Lupine at 5.31pm you're response is histrionic. Try and take a balanced view. Why should Jax receive anonymity while she gets to target this man and bring down his life?
    At some point, one must move on yes and let go of the things keeping one in the same place without growth so yes take some responsibility for self at some point. You cannot make other people responsibile for your everything in your life. At no point did I say the Dr was the victim but that he should have the same rights as Jax. Anonymity and a right to a successful life. I think you're overly emotional in assessing the situation. You need to take some emotion out of it and use your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Here are more sites devoted to fighting back against the oppressor.

    http://theswampreport.blogspot.com/

    http://www.acclaimotago.org/

    http://accforum.org/forums/

    ReplyDelete
  148. Anonymous,
    Firstly do try and separate Histrionics from Sarcasm. There is an important distinction there. Secondly you have made statements that clearly state that Peter Jansan is a victim of Jax. Do tell those of us who struggle so with our emotional baggage and our Histrionic tendencies in words our feeble intellects can understand what you mean by these comments:
    “Don't you love the way the comments that don't jump on the bandwagon of abusing one person are just removed and what's left is a bullying schoolyard rant targeting one person showing one side.”
    “Why do you get to hide behind anonymity while you expose another and try to singlehandedly ruin their life and livelihood”
    “To target one man for the system is childish and not a very mature outlook on things.”
    “Not all of those people seek to ruin the life of the person who they think wronged them.”
    So assuming that you are the Anonymous who wrote these comments because that’s the post I was aiming at just exactly what do you mean? Now do keep in mind that the English language is rather concise in its meanings. Also of interest is that these comments talk of “ruining lives” and school yard bullying and the targeting of one man. These comments I would suggest are emotive and dare I say “Histrionic”. Perhaps you need to spend some quality time focused on self-assessment and taking responsibility for yourself. After all you clearly don’t understand the meaning of the words you write. Dreadfully limiting I would think.

    ReplyDelete
  149. The way I read it, Jax is remaining anonymous for reasons that have nothing to do with this topic, but to do with the safety of herself and her child due to another matter.

    It is because of the need to remain in hiding, that there are questions how Dr Jansen got her address.

    I am sure Jax would have no problem giving her details, if weren't for safety matters, so to criticise her for protecting herself and her child in such a manner is not fair.

    It she put her child at risk by revealing their identity, you'd be accusing her of being a bad mother. Fact is, she can't win with some of you at the moment because maybe you're fearing your own integrity could become the subject of a blog.

    The Dr concerned has the responsibility to those that pay his ways to do his job efficiently, and if he doesn't, he deserves to receive criticism for it.
    Hiding behind the 'he deserves' title is pathetic. What about accountability, what about responsibility?

    ReplyDelete
  150. Anonymous 7.22 pm your response is cold and calculating. You fail to account for the actual fact pertaining to Jax's anonymity. Other than the reason she is hiding whilst he is revealed.

    Did you forget who revealed himself? Do you really underestimate his intelligence that much, that you think he didn't realise there would be a backlash to his actions?

    I suggest Dr Jansen knew exactly what would happen, which is why he did it. He wanted to make sure there would be a huge reaction, which is why he made the sum involved so obscene. It had to be enough to get attention of everyone, including the media.

    Dr Jansen knew he had the govt by the 'balls'. If the case was private, they couldn't be seen to intervene. By not intervening, they are giving the impression of supporting him, and in doing so, appear to be denying the statements about his incompetency. Thus the government, by proxy, sanctions his position, his actions, his work and his policies.

    Jax is just a pawn in his sick game to put a stop to the ongoing wave of criticism from many ACC clients. IMO his actions are to secure his position and advance his career, with the added benefit of scaring any other client shitless, so they won't dare make public their complaints about him and his methods.

    As whaleoil said on his blog, the dr. forgot the rule NFWAB, but more importantly, he forgot as victims of sexual abuse we are survivors, and as survivors we didn't get there without a fight. We are fighters, and if it's a battle he want's, he's got it.

    ReplyDelete
  151. It is ironic. So many of you are showing hatred for ACC and criticising one of its people but at the same time are showing beyond doubt that you are nowhere qualified to do so. To have a responsible position in any corporation one must have a wide range of skills including sound judgement, reasonable people skills, and the ability to put forward a point of view and to defend it. To approach them or to confront them you need to have the same. If you don't believe me ask any accountant, engineer, marketer, wages officer, food technician, company nurse, etc that you might know. Every time one of you has verbally foamed at the mouth on this blog you have undercut yourself far more than you have ACC or the good doctor. Some of you just don't get it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if it is defamatory or breaks anti-descrimination laws and you spout it in public then you have to wear the consequences. Simple. Be sensible and think about these things before running off at the mouth on this PUBLIC forum. No matter how hurt you feel - think first. Secondly many of you are inviting contempt by feeding the Victim Monster. The victim culture did not not exist much before the 1980s. So I'm guessing that most persons over 40, whilst they will be horrified by the outing of so much child abuse, will also regard many of you as hysterical screamers because of the intemperate way you are pushing your case. Most will have been brought up in the "don't skite, don't winge" days. No doubt many of you will be deeply insulted by this statement - but think about it. How do you expect to succeed in your pleas if you alienate the very people you want to influence - eg politicians, ACC management, district court judges, potential jurers etc. Honestly - you remind me of some psychotic people I have known who without fail blamed the psychiatrists that were treatng them for their woes. "Nothing wrong with me - it is the drugs you are giving me that are ruining my life. The doctors are all conspiring against me." Time to get a grip and express your case sensibly or you will get nowhere. Go back to being angry at the abusers, not the rest of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Groan! I have just seen it. April 14 8.08pm You have called the man a "mental rapist" You must have soup for brains - inventing such silly concepts. Hang on whilst I google "weasel words"

    ReplyDelete
  153. ACC has always enjoyed the advantage of having us divided. We fight ACC as individuals or small groups for the most part and many of us are to light on resource. We need to make clear demands. These demands have to be reasonable, effective and enduring. ACC must not be given the chance to simply wait for attention to go elsewhere. It is the Minister who can make it possible but we should be aware of the fact he faces his own political realities as we face ours. I would suggest the following demands be put to the Minister and the ACC board.
    1) We require ACC to give us access to Advocates in the event of any dispute. This is on the basis the nature of our situation makes it difficult to dispute a claim.
    2) We require ACC to agree and adhere to a negotiated process for processing claims and entitlements.
    3) We require ACC to place on its website a copy of all the Review and Court decisions that ACC has lost.
    4) We require ACC to extract itself from the Clinical Process and allow the Medical Profession to drive that process independently of the insurance process.
    5) We require ACC upon request to provide a letter from a practicing lawyer confirming the decision to decline is bona fide.
    Views and constructive criticism would be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Anonymous 11:45pm said.....
    "The victim culture did not not exist much before the 1980s."

    Child sexual did not exist before the 1980's either. It was all swept under the carpet. As one blogger said about a link further up this page:

    "(b) I too have had issues with self multilation, suicidal thoughts etc etc. Many people do. I do not blame it on what was, based on the authors description, a pretty normal childhood."

    This blogger highlighted the fact that being sexually, psychologically and physically abused in the culture this blogger refers to was considered a "Normal Childhood". Having suicidal thoughts and self-mutilating was a also normal part of that pre 1980's culture.

    ReplyDelete
  155. "Most will have been brought up in the "don't skite, don't winge" days."

    I was also brought up with "don't talk about your childhood problems we don't want to know" days. Put up and shut up was the norm. That is why I could not speak about my childhood sexual abuse and self-harming until much later in life. Before the 1980s it was heyday for paedophiles. There were no paedophiles, just "dirty old men".

    ReplyDelete
  156. Nigel again. Jax, thanks for putting up my Anonymous blog above - "It is ironic" etc. It's a bit harsh and hurtful so thanks for your balanced approach. And my "mental rapist" bit. Now about "don't skite, don't winge" - those were the days when as David Lange once said "New Zealand was run like a Polish shipyard" Wasn't that the truth! It was a controlled, conforming, repressed and tedious society. Yes, cruelty was covered up. But the weather was nice :). But now we have the mess of Post-Modernism where any opinion is as valid as another. But past repression does not justify having a Victim Culture now - any more than the Soviet Socialist Fascist State of old justifies a heartless Russian Mafia state nowadays. Yes, I know, that's a bit OTT. All that control kept the lid on crime and lawlessness a bit, just as modern freedoms are not controlling them as well. We enjoy our freedom - we just need to be aware of the price we pay for it. Another example Victorian London was uncontrolled - and was extremely lawless - conservative Britain of the mid C20th not so much. That's how life is. The old days were good and bad, just like now. A bit of "Don't skite, don't whinge" philosophy now would help though. Turning down the "I'm a victim" noise might mean people will take more notice of the message.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Thank you Nigel and to everyone else who has responded..... I would like to add this: I am a SURVIVOR of sexual abuse. Those who have experienced the same and are alive, are also 'survivors.'

    This statement I have made is not about being a "professional victim" as some may like to claim - such is the nature of Freedom of Speech. It's about refusing to remain labelled as one.

    Having said that, being a survivor doesn't automatically mean one has to be chirpy and upbeat all the time. Gee, sometimes I am such pissed off at things as a woman, a person, a mother, an employee.... not everything I do or feel should be constrained by the label people seem to want to impose on me - a victim.

    This stand (or whatever people want to call it) is about the experience I have endured with ACC AND is not an isolated case. It wouldn't have created such a polarisation within NZ society if it were.

    It's about bullying - someone telling you to shut up, know your place, don't argue - or else!

    There are a lot of incredibly courageous women and men who have written to me over the last week detailing their own "inefficient" experiences with the legal system, ACC, justice in general. They're the real soldiers in all this.

    And it's time.... time to STOP making child sexual abuse the safest crime to commit, the hardest to convict, the least likely to be punished, and the hardest to gain support or counselling for....

    It's time.

    ReplyDelete
  158. I am wondering if it might not be a good idea to argue that Counselling should be provided through the general health system as opposed to ACC. Weekly compensation recipients will be stuck with ACC but if Counselling was run through the general health system then the process would be run by properly motivated Medical Practitioners as opposed to ACC freaks. The irony is that if we succeeded in achieving this then many SCU staff would lose their jobs as they would lose the majority of their victims to pick on. It would also limit the arguments of those people who only understand things if it happens to them. Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Hi Lupine,

    That is a good idea I think. Only I strongly suggest NOT under the mental health system. They do not have a clue how to deal with sexual abuse issues and PTSD. In the past I had experienced terrible service from mental health services and they succeeded in exasperating my PTSD. But I found a private psychologist funded by ACC very beneficial. Perhaps the specialist training that ACC counsellors undergo, could be put under the general health system, separate from the mental health system.

    R.

    ReplyDelete
  160. This is a nice article..
    Its very easy to understand ..
    And this article is using to learn something about it..
    asp.net, c#, javascript
    Thanks a lot..!

    ReplyDelete

For troubleshooting, email: nzreporter@hotmail.com