PROUD TO BE A KIWI

Proud to be a Kiwi?.... It's a good question and the answer is something I have delved in an out of... I was ashamed of NZ throughout the Springbok tour, ashamed  to have to choose between Sport (innocent enough subject) and Politics (always full of shit)... and I went with the former! Go equality! Proud of the protests though! 

But then we became the FIRST COUNTRY to become Anti-Nuclear and man, was that a moment to be proud of... I remember seeing Joe Bloggs on a flutter-board, paddling like shit in front of an American Nuclear Ship and others on boats, arm floaties, freestyle... whatever it took to stop that ship heading off to rape and pillage the Antarctic.... ah, yes, a proud Kiwi moment....Did we win? Damn straight we did!

So yeah, that was then... National economics took over and sure, we fucked up a few times trying to fit into mainstream (secret backhanded anti-anti nuclear policies) and then came the Millennium... all these wonderful Kiwi orientated advertisements promoting our wonderful diverse cultural diversity and growth as a Nation... I actually bought into that shit.

Now?

Now I see TIME AND TIME AGAIN... the shame of New Zealand being tarnished by the hideous crimes against those same kids the represented the new Millennium. In truth, we don't give a shit for our kids. Our Laws are designed to protect those that rape and molest our upcoming Generation, our future Leaders, and as as result of our complacency - our new, incoming prison population...  

You see, in New Zealand.. we like to promote niceties. We like the world to regard us as greener than green. We like all of you (out there) to view us as culturally intertwined, like we've done something uniquely different that you could ever have imagined... (we're super clever like that)... we will even win the Rugby World Cup in the vain hope that you will look past who we, as a Nation, really are...

We're you fooled?

Oh I'm sorry... did you think winning the World Cup (a hideously expense blow to the average Kiwi) wouldn't affect the likes of kids who are abused, beaten, murdered, or raped.. yes, here in the land of the long white cloud?

Did you not know we have thee most highest rate of child abuse in the world or the most lenient penalties known to mankind? Did I distract you from your ever wonderful tinted rose glasses of what New Zealand is like in REALITY?

I loved New Zealand before she was raped by the mainstream of bullshit - when Land meant standing on history overflowing with sincerity, and honour was something that oozed through your toes like mud - a given. A time when life was sacred and children were like seeds - planted into a fertile soil full of self esteem and courage and watered daily by the wisdom of those in a time gone by. We trusted our history, our people that had gone before... 

Now our history is a legacy of those who took advantage... those who blamed anything else other than themselves for what THEY have done. A history of neglect, shame, abuse, and no accountability.

I feel utterly fucking ashamed.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6179499/Girl-5-attacked-in-holiday-park

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6173084/Mum-jailed-for-horrific-abuse

let the kid dance....

Someone posted this on my Facebook page the other day with real unhappy faces, depicting what I can only imagine is sorrowfulness over the little girl who, like in the video, was once wild free and skipping along in life, and now... frozen in time, snapped up in a moment when everything went so horribly wrong.....

I look at this picture and I see a reminder... a reminder that the child within we all thought was so lost is still there and waiting... just waiting... for that time when her older self will come back and reclaim her - reclaim as in let her continue to dance. 

In my mind's eye, this is a beautiful moment. The music is wonderful. The moment is captured. Listen now for the footsteps back into who we once were. 

Then..... let the kid within dance!

For Emma

Emma is 18 years old. She is as thin as a rake. She's "in da face". She also has thin razor-blade marks on her arms and God knows where else. Her "take no bullshit" façade is something she applies as readily as those who wear make-up but there is something that makes Emma stand out.... she is a fighter - a strong determined young woman that went against all the advice of everyone she asked.

Emma texted me this afternoon to announce her abuser (who pleaded not guilty and, as a result, forced Emma into testifying in Court) was sentenced to 9.5 years.

On behalf of myself and all the other survivors of child sex abuse, I salute you Emma. Well done babe. More power to you!

Abuse of Name Suppression Law

Name suppression for a former All Black who pleaded guilty to child assault in Court yesterday flies in the face of Parliament's aims.

The former rugby star is the latest in a long line of top sportsmen (and comedians) who have appears in criminal courts and been allowed to keep their indenties secret. A poll on the NZ Herald's website asks: "Do suppression laws in NZ need to be reviewed?" 

• 97% say YES
• 7% say NO

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/child-abuse/news/article.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=10769780

The Shame within NZ

"Each night Ngatikaura Ngati would climb into bed and tell his adoptive mum Kura and dad Finau that he loved them before clasping his little hands in prayer." 

This is the life that this little boy knew and grew to love in his short three years. His birth mother, fearing some benefit fraud by claiming for children not in her care, returned to collect the little man and within nine short weeks, he was dead.

The link below gives graphic details of the systematic abuse he suffered whilst in his birth mother's care - most of which would have been visual to anyone who saw him and yet, no one said a thing. Ngatikaura was brought up speaking Tongan so to be dragged from the only home he knew and plonked into an over-crowded house where he didn't even have a bed and they spoke only vile English, would have been such a cultural shock. No wonder the little man wet himself and for which he received brutal beatings with a softball bat.

The parents (for want of a better word) claim they "didn't mean to do it," but I fail to understand how someone could consistently beat a child with a bat and not think it would cause any harm. Their defence team are highlighting the fact that, whilst he may have been beaten him with a "stick," no one touched his head. Maybe that's because the head is the most visual part of a small body - bruises and swollen limbs can be hidden amongst floppy clothing. 

We in New Zealand were incredulous to the new Bill that made it illegal for parents to physically discipline their children and we were aghast when a father was hauled before the Courts cause he clipped his kid's ear after running out onto the road, but here is a clear example of why such a Law was ever passed - some parents just don't get it.

My next question is why on earth these parents weren't charged with murder and instead, copped a lesser charge of manslaughter. What does it take to murder someone these days? I can bet my bottom dollar that if I went out into the street and clobbered someone with a softball bat (not around the head- mind) and that person later died, I would be definitely face a murder charge!  

The mind boggles at our judicial system.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10439204

NZ Elections today

New Zealand elections today. So, how'd did everyone go - if at all? 

Like so many people standing in a claustrophobic voting booth, I would have been better off pinning 'the tail on a donkey.' Maybe I even did - the candidates all looked like a bunch of asses and everyone claims their shit don't stink. 

But today, of all days, is suppose to be the day us citizens can put things right. We can tick the box that says "this one, this person, they will do it, they will make the changes we all need." In the same nano-second, you're reminded of some back-peddling they did on some previous policy or some "no comment" when Journalists chased them down on some issue. 

This is the person I want to vote for:

• Someone who will put a stop to millions being spent on insane studies (Nearly a million for pornography research)
• Someone who will look at the insane justice system (convicted sex offenders get free, unlimited, counselling, while victims are restricted to 4 measly hours)
• Someone who will not even consider giving hand outs to finance companies cause they screwed up
• Someone who will implement a Bill that says those that do rip hard working people off, cannot keep their own million dollar houses while those that invested have to downscale
• Someone who will see the value in a child - free education should be just that (free)
• Someone who will lift NZ's children off that poverty line that puts us in the top 3 worldwide as useless shits
• Someone who will take a real look at the judicial system that rewards perps with "good behaviour" while in incarceration. Why not let a "sentence" be a bloody sentence?
• Someone who will look into why Government department employees can access company facilities to sue clients, then hide behind the fact they are suing as an individual in their own right 
• Someone who doesn't think a business trip means putting booze, porn, and prostitutes on the tax payers account

The thing is, I can't find anyone on my voting paper that can cover even one of those issues. They are as corrupt as each other. May as well vote for the one whose honest enough about who he is...

ACC: Sends Sensitive Claimant file to strangers

After demanding an IT sweep of her file, an ACC claimant was told her file was "inadvertently released" to three organisations: Waikeria Prison, Gore Medical Centre, and the Auckland Family Doctors.

"ACC Sensitive Claims Unit regrets to advise you that when the emails were being scanned and watermarked, a technical error arose which resulted in the documents being faxed to three fax numbers held in the memory of the multi function device."

The claimant, an ACC Sensitive Claims client, has grown increasingly concerned about privacy issues within the organisation and rightly so - in the two months it took to have her IT sweep request actioned, ACC managed to send it (via fax) to just about everyone else but her! 

ACC responded by saying it was a "random technical error" and that it had "never happened before." Yet, as the claimant points out, if ACC only found out about this "random error" because one of the unintended recipients contacted them, how do they know it has never happened before? 

More worrisome, is why it took ACC two months to notify the claimant about this total breech of privacy and would they even have bothered if she'd not been writing to them consistently asking for a record of who has is accessing her information?

For now, ACC are conducting one of their infamously time-wasting troubleshooting investigations and keeping everyone up to speed on their ... um... progress.

"Thank you for your email. Unfortunately at this point in time, I am unable to provide you with a timeframe as to when ACC will be in a position to fully respond to the questions you have raised."

Another claimant seems to have an uncanny skill at interpreting letters such as this and I, for one, think she has hit the nail on the head:

"[ACC] Her email may as well have said... at this particular time I have to tell you to go suck eggs whilst we do our best to cover our asses, pass the buck, and just hope you will become so frustrated, you'll go away."

Opinion:

I find it abhorrent that this is the same organisation that filed a $250,000 defamation lawsuit against me for daring to call them "Incompetent." I also don't believe in coincidences either. This claimant is also my ACC advocate - the woman who has been relentlessly sending letters to the Privacy Commission and the Ombudsman for the breech of privacy in my own case.  How uncanny is that?

  

ACC: Sexual Abuse Claimants -Nothing but a PAIN IN THE ASS

You god damn pesky bloody sexual abuse claimants! 

Don't you realise how much of a pain in the ass you lot are?  We, at ACC, are a business. God damn it! We're an Insurance Company. That means, we get people to pay us money in the hope they never have to pay you! Now, look... we've been doing very well, thank you very much, getting all sorts of NZ companies paying us shit loads just in case some dick falls over his ladder and brakes his ankle, claiming the boss was a tosser and neglected basic safety regulations or some misguided midget takes an occupation at ......anything.... that's not the point.... we still got his tiny ass covered too! And, thank God for that! 

But we, at ACC, are getting mighty pissed off with you SCU BLUDGERS!

Look, we have lined our pockets on the proviso that no crap can slip through our cracks and, quite frankly, we don't give a shit what has slipped through yours! Sure, some hard nosed lesbians took to the streets some time back demanding crap - we forget what, was on the News but whatever... and yeah, then there was that butch blogger who thought she was a smart shit to talk crap about our Dr Peter Jansen.. yeah, then he sued her (HAHA) and then... yeah anyway, Jansen pulled out cause.. cause.. cause he don't like shit OKAY!

Look, the point is... we are sick and tired of you lot... we've had to BEND OVER backwards cause you dicks asked for US to be investigated... yeah right, for what? ... Falsifying some top notch University study? Look, we took what we needed (for your benefit) from that "Massey University" study and applied the god damn theory.... 16 hours counselling, no questions asked..... and no, we don't give a rat's ass what the other 99% of that report said or the fact that, what we did take, was way out of context, cause, we're a fucking business okay and we do what we god damn well want to and when you got people like, Nick Smith, in your back pocket... you people are shit, you got nada, nothing, no where to go, no where to run... and even if (LOL) you actually DID have something valid, like something ethical or moral like... we still won't give a shit cause it's election time and a whole new bunch of assholes will be employed with the same hope of climbing the corporate ladder.. in the meantime SCU dickshits...we will be so high up that ladder (just like Jesus Jansen) that even our shit won't stink!

Oh crap... did someone record that conversation?.. FFS, that was private, in a coffee bar.... whew!..... I'll just make a phone call... despite the police being "quiet" and no more new recruits in the foreseeable future... we'll just get a few dozen to put an injunction on that conversation and ... BOB'S YA UNCLE!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE..... POLITICIAN!

Dear Dickhead (aka, above post)


So you think we (sexual abuse survivors) are nothing more than ... times wasters yeah, nothing better to do with our lives than to make yours a misery, clambering over rights once had and now taken away and.. we should NOW be ever so grateful that you expect a full recovery from sexual abuse in a mere 16 counselling sessions... You have to be kidding me right? FFS, even YOU don't think that's feasible... how else could you possible explain, shafting even the 16 hours into a mere frigging four?????


http://www.acc.co.nz/search-results/index.htm?ssUserText=ACC5934a

SUMMARY OF ABOVE LINK:

Initial Support Sessions (4)

The first four hours of support are pre-approved and you can start these straight away without a purchase order number.

The first four hours of support need to be completed within 8 weeks and you need to submit the ACC5934a ‘Support Sessions Plan’ at the conclusion of these sessions. The plan is a brief report and can now be downloaded from www.acc.co.nz by entering ACC5934a into the search function.

Some clients may choose to withdraw from the process after the initial four sessions. 

GEE YA THINK? 

ACC Reading between the lines...

Received a reply from ACC. A letter that has so much blacked out data that what's left is bullshit. If anyone knows how to upload an email PDF attachment, I will put download the 'report' on here for all to see.. not that there is much to see - it's all black and white, literally 

Man or Mouse - squeak up Jansen

August 12th: I sent yet another request to ACC asking how Dr Peter Jansen  managed to locate me whilst under a Police Witness Protection Plan for a historic sexual abuse, just so he could try and sue me for $250,000 for defamation. 

I don't know, it just seemed ironic that ACC seemed to be struggling with my meager request for counselling, closing down my file without me knowing, and writing me off - so to speak - but can manage to maintain enough details about me to sue me cause I may (and as it turned out, rightfully) insulted an employee of theirs (Dr Peter Jansen) by calling him an "incompetent prick". 

Well today, we got the latest "sweep" of all those internal emails ACC people like to send to each other and one, in particular, caught my eye: 

From (Blanked out) to (blanked out) 22 June 2011:

"I am alerting you to the response as there is one email that may pose some risk to ACC ...[...].. there is an email to Peter of May 2010 which alerts him to Miss XXXXX (aka me) being a current client and at the very end of the email, below the disclaimer, is her blog address. She may wish to make something of this, as at first glance it appears to contradict ACC and Peter's position that he did not know 'K1w1jax' was an ACC client..."

Gee, ya think? This is what we have all thought and knew all along. Just for the record, when Peter Jansen pulled his case the day we we entered our defense, his media release was: 

"As k1w1jax was a pseudonym, I did not and could not know that she was an ACC claimant for a mental injury at the time she was making defamatory comments about me on her blog..."

What a load of bull Jansen.... and my response? 

(Team Manager Government Services, ACC)

Firstly, you have my permission to show this email to whoever you wish.

I, in turn, will be forwarding the attachments onto my advocate team for advice. 

I am asking their assistance in this matter because I simply am NOT getting any facts or reassurance from ACC. Other Governmental departments have been cooperative in my requests - WINZ/IRD etc. The fact that I am not allowed to know "things" about "me" is unacceptable. Just whose breech of privacy does ACC think they are protecting again? I suspect it's their own staff members and, quite frankly, that is not what the Law is designed to do and I intend to pursue this matter further. 

For example, I totally agree that anyone else, other than the person who tried to sue me, ought to have their privacy protected. So, where are the emails, correspondence, access to my file that are directly related to Dr Jansen? I am not interested in an all out ACC witch hunt. I simply want to know how he found me whilst under a witness protection programme - one the Police are even fathomed to understand - and the only one common denominator is the email exchanges between myself and Jansen. Of course he won't admit this cause it will contradict his media release but it's a lie nonetheless - or is it? He's not saying. He's being a coward and hiding behind the shirt-tails of some "confidentiality" clause. Unacceptable. 

I understand that there was an excessive amount of access to my personal file this year - odd, considering my file has been closed (unbeknownst to me) an entire year beforehand but I do not accept that an IT clerk having access for example, is the promise of "sensitivity" ACC stand by when they formulate under the banner of the "Sensitive Claims Unit". There is clearly a breech and a measurable amount of gross negligence on my "so called" SCU file.    

I would like it noted that I have not received any contact from Selena whatsoever.

I would also like it noted that Dr Jansen cannot hide behind a "client confidentiality" clause in simply replying to how he accessed my personal information - a request that came from Lisa MXXXXX - because ACC were given my explicit consent for him to do so. This is merely a bureaucratic stalling technique which I have no time for. 

In closing, I would like to add that, yes, ACC  should be worried about the email I sent Jansen in May 2010 which clearly indicated who I was and not only that, but his reply. I do not accept the pitiful excuse that no one looks at the information at the bottom of an email and also that he was receiving so many a day and therefore, might not have joined the dots so to speak. Jansen was hunting me down from December - four months prior to being served with his defamation case. His own Lawyer confirmed this. 

In short: My blog infuriated him. My email (to him) stuck out for that sole purpose. He acknowledged it. He responded to it. He knew who I was and he responded to the information I (inadvertently gave him as an ACC employer) and sued me, and he used his ACC resources to do so. It does not get any simpler than that and now, ACC are using tax paid resources to cover this up.

Now, I would like ACC to think in real simple terms, as detailed above, and give me the answers I legally and rightfully deserve. If it's good enough to cover for Dr Peter Jansen, it's good enough to answer the questions brought by me about him. You can't have it both ways. 

In closing, I totally agree that Jansen should reply to me, after all, he sued me as private citizen yeah? Even his "blanked out" colleagues think he should - so, in short, why hasn't he? Why is getting them to do his dirty work?

So what now... "a thousand miles starts with a single footstep - and I'm not tired."

Flash haka, alright

Tonight someone sent me the link for a a flash haka. 


I was literally brought to tears - such is the "mana" of these men. I'd willingly follow them into the throws of some 'war', I'd stamp my feet, thrash my hips, and damn well make someone eyeball my poi poi if needed. 


Not that women need male leaders but it says something when a woman can be brought to tears over the sight of male unity. It is such an awesome sight and we need more if it. 


I just wish it took more than a ball and 15 men fighting possession over it.  

"Hands on Dad" gets off Sexual Abuse Conviction

So let me see if I have this straight: A man comes home pissed, flops into bed with his wife. His four-year-old child crawls into bed with them. He claims to be completely incoherent. So much so, he pulls her nappy down and sexually assaults her. Wife wakes up and rightly asks WTF he thinks he is doing. 

His response? "I thought it was you."

If I was the Kid's lawyer, I'd want to ask him these questions: 

1. Does your wife frequently wear nappies to bed? 
2. If you were incoherent enough to not know it was your child, then how do you explain being coherent enough to know it was a nappy in the first place?
3. How tall is your wife? In other words, she's not a midget right, not someone who may have shrunk a tad in the hours after your 2009 Christmas party?

If I was the NZ public - oh hang on, I am - I'd want to ask the Judge Cunningham this:

1. Since when is "being funny" a reasonable defense to child sex abuse? 
2. Why let this child abuser go free just because he is a "talented New Zealander. He makes people laugh. Laughter is an incredible medicine and we need lots of it." Wrong! What we need Judge is a ZERO TOLERANCE towards child abuse of any kind.
3. What experience does she have of the long term effects of child abuse especially as she justifies her 'no conviction' status on the basis that "the consequences of a conviction would outweigh the gravity of the offence." 
4. Don't you think you demonstrate your complete naivety about the effects of child sex abuse by being swayed by the police interview whereby the child wants to "see and be with her father again"? What did you expect the four year-old to say? String him up?
5. Why did you not take into consideration the police and Crown recommendation which was "while we were not asking for a prison sentence, a discharge without conviction was not in the ballpark and, in fact "it entirely undercuts the deterrent aspect. There is effectively no sentence."

To the mother of the child, I'd like to say this:

1. Good on you for reporting him despite what your heart may have been telling you to do. That takes balls and I respect you for that.
2. Slightly tacky to say the offender was "...loving and hands on." It's kind of what got him in trouble in the first place.  

Rightly so, a growing group of Organisations condemn the Judge's decision including Barnados, The Sensible Sentencing Trust (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1322014543), Auckland Sexual Abuse Help, ECPAT Child Alert, and NARK.


Links to the story:

Pleads Guilty to Sexual Assault but judge lets him off
A sexual abuse expert has criticised a judge who allowed a comedian to walk free from sex charges against his 4-year-old daughter, in part because he "makes people laugh
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5566242/Kids-charity-dismayed-at-comedian-verdict

ACC Saga -In Pursuit of Truth

Someone once told me that you can eat an elephant one mouthful at a time. I'm using this analogy for the likes of ACC. It's an analogy folks, not an accusation - we all know how sensitive those ACC people are but last I heard, analogies weren't illegal or defamatory or ...the list goes on.

So while my requests for information pertaining to me specifically from ACC have resulted in my file being sent (albeit to my workplace and into the hands of my boss), nothing much has resulted in my further requests for details. For example:

1. How is it that my file was closed on September 9, 2010 and yet on the morning that the News broke of Dr Peter Jansen suing me, there was a flurry of ACC people prizing open the contents of my historical sexual abuse file.  
2. On the day the News broke on April 14th 2011 and up to May 20th 2011, there have been 55 separate accesses to my "confidential file." Some as nonchalant as a "Applications Support Analyst from the Business Technology Group" and an "Audit Manager from the Information Technology Department."  
3. The News reported Jansen's legal action after Carmel Sepuloni demanded answers from Hon Tony Ryall (at 3pm) on behalf of ACC Court case brought up in Parliament and yet some "secretary" from the Corporate Office in ACC, accessed my file at 13:40, along with a "Government services senior adviser" at 14:37 - wonder who that could be.
4. I know of one particular "senior adviser" who would have had a vested interest in perusing my file. The same one who went onto to claim he had no idea I was a ACC client of his despite an email being sent to him from another ACC adviser stating: Are you aware she is an ACC sexual abuse claimant. Silly fools forgot to omit that from my file copy.
5. Another question would be why the Relapse Panel said on April 7th, 2010, that I should continue with my current counselor and yet I received a letter two days later from ACC saying the most appropriate form of treatment at this time was 10 sessions with a Clinical Psychologist and that ACC would refer me - which, as we all know, just didn't happen. What is the purpose of a Relapse Panel if ACC don't even take into account their recommendations? And what of all those emails from not only me but my current counselor asking whether we could, in fact, continue with our sessions? And who, pray tell, vetoed that decision? Anyone want a bet as to who is was?

Yes, so there are more questions now that I have been prying into my own "confidential file" and the latest is an email from Denise Cosgrove:

Hi

Thanks for your request received 12 August 2011.  You’ve asked for the reasons for access to your ACC file during specific times by way of a detailed timeline, an updated printout of those who have accessed your file since your last request, and a complete electronic sweep of personal information which references yourself up to July 2011. 

You’ve also asked for an explanation as to why ACC adopted a specific course of action in respect of your claim file in April 2010.  I’ve arranged for Selena XXXXXXX to address this aspect of your request and to provide an updated copy of your claim file.  

You can expect to hear from Selena shortly.In respect to your other requests, I have arranged for Gabby Boag, ACC’s Privacy Officer to respond to this.  Gabby will respond to you directly by 12 September 2011.  Please call Gabby on XXXXXXXXX if you would like to talk about this part of your request.

Kind regards, Denise

That elephant must be positively thin by now.

September 18th, 2011: I have emailed Denise AGAIN asking her when is going to "do" any of the suggestions above. I have STILL NOT RECEIVED A REPLY nor an answer to my subsequent emails. Is this woman really capable? What is her "word" worth - as meaningless as those apologies I'd say - how hard can it be to simply reply to an email or to keep promises made to clients? Moreover, if it's as hard as it seems to be for poor old Denise, then maybe it's time someone else, more efficient, takes her place - and yes, that is in my HONEST OPINION, based on my personal experience and the facts, as published on this blog - so no, there is no defamation case here Denise.  

The Unruliness of Single Women

You would think in this day and age that attitudes would have changed towards the single woman but they're as archaic as ever. In fact, I think it's getting worse. Strong minded woman are often referred to as butch lesbians who just need Mr Right to come along and convert them - as if that's all it would take. A single woman at a bar is on the hunt and if you throw single parenting into the mix, you're not only on the hunt but completely and utterly irresponsible in your parenting duties as well. I see many men sitting at bars. Not once do I assume their on the hunt - they might be but it just never enters my head. I still reckon a lot of those men are fathers as well. So why aren't they sluts and drop dead dads? 

Why can't a woman have a male friend? Or more to the point, only have a so-called genuine male friend when there is a more permanent male in her private life? Why does that even have to be legitimized? 

And it's not just men who think this, it's women. A single chick at a dinner party has the power to disrupt the equilibrium of boring vanilla talk. It's like she's become part of the menu, something to devour because, God forbid, her sexuality is not governed by the permanency of a male figure on her arm.  In other words, a woman is only "safe" when there is a man guarding against the leakage of her sexual prowess - oh, what, you don't think women have that? They do and it scares the crap out of people!

I only ever get to feel this claustrophobic when I sense the subtle innuendos leaking into every day life. God forbid, I am a single woman and with that, comes an innate ability to  sniff out the stench of gossip-mongers - those weird outburst from people who are usually sensible; dribbling shit that means nothing but comes with a stab in your back feeling; the looks of condemnation (at what, I ask?); and the utter cowardliness of those who do not possess the balls to confront me with their thoughts. Passive aggressive. Yes, I think that's what it's called. Still, a coward though. 

And I say this...

Tough shit. I am the owner of my being. I possess it. No one else. It cannot be bought, bartered, badgered or bribed. You don't like what you 'think' I'm doing, have the balls to confront me about it. Or is the real truth, you can't confront me cause it would only tell me what 'sort' of person you really are?

Ruh Roo

Thank God I don't need to have a book to refer to... no, I have something much more tangible, more "in your face", and that is guilt and shame...

I went out last Thursday..nothing untoward. Just a few drinks with some work mates - how hard can that be, right? I went there at 6:30ish and left around 10pm. A respectable time, I thought... but here's the thing. I didn't think.

Once upon a time, you know, when one got to that "time to go home" stage of drinking, one was warned with a sense of wooozy-ness or that infamous slur when you're trying to impress someone and your tongue grows 8 meters... maybe you have smashed a few glasses, eyed up the wrong person, picked a fight.. who knows?  The thing is, now... I have no warning signs... I am drinking, having a laugh, and then ... nothing. 

Has anyone every had the God awful moment when you wake up in the morning and have to make sense of the night before? I'd say that was a drinking problem (oh don't worry ACC, I've already written you off so you can stop scouring my blog for hints of compensation deduction).... back to the real people... 

I have and it's the most scariest thing in the world. 

They say, whoever the fuck "they" are but... if drink starts screwing up your life then it is a problem... sounds ever so logical but, the thing is, it isn't screwing up my life.... on the outside. You know, that "bit" everyone else gets to see and judge.... but it is screwing me up on the inside. 

They say (You got it, whoever the fuck "they are") you can't change what you don't acknowledge, so I guess this is a mini break through for me... what a crock of shit. I have had warning signs before. I chose to ignore them. And now? Now is different... now is scary. Now is now....

For grief's sake...

Sometimes I wonder whether I'm happy being miserable. 

I know how that sounds, and please don't get me wrong, I already know ACC have proportioned off any potential further claim by at least 150% by that statement alone.. bless their fucking rotten socks ... 

So let me do this.... be honest...

I want my blog to get back to anything other than blowing farts up ACC's ass.... I want this blog to be about me... like it was initially intended - prior to those 40k hits back in April and a deformation case. If that means I loose all readers.. then okay... I will put that down to you've all found another escape avenue. If it doesn't work out for you, let me know... apparently, one can blog, get sued, and ... lol

Actually.. I am being facetious ... but in all honestly, it 's hard to think.. how do I crawl back to my non existent living now without letting shit lots of people down. What, you didn't think I was dreaming of those riots out of the Court, Jansen looking like a skinned pork? I did! And he knew it would end up like that... hence- dropped case.

I'm leaning back into the "knowing"........nothing, despite you're fighting, get's you anywhere....maybe it's time to start choosing one's battles as opposed to putting the same fucking ladder against the same wall and expecting something different?

Breaking the Silence

Five years after the murder of baby Kahui twins no one has so much as had a smack on the hand let alone been sent to jail. The father, Chris Kahui, had been arrested, tried, and released without charge. So, it wasn't him, right? 

As the general public, not privy to details of the case or the methods of interrogation the Police may or may not have used, we're left with the process of elimination to justify our disgust at this crime and all fingers are now pointing at the mother - she must have done it and now, after all that's been said and done, here she is writing about it, profiteering from her own babies' death. 

Well that was the 1+1=5 conclusion I came up with when the news of this book hit the headlines and groups started appearing all over Facebook requesting/demanding shops refuse to stock it - groups such as Re-open-the-Kahui-Case and Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book . 

The latter has over 47,000 members so it was real easy for me to jump on the bandwagon and jump I did. From what little I learned from the Media at the time (and in there, lies the problem), I saw a mother who'd spent the last 12 months figuring out what lies to record on paper to help influence the general public during her current inquest trial. I must say, the timing was impeccable. 

But something just didn't sit right.

I couldn't figure out what I was pissed off about the most - whether it was the loathsome marketing of this book (cashing in on the current inquest in order to boost sales) or the fact that Ian Wishart, a highly respected investigative journalist, was involved, or.. god forbid, she was as innocent as the book claims and I'd have to return to that void of never knowing what on earth happened to those two little boys. 

Like anyone, I imagine, we all want answers. Someone killed those babies and someone knows who. The temptation to line up the entire whanau (family) in some sick torture chamber till someone confesses is as strong now as it was five years ago but I do think, in my haste for answers (any answers) I was as guilty as the 47,000 others who concluded Ms King killed her babies, and I did that without even looking inside the book to hear what she had to say.

Now that in itself, is ironic to me because my frustration in this case comes from the silence the family have kept for five years and yet, here we are, presented with streams of information, an insight to one person's perspective of events, and we're calling for a book ban, a gag order? 

Don't get me wrong, I was livid to learn, after all these years of silence, that Ms King was practically given a microphone to the world, and my knee jerk reaction was to agree with the book banning. That was until I learned that it was not actually Ms King who wrote the book and that, aside from three slices of pizza during an interview with Ian Wishart, she'd not received any endorcements or payments for her story - unlike Chris Kahui, who sold his snippet to a magazine for $10,000.

So if it's not profiteering that she's getting out of this and I'm still left with a feeling of disgust, then what is it about this woman that I find so... unforgiving?

Maybe it's because she's a mother, just like me, and I have serious doubts about any mother who would know her baby boys had historical fractured rips or bruises all over their small bodies? I mean, didn't she notice anything? What about when she had to bath them, what then? Nothing? Ian Wishart answers this with a transcript played on RadioLive - both babies were taken to hospital and had regular check ups with the Plunket Association and even those professionals didn't pick up on any "historical injuries".

My first question is this... why are we so focused on a mother's ability to see her child's  injuries? Women don't have innate powers of observation. What about the father, isn't he just as questionable?

I won't be buying the book because the only reason I would, would be to find out who did it, and if the answers were really that simple as reading a 'novel' then I'd like to think the Police would have been tipped off on that by now. Do I want to read the book just to get an insight into domestic violence and how easy it can be for a family to fall into the abyss of murder? No, not really. I have my own memories of that and for those that don't, just watch 'Once Were Warriors.'  I do believe this book would be interesting, however, if you were a Government Policy Maker cause maybe they could look at the trends within Society that make for events like this to happen - gee, and do something about it. Now there's a 'novel' idea.

For now, I believe the more you delve into this story to find answers, the more questions arise. 

Peter Jansen - Caught Telling Porkies

Sorry it's been a while but I've been trolling through my ACC file - you know, the one that Denise Cosgrove insisted would only be sent to a private box number if I collected and signed for it? Yeah that one - the same one that turned up at my workplace so poorly addressed that the manager opened it to see what on earth it was. 

So yeah, that was shock, horror, gasp moment number one. The second was looking at the list (4 pages long) of just who accessed my file in the last year - an alarming amount of people both inside and outside of ACC and all after my file had been closed - unbeknownst to me. Gee, I really hope that sensitive claims people aren't inadvertently providing just some free child porn literature service here cause a lot of people seem to be "getting off" on reading the graphic details for their own personal use in my view.

Interestingly, an email I openly admitted sending to ACC and which I posted here on my blog ('A letter to the World' May 19th, 2010) was removed from my file. It's a desperate sounding email. A last ditched attempt to get someone in that organisation to just tell me what the hell was going on. Apparently the contents are too sensitive for even me and I was the one who wrote it! ACC call that "Litigation Privilege" whatever on earth that means.   

However, a day later, May 20 2010, an ACC Project Administrator (name blacked out) sent the following email to Dr Peter Jansen:

"Hi Peter - I have just shown this email to [name blanked out] and he just wanted to check you are aware that this is currently a client of [name blacked out]"

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I know I aren't) but didn't Peter Jansen say he "never knew I was an ACC SCU Claimant" and would, therefore, have never attempted to sue me for $250,000? Yep, I've just checked with all the news reports, radio stations, Dr Nick Smith's statements and gee, even Jansen's own press statement the day he dropped his pathetic  legal action against me... 

"As k1w1jax was a pseudonym, I did not and could not know that she was an ACC claimant for a mental injury at the time she was making defamatory comments about me on her blog." 

So how do we explain this little porkie pie then Jansen?

There are some very serious questions here about the standard of confidentiality within ACC and moreover, accountability for when someone, like Jansen, uses client information for their own personal gain and then goes on to lie about it to not only me but NZ as a whole and to all those other sensitive claimants out there. 

My pole last month asking whether Jansen should get fired says it all - people are rightfully concerned about having a blatant liar in control of their counselling, their ability to 'get well,' or in most cases, being at the mercy of someone like Jansen who can stop your counselling altogether, and if you don't like it and question him - he'll just sue your pants off. Time to leave Jansen. 

    

What comes from the heart, goes to the heart

This beautifully talented woman, Maisey Rika, has released ond of the most heart-felt albums I have heard in a long time. My all time favorite is her song 'Nia,' dedicated to Nia Glassie (aged 3) who was systematically abused and beaten to death by her 'whanau.'

A truly inspirational piece of Art.

http://maiseyrika.bandcamp.com/track/nia

Amen................

ARGHHHHHHHHHH...

I can see you Jansen...

Over a week ago, an email was sent to Dr Peter Jansen, asking him some very pertinent questions about information he may have shared on my file in order to serve me with a $250,000 defamation law case, which he subsequently dropped the day I filed my rather insightful defense. 

One question asked straight out, whether he accessed my private and personal information in order to serve legal papers. 

It's a fair enough question, considering I am "suppose" to be at a confidential address, not on any Election role, credit databases, IRD have confirmed no one accessed/shared information and even WINZ were kind enough to report back the same when I inquired - you know, just the usual handful of Government agencies that do share information. 

The only one left to respond is... (drum role)...ACC - well that is, if you excuse the wee explanation given to me by Denise Cosgrove, which basically says. " I can't tell you how I know or what I did in order to find out but I don't think he accessed your file." 

Oh right-o-then. 

So why would Dr Peter Jansen open the email sent to him more than 30 times, at least a few times today, forward it to three other email addresses and still not think to respond?

Short of being "inside" Dr Peter Jansen's very own computer, there is this rather useful tool I found on the Internet the other day. It tracks your email. It reports back when it has been read, how often it's been read, and where he was sent/forwarded to... yes, a very useful tool indeed. 

For all ACC claimants out there, may I suggest you download this resourceful tool, you know, for those days when you feel you're going nuts cause you've emailed these guys a dozen times and no one replies and moreover, when they claim they never received your email or even saw it.

http://www.readnotify.com/

Bullshit and fucking Jellybeans!

DENSIS COSGROVE - ACC

Thanks for your further emails.

We’ve got your claim file ready but due to its size we’ve discovered that we can’t post it to a PO Box.  Bearing in mind you don’t want to pick it up at a Branch, perhaps we can courier it to a person of your choice (GP, JP, friend or relative)? We’d much prefer this to ensure your information remains private.

You also asked for a copy of the report into whether Dr Jansen accessed your claim file.  Your request was made under the Official Information Act and so a formal response is required by law, and that response is attached to this email.

I’m sorry to say that we’ve had to turn down your request and I know that will be disappointing but there is a good reason.  Because it was prepared for internal ACC use, the report contains a lot of information about how we carried out the investigation and we need to keep that confidential.  If we let that information out it could prejudice our ability to carry out future investigations. 

But we can provide you with the Report’s conclusion, which states that:

“Based on the system access records investigated, we can confirm that the particular staff member has not accessed the claimant’s personal information through ACC system applications.

We can also confirm that the particular staff member did not access the specific claim physical file in the Sensitive Claims Unit …”

While I know you wanted the full report, I’m hoping its conclusion is a first step towards you regaining faith in ACC’s management of your personal information.

XXX, you’ve got my phone number and I’m willing to discuss things with you at any time.  

Kind regards