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:
- 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.
- 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
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.