You can tell that because he's hit a pillow with a rock. Peter Jansen don't like it if you say he's cheating some way, maybe being a prick and making money for it. He doesn't like to be criticised. If you criticise Peter Jansen he might sue you - he'll hit a pillow with a rock. Peter Jansen says if you're in his care and don't like it you can't say anything because he'll take all the money off you that you don't have.
Old Pete should lighten up, being angry all the time might affect his gonads. He could lose his gonads and end up suing one of his patients just because he's uptight worrying about what people are saying about him being tied up with the other mob, ACC. Pete seems to think he's not working for the mob, he should realise by now that the whole country knows that he is and that some of the more sceptical think he's milking it. Buy a cowshed Pete, one of those old fashion ones and run a few dairy cows. It might help.
Pete don't seem so bright. Pete is making a fool of himself in a fight he can't win. Pete, the silly man, is making a right prick of himself proving that he is one.
Peter Jansen is NOT defending he is a prick, just whether he is an incompetent one...
ReplyDeleteI like you "pillow with a rock" take on this. Sounds about right although I would like to add - he picked the wrong pillow!
I'm glad that's all settled without a fight because he certainly appears to be acting like a prick.
ReplyDeleteHis next hurdle is how he is able to distinquish his alleged incompetency from that of his employer. From what I've read and know ACC are generally not renowned for their competency. And it seems fairly specific that the comments are in connection with both his employment and his 'dream' of a new pathway for clients, which incidentally could also be seen to be intended to save the Government considerable money and maybe help him get a job.
Anyway I'm certainly no expert on the entire matter which has probably helped me to reach an opinion that the man is showing disproportionate hostility from a very financially powerful and privileged position and that 'ain't' right.
As I've mentioned before I have doubts that the law actually allows a state employee to sue a member of the Public, but overall I can't see how he can expect to win in significant way and his heavy handed approach has already worked against him.
All the best.
First of all, Jansen has hidden behind the fact that he is suing me as an individual and not an employee (contractor) to ACC... so that's hurdle number one taken care of, for him.
ReplyDeleteHowever, he mentioned his position as a clinical directorate at ACC in his claim - like that is what has been tarnished in some way, so... guess what? That opens the door for his position within ACC to be "discussed" shall we say...
With a vote of no confidence due in soon, I don't think he's going to find many supporters who will stand up in defense of him.
In any event, I have a few weeks left to finalize my defense. After that... that's when the real show will begin.
Although he might be attempting to sue as an individual and not an employee, probably the real test is the 'public mind.' If Peter is, or has been criticised in his role as an employee, or if he is fore-mostly recognised as an ACC architect of change, or employee, I believe that becomes a critical ingredient of any allegation of defamation. As does his current public profile before and since he has decided to sue.
ReplyDeleteYes, as you say him mentioning his employment position in his pleadings has probably opened the door for discussion of his role in ACC, but equally the whole trappings of his claim in the public mind relate to his suing a client of the body to whom he is employed - I don't think anything can change that for dear old Pete.
If you look across the internet, as I'm sure you do, and also check the publication of his law suit it is intrinsically linked to a common concept - Doctor sues client. Peter wants others to believe the situation is somehow different, and that his reputation is nigh on destroyed - but it remains 'Doctor sues client' to the public generally so his argument is to try and convince the Court or Jury that the perception is otherwise. I don't think so Pete, the horse has already bolted.