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.
Showing posts with label Peter Jansen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Jansen. Show all posts
Friday, April 22, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
An unprecedented event, Doctor Peter Jansen sues client...
for apparently calling him an incompetent prick on a blog.
I'd missed this story somewhat through being busy with work, smelling roses and having some fun in the pig swill. Trade Me had been running a thread on the subject for 3 days, and which was removed a few hours ago. However, it is 'saved' to Votemenot in it's entirety. Perhaps TM have decided they do not want to face liability for the contents of the thread, but I would imagine it is too late because it ran for several days and TM are aware that it has 'leaked' into cyberspace so that any damage from their publication continues. There may interesting parallels to this event and to the suit TM are currently facing brought by Joe Karam which I may write about later. In the meantime the following (taken from VMN - thanks TM) gives some of the background that makes this 'case' interesting.
project_hr wrote:
I personally believe he may have deliberately targeted Jax because he knew she was a fighter and wouldn't sit back and take it. and so he kept an eye on her, which is obvious. How many other people managed to find Jax's blog before this week? Very very few. He wanted a fight, so he could win the governments approval, and but an end to any future attempt by anyone brave enough to speak out.
I still don't think that's relevant. Dr Jansen is exercising his right to protect his good name under NZ law. Being a victim of alleged abuse does not put anyone above the law.
Above are two opinions one suggesting the obvious that Mr Jansen is muscling up, similar to other Government initiatives in the past to show power, Bastion Point, the Tuhoe 'insurgents' and last week the Navy arriving to tell Greenpeace activists to stop swimming off the east coast because they were keeping the dolphins awake.
The second raises the real interest for me. 'Dr Jansen is exercising his right to protect his good name under NZ law.' I think this fails to distinguish that Dr Jansen is effectively a Government employer in the particular area of ACC services and is indeed an architect of the 'modern' design of services offered to the Public by ACC in return for the enormous levies paid. An immediate question is raised of how, someone who is effectively a Government employee, a public figure, who has been criticised for his performance by peer groups who have called for his resignation, can hope to have his 'reputation' separated both from his personal performances but also that of ACC? I think most would agree there is abroad strong opinion that ACC is generally incompetent and somewhat a slow moving crisis, attendant to that opinion is that ACC staff, contractors or otherwise are part of the whole disaster.
It may go further though, as projecthr, has pointed out above, could the good Doctor be concentrating on an easy target? For example is he suing those that have called for his resignation, because no doubt they are not calling for his resignation because they believe him to be competent in his job. So we come to the 'offensive' word 'prick,' I think dear Doctor Jansen needs to get out more because 'prick' is common day language and being called one when working for a department that a high percentage of the population consider incompetent goes with the territory, as does being a public figure.
The appropriateness of a member of the Government suing his or her own client is not defined, but common sense would suggest there are probably legal restrictions preventing such a move, and in particular while still working for that Department and without 'employer' approval. Dear Doctor gets himself further in trouble because of the tactics he has used with his 'dawn raid' that has identified a person who is most likely entitled (despite whatever behaviour they may display) the ongoing confidence and privacy normally entitled a person who has received Professional care or advice. Naughty Doctor.
And Naughty Doctor might also be Dumb Doctor because he has, by his own choice 'advertised' his alleged incompetency and prick-like manner. When in fact a more measured, and more properly advised approach and procedure would have been to inform the Minister at the very least and take sound advice, which in fact may have been the less intrusive way for his ex-client (who after all is effectively 'in the care' of the Doctor's employer) and sought, failing negotiation, a Court order to prevent the Respondent/Defendant from naming the Doctor in her blog or any other place. But no, he donned the knight's armour, and the test may yet be measured whether he is in fact worthy of the knight's armour and honour or a rogue misfit attempting to slay an inert and already wounded target.
I'd missed this story somewhat through being busy with work, smelling roses and having some fun in the pig swill. Trade Me had been running a thread on the subject for 3 days, and which was removed a few hours ago. However, it is 'saved' to Votemenot in it's entirety. Perhaps TM have decided they do not want to face liability for the contents of the thread, but I would imagine it is too late because it ran for several days and TM are aware that it has 'leaked' into cyberspace so that any damage from their publication continues. There may interesting parallels to this event and to the suit TM are currently facing brought by Joe Karam which I may write about later. In the meantime the following (taken from VMN - thanks TM) gives some of the background that makes this 'case' interesting.
project_hr wrote:
I personally believe he may have deliberately targeted Jax because he knew she was a fighter and wouldn't sit back and take it. and so he kept an eye on her, which is obvious. How many other people managed to find Jax's blog before this week? Very very few. He wanted a fight, so he could win the governments approval, and but an end to any future attempt by anyone brave enough to speak out.
I still don't think that's relevant. Dr Jansen is exercising his right to protect his good name under NZ law. Being a victim of alleged abuse does not put anyone above the law.
Above are two opinions one suggesting the obvious that Mr Jansen is muscling up, similar to other Government initiatives in the past to show power, Bastion Point, the Tuhoe 'insurgents' and last week the Navy arriving to tell Greenpeace activists to stop swimming off the east coast because they were keeping the dolphins awake.
The second raises the real interest for me. 'Dr Jansen is exercising his right to protect his good name under NZ law.' I think this fails to distinguish that Dr Jansen is effectively a Government employer in the particular area of ACC services and is indeed an architect of the 'modern' design of services offered to the Public by ACC in return for the enormous levies paid. An immediate question is raised of how, someone who is effectively a Government employee, a public figure, who has been criticised for his performance by peer groups who have called for his resignation, can hope to have his 'reputation' separated both from his personal performances but also that of ACC? I think most would agree there is abroad strong opinion that ACC is generally incompetent and somewhat a slow moving crisis, attendant to that opinion is that ACC staff, contractors or otherwise are part of the whole disaster.
It may go further though, as projecthr, has pointed out above, could the good Doctor be concentrating on an easy target? For example is he suing those that have called for his resignation, because no doubt they are not calling for his resignation because they believe him to be competent in his job. So we come to the 'offensive' word 'prick,' I think dear Doctor Jansen needs to get out more because 'prick' is common day language and being called one when working for a department that a high percentage of the population consider incompetent goes with the territory, as does being a public figure.
The appropriateness of a member of the Government suing his or her own client is not defined, but common sense would suggest there are probably legal restrictions preventing such a move, and in particular while still working for that Department and without 'employer' approval. Dear Doctor gets himself further in trouble because of the tactics he has used with his 'dawn raid' that has identified a person who is most likely entitled (despite whatever behaviour they may display) the ongoing confidence and privacy normally entitled a person who has received Professional care or advice. Naughty Doctor.
And Naughty Doctor might also be Dumb Doctor because he has, by his own choice 'advertised' his alleged incompetency and prick-like manner. When in fact a more measured, and more properly advised approach and procedure would have been to inform the Minister at the very least and take sound advice, which in fact may have been the less intrusive way for his ex-client (who after all is effectively 'in the care' of the Doctor's employer) and sought, failing negotiation, a Court order to prevent the Respondent/Defendant from naming the Doctor in her blog or any other place. But no, he donned the knight's armour, and the test may yet be measured whether he is in fact worthy of the knight's armour and honour or a rogue misfit attempting to slay an inert and already wounded target.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)