The Writing was on The Wall

I've had the pleasure to read blogs and articles from learned folk on Dr Peter Jansen and his baby, The Clinical Pathway.  Although mostly enlightening and born out after the fact, the really interesting read happened when I stumbled on the ANZASW report written by Cathy McPherson in 2009.  It is a report that deals with the way Dr Jansens baby was Rushed Out into the public arena that is ACC and it's workers.

Now I had understood that on many occasions workers in the child sex abuse field were suddenly hamstrung in what they could do with regards to ACC claims.  The Clinical pathway eroded any sympathetic attitudes to ACC by the likes of psychologists, assessors, and counselors, to name a few.  And without reinventing the wheel (the ANZASW report above covers) it's fair to highlight that right from even before the Pathway was implemented, warning bells were ringing.

Let's look at the Clinical Pathway subjectively.  The current Minister of ACC was in the seat in 2009 when Dr Jansen submitted his baby for ACC to run with it and implement it right away.  Despite protestations, the programme was pushed into service.  Now a little analogy.  Let us look at a ship in the process of being built.  Dr Peter Jansen who is the ship builder, has his ship (further called HMNZS Clinicall Incompent Pathways) in the process of being built at an extreme rate.  Now when you do things quickly, you tend to overlook design features, misplace rivets, leave welds unmade, and you end up with a ship that may look on the surface to be sleek and fast where in actual fact you have something that slides off the slip and goes straight to the bottom of the river. HMNZS CIP was just rushed through too quickly to be affective!

Unless Nick Smith, the man financing Jansen's Shipbuilding projects, had a hand in how much could be spent on ships, and how many rivets would be littering the docks (they're the ones hired by ACC to actuate HMNZS CIP, assessors, counsellors the likes) and the welding machines that failed to stop the leaks, (they're ACC's new planners), but what defies belief is that amount of steel that has gone to waste and is now covered in muddy water and going nowhere, the claimants to ACC's SCU.  Instead of being happily involved in what should have been a top of the line ship, they are the ghosts of the Yard, and their pain is just not going away?

It's plainly obvious after Nick Smith's unfounded comments after the shit hit the fan, he is not in touch with his designer and builder.  Seems like Nick Smith (Spongebob Squarepants) and Dr Peter Jansen (Bob the Builder or may be The Fat Controller??) are poles apart and maybe have been since at least 2009.

Freedom of Speech Being Eroded

If you think blogging is illegal, why does it still exist?  If you think blogging is a curse, why are there so many blogs and mostly by well meaning educated people.  If you think blogging is a media outlet, well it is.

A lot of folks for years have been subject to what they read in the paper, hear on the radio, or see on television and have never really had the outlet to respond.  Blogging is that outlet.  Blogging allows well meaning folk to express their opinion  (one of the tantamount facets of Freedom of Speech) and to do it how they feel best gets their message out.  It's a cornerstone of a good democratic state.

And yes it is a part of the media (contrary to some who have tried to stymie this outlet)  The media is an arm of any society that primarily seeks the truth and brings those in a position of some control to task for any indiscretion they may have been party to.  Blogging is no different and should not be treated differently.  If an individual taken to task in the media wishes to get comments dealt with in the media, the Broadcasting Standards Authority and other organisations that deal with such cases should be the first port of call for any supposed transgression.

So this brings us back to a recent case where a certain individual took a blogger to task and issued a suing suit over one blog where his sanity was called into question.  Does he not believe that a blog is a media outlet and that it's not the blogger that should be sued but the outlet itself?  I'm sure we've seen some newspaper reporters castigated not by the individual wronged, but by their own employer, who the offended individual approached for recompense.

So how  do you then approach a blog operator for similar action?  Ok yes you can, but that road is fraught with issues, especially the Freedom of Speech issue and blog companies will be very reluctant to have a blogger removed, especially if it draws people to that site and means more customers.  Yes notoriety sells copy.

I think if you feel that a blogger has just cause to speak their mind, by all means offer that blogger your support.  To those that have issues what is said in blogs,, you are no doubt in a position of some influence on that blogger, and you should grow a second (Elephant) skin and move on.  No doubt your actions and reactions are seen as wrong by the larger society, so ignore those comments and move on.  And make sure you do your job better so no one has just cause to add further comments.

Viva la Presidente

Before getting stuck into whether New Zealand (or more correctly Aotearoa) should be a republic I'd like to break down the significance of MY flag.  The design is based on the black flag with Silver Fern seen around the world being wielded by sports mad kiwis.  The top bars (Red, White and Black) signify Tinorangatira tanga, the principle Treaty partner.  The Red white and blue bands at the bottom signify the Crown as full partner and is reflective of the old flag.  The Southern Cross on blue background is also endemic of the old flag and gives us direction as a nation.

For a number of years now, New Zealand has been debating about republicanism.  Now being a former Navy man and honouring the flag every morning and night, and paying due deference to the Monarchy I'd be firmly in the Monarch Camp.  But alas I'm not.  Instead, after leaving the Navy, my thoughts have been leaning more towards self determination as a country.  One of the reasons I feel this way is that when New Zealand needed "The Mother Country" to stand up for it during the seventies with EEC quota's we were locked out.  Sure this was a political thing at the time, but some would say the Monarchy back the English parliament and vice versa, so this decision was more than political..  Then when New Zealand stood up and said No Nukes, we were shunned again.  Add to that the poor track record of the Monarchy in the past twenty odd years (Divorces, scandals, etc) and the picture gets a lot murkier.

Now if we look at one of the things we need as a society we'd see that good positive role models are the order of the day.  A popular monarch, or a popular president that a majority would favour.  Seeing as how (to my own eyes) the Monarchy hasn't been as such, then it's time to look within and have our own populist leader (or head of state) to give guidance as the Southern Cross does.  I'll explore that more.

Currently the Governor General (GG) is the pseudo Head of State (HoS).  He or she is selected by the then current government to represent the Queen in our country, further known as The Crown.  Now this job is more in keeping as a Presidential role, so why don't we cut ties with the Monarchy and have a President?  The Business in parliament will still be the same, but there will be a little more power given to the president in veto etc.  Just a small ask.  And instead of the Prime Minister being the titular head of state in foreign visits a fully briefed President will represent the country overseas (a job the current GG doesn't do as far as I am aware).

Now electing a President.  I see it that Parliament (not the government) puts up a list of names for the public to vote on.  The voting would be done in  conjunction with a four year term.  But what I'd really love to see is this format.  Year one (and every second term onwards) the Maori Monarch sits as Head of State, with every alternate year an elected (by the people) HoS.  This will firmly entrench Aotearoa in the Treaty principles.

Two other things need to happen.  The first is a Constitution.  Using the Treaty of Waitangi as a founding document, the people of this country and the parliament need to propose, agree and ratify a finalised Constitution.  The process may be long and drawn out, but it has to be done right so all are in agreement.  I'd say a majority of around 70% is needed to ratify that important document.

The other thing is the National Anthem.  It's widely reported that there are about 20% of New Zealanders that are active churchgoers or attend religious activities regularly.  So why do the majority have to stand and sing "God defend etc.".  It's high time we went the way of our neighbours and find an anthem that better reflects not only our current status as a society, but a way ahead for those to come.

I see a republican state in the next 30 years.  If we want to get our heads around all I have stated and start the ball rolling, the first moves will need to be made from about 2016 onward.

My thoughts. Please post your thoughts!!

A Psychics Look Into Parliament next Tuesday.

As many of you will not be aware, all members of Parliament from all parties will be in the House next Tuesday to continue the business of the House for the new parliamentary session.

What will be of interest is the impending clash between Carmel Sepuloni (Labour) and the Honourable Nick Smith (National Minister of ACC) over the questions raised by Ms. Sepuloni in the House on the 14th April.  If you remember rightly, Tony Ryall (National) was standing in for Nick Smith and seemed quite riled (no pun intended - ok a small one :) ) by the questions being posed.

It's fairly obvious to me that Nick Smith has to answer the questions raised and this no doubt will cause a bit of a media frenzy whichever way it goes.  If Smith finds that Jansen abused his position  then he will be saying exactly that, and also the outcome.  If he sides with Jansen, then it's fair to say that Jansen will act accordingly and "Jax" will be held to account.  Or perhaps Smith stands by his man, BUT tells him to drop the court case and public apology and get back to doing what he is paid to do.  National has long been an advocate of the Old Boys Network (OBN) and it's fair to say that Jansen may fit into that category.

Or is he?  Did Jansen start work at ACC under Labour led government and is therefore on the outer as far as National's OBN goes?

Yes, there is a lot of intrigue ahead.  So far, as far as I am aware, Jansen hasn't had a court injunction issued for "Jax" to take down the offending blog.  So far it appears there has been no more Lawyer to Lawyer contact, so where does this place both parties?  We can't really speculate though suffice to say Open Question Time in the House on Monday will provide an answer.

My vote is Nick Smith and Government have been embarassed a little by Carmel Sepuloni's questions and they won't let this lie.  One thing for sure, national cannot afford to openly back Jansen's claims as that would also lay a burden on "Jax" and no citizen deserves that much power placed on them (though having said that, WINZ, CYFS, IRD and ACC have been known to deliver the full weight of parliamentary pressure on single citizens as they saw fit).



The psychic sees:

Sepuloni:  Has the Minister for ACC pondered my questions of the 14th and what is the outcome?

Smith:  I have, contrary to previous statements, investigated the issue and find that Doctor Jansen did indeed err in his judgement and has been asked to step down from ACC.

Sepuloni:  Does this mean that Dr Jansen will remove the court action and apologise to the blogger in question?

Smith:  Dr Jansen is now not employed by ACC or government in any form and can do what he wishes noting of course now that he is now unemployed and lost a $200,000 salary may think he has justification now to sue.

Speaker:  Next question, the Honourable Tony Ryall:

Ryall:  I just want to say I am riled by all this.

All Members of the House:  Raucous Laughter and hand clapping.

Speaker:  ORDER!!

"Jax":  Latte please.

Jeremy Parkinsons Gaff

Last week Mike King posted a comment on his Facebook about the audio rants his listeners on the Nutters Club broadcasted on the previous Sunday's show in reply to Michael Laws comments on air earlier in the week.  All was well and the banter of a jovial kind until Jeremy Parkinson, Michael Laws producer waded in defending his boss.  Several members of the Nutters Club waded on and took Jeremy to task, even when he claimed that the comments never happened (he was directed to the day and time on Radio Live's own podcasts).  Suffice to say, he left holding his tail over his arse.

Now ordinarily this would be ammunition for Michael Laws to use on his show as soon as possible, so with this in mind I listened to all the Laws show this morning and not  a mention of the incident, nor Mike King, nor any Nutters.  Now what happened?  Surely Jeremy would report back, after all it was his boss at the centre of attention.  Maybe Michael isn't petulant after all and decided not to take it further.  This would seem odd, but currently he (ML) is playing father to his three children and maybe they have slipped a chill pill into his coffee?  Whatever happened it will certainly be interesting to listen for the rest of the week, and also to Mike's show on Sunday.  Radio Live is trying to split itself apart.

And it was good to hear that ML and his children were in our vicinity on ANZAC Day to do some shopping.  Maybe he was scouring the territory for his next great coup - interviewing "Jax" .

Dear Greg

It has come (poor choice of word) to our attention you are in fact a member (again poor choice) of the fairer sex (bloody hell another one).

We believe you have silicone implants, and your meat and two vege were donated to Massey for medical experiments.  We also have it on good authority you stole a camel toe off a camelier in Yemen and his poor camel is now going around in circles.  You have three options (and growing your hair long isn't one).  Remove the implants.  Buy a salami and some Brussel Sprouts, and return Abdul Bin Mohammad his camel's missing toe so he can cross the desert without going dizzy.

Finally Greg, I implore you, don't have any more children.  If they grow up like you then the internet will definitely not be a safe place.

With love and respect,

The Moderator.

Peter paying Paul

As most of you are aware, the Americas Cup campaign has been gifted $36million by the NZ Government to help secure the Cup back to New Zealand.  As a sporting nut I endorse their endeavour and the funds, yes when the cup is here, money is returned (through GST/PAYE, etc).

But I'm putting my Mental Health hat on now.  Just recently, the MoH has stopped funding to 6 Like Minds Like Mine providers nationwide and several others had had funding cuts.  At the National LMLM Hui early in April the Associate Minister of Health, John Coleman, basically outlined that the cuts were necessary to help fund mental health services in post quake Christchurch.  Now that I could agree with, so it's rather puzzling that a very necessary service is decimated to allow mega rich yachties to sail the world on exorbitant salaries.

Now I have been sold the National spin on the state of the economy (Coleman also stated the country was borrowing $300 million a week to stem the recession) so how in these tough times can Team New Zealand get a stipend from the government that is supposedly trying to cut costs?  And if the cuts aren't really needed why the hell a successful programme both nationally and regionally is cut beggars belief.

Yes I want the Americas Cup here, but not with government funding.  Yes I do want my job and team back.  National, you need to balance your decisions.

What Eats my Groats

That damned car on the road to Masterton, Holden V8, green paint job (both my favourite) and yet your number plate ECP158 that I looked at for over twenty kilometeres as you sped up slowed down sped up slowed down and finally when I had the chance to overtake you, you veer out into my road room.

The Labour Party.  In an election year you do not make fools of yourselves and the ratings reflect your loose footing.  If Phil Goff (a modern day Bill Rowling) continues to lead without actually leading then you'll be in political obscurity for a wee while longer.  I'd say that party needs to grow balls but I see there are a few ladies in the mix.  Maybe one of them could be another Aunty Helen.

Liquefaction.  Before Christchurch's shakes, a word confined to strange geographical dictionaries.  Now the media can't get enough of it.  Dear God, when next apportioning natural disasters to other New Zealand centres make sure there are no erroneous words from strange dictionaries the media can play with.

Pus.  Ewwwwwww

Dogs and Cats.  If folks can't even look after their own children how the fuck are the going to look after animals.  Pet owners should sit a Pet Driving Test before being issued their pets.

Nude sunbathers.  The bane of beach resorts.  Why anyone would resort to chancing melanoma by exposing all the body beggars belief.  AND!!!  FFS folks, if you are wrinkled and all ya bits are affected by gravity, keep ya fucken clothes on.

Childbirth.  What a cruel joke (supposedly God) nature made to put women through that.  I feel sorry for elephants giving birth.

Suicide - my perspective (some details may be graphic for younger readers)

No this is not a post to let you know how to do it.  Most people are resourceful enough to know how and that's a problem.

How do we eliminate suicide from peoples consciousness?  How do we make it easier for people at risk to not know how?  How do we rid society of the heartache that follows such an act.

Suicide is not (contrary to belief) the domain of the mentally ill, though mentally ill people have been known to use it to end their lives.  No, suicide is a societal construct and one that is hard to fathom.  I'm sure a lot of people have had to deal with suicides before, and the often asked question is "I didn't think there was anything wrong" and that it is certainly the case in several people I knew who took their deathly action.

I won't use peoples names here, so all names are aliases.  I had two mates in my job that committed suicide.  One hung himself in the garage, the other gassed himself in his car.  One was in his late 30's and Maori, the other was in his 40's and pakeha.  Both showed no outside signs that their lives were in turmoil.

The Maori dudes name was "Jeff" and Jeff had always been the life of the party, a supreme comic and joke teller, happily married with two young kids.  He rode a motorbike, was active in the community and by all accounts a well respected member of the community.  So what took him off the cliff?  Turns out Jeff's father had died a few months before his suicide, and as such, the tribal land dealings were passed down to Jeff as he was the eldest son.  Due to the sudden notoriety he suffered his wider whanau started putting pressure on Jeff to sort out the claims in their respective favour, and the pressure got to him.  Instead of seeking help to quell the rabble, and seeking help to ease the pressure, Jeff kept everything inside.  Until he broke.

The other guy "Mark" differed only in the fact he wasn't the life of the party, was usually quiet and reserved, and pretty much kept to himself.  And one day, he hung himself.  Why - well another reason a lot of males especially kill themselves is financial hardship.  Mark was a gambler, and he gambled away the family savings.  Unable to refinance he decided to end it and save his wife the heartache.

Now you're probably saying by now "so what".  Well my third case revolving around suicide was a bloke that suffered from a mental illness as a result of a brain injury (stroke).  "Richard" in the 8 months he lived with us was saved four times from committing the deed.  He'd tried to hang himself twice in the carport, had cut his wrists, and had taken an overdose.  Richard may have been doing this to fail, but just by attempting he was a danger to himself. After the fourth attempt I took him aside and asked him if he was taking his medication before each attempt, and being a forthrightly honest guy, he said he hadn't been taking it.  I then told him I don't want to save his life anymore and could he please take his medication.  He did, until I moved out.  Three weeks ago he lay down in front of a train.

The last person I want to highlight is my own brushes with suicide.  Like Richard, mine were related to a preexisting mental condition.  One attempt was when I was undiagnosed (but unwell), still working in the Navy, and gambling heavily.  The fifth floor balcony was tempting, but I couldn't get the consequences out of my head so failed (thankfully),  The second attempt was when I was manic for the third time and I was hearing voices for the first time.  One voice was the Suicide Voice and it told me on several occasions to overdose on my sleeping tablets. I took 20 odd pills and went to sleep only to wake up two days later.  Failed!!  The last attempt was also down to that voice and this time I jumped out of a moving police car and jumped onto the motorway below.  Failed!!  My saving grace, cars swerved to miss me and I had jumped not dived.  I knew why I wanted to commit suicide.  Guilt and the Voices.

So why did all of us want to end it?  We're all men in our prime, predominantly good fathers and husbands and sure there were issues but why was it so easy to slip into that mode?  I'm sure if we can find the answer we'd solve a huge problem?  I guess one key is the psychological state leading up to the event.  Is someone going into their shell and withdrawing? Is someone changing their habits? We know a mental illness could be a problem but as highlighted you don't need to be diagnosed to attempt.

I guess as a society we should be more focused on those around us and their lifestyle and habits.  If there is any sudden change, tackle it, don't just say "Oh they'll sort themselves out".  Some won't?

Mentally Ill, on a Benefit and wholly Self Obsessed

For many years I have been a follower and sometimes caller to talkback radio.  In that time most of the hosts have been intelligent and diverse people.  The standard format is appealing and allows for robust conversation and adroit comments from both the host and the callers.

In recent times I haven't been an ardent follower, except maybe the occasional call to Radio Sports.  My interest in the goings on in this country have been limited to internet following of papers, TV and some radio podcasts.  But last Friday due to a national furore that just happened to affect a friend of mine (also self obsessed, mentally ill, and on a benefit) I had reason to listen in to Radio Live between 9am and 12pm.  What I heard chilled me to the bone.  A radio Jock behaving in a self served, condescending, patronising manner and doing so with relative impunity.

Now I know all radio stations are engaged in a ratings battle so how this Jock meets the stations desires is beyond me.  And it's not the first time he has been contentious.  All one has to do is Google his name and the page fairly floods with earlier indiscretions.  In short, the Jock is a very loose cannon and one that needs to be reigned in fairly quickly. Alas though, this Jock is a survivor.

I find it amusing though that he is digging himself into a deeper hole.  Taking on minorities is his forte, especially in a disparaging way.  The Paralympians suffered his wrath, an aspergers man in Earthquake Christchurch, and last Friday, bloggers were the intended target, but a part of his tirade also brought the Mentally Ill and Beneficiaries into question, once again in  a disparaging and condescending manner.

I am aware over the past few days now how dangerous this man is.  Or is he?  It appears his audience is restricted to 25.6 listeners (5 ex New Zealand First politicians, 20 KKK members in Ashburton and 0.6 people in Whanganui - a deaf midget who loves being noticed)  So how dangerous is this Radio Jock?

Well if you ask Radio Live, not very.  If you ask his producer (a man that will defend him to the ends of the earth naively) not very.  If you ask the BSA, they're still waiting for a complaint to uphold.  If you think all these organisations and people are remiss, vote with your (blogging) keyboard and vote the man off the Islands (he'll find a niche market in Aussie for his style - or will he?)

Counting it out.

Well here I sit (on the Bosses time) pondering my future.  I completed all my tasks for today by midday and now I am sharing my mahi with my workmates and just chillin' out the moment.  How poingant to finish on Easter Weekend, as I started a week before Labour Weekend.  In on a long weekend, out on a long weekend.

I must say I'm not looking forward to finishing here.  I've made some wonderful friends, have met many more wonderful people and it's been a pleasure serving this country in an area I have such an affinity for.

Next week I'm in on the first day of the week up until the 20th May to wind down the business of Like Minds Like Mine in the Manawatu/Horowhenua.  I attended our regional Hui (Whanganui to Wellington, and Wairarapa) in Whanganui and had the pleasure of receiving warm mahi on our departure.  We weren't the only ones as Whanganui PHO and Vaka Ola (from Porirua) also had their contracts annulled.  I felt for my team though.  A couple of guys are taking it really badly so I will continue to provide support and encouragement to them.  Good news this morning though, we are free to use our workshops locally still but just not under the Like Minds Like Mine banner.  I already have a new name for the group.  The Boss wanted to call it Speaking Out but internet searches showed this was a common name, so after some exhaustive searching I have decided to run Whakapuakina te pono (Speak the Truth) by her.  Fingers crossed.

Last full working week for a wee while.  I still have a job application in the works, and I have yet to talk with the boss about working at St Dominics as a Consumer Advisor.  With a little wind of hope in the sails I should be able to navigate my waka onto new sea lanes.

Ka kite everyone, be well.  This will be my last message as Like Minds Like Mine Team Leader for the Manawatu/Horowhenua region.

Blind Fury

I've been watching the Dr Peter Jansen versus "Jax" scenario unfolding in parliament and in the media now since it erupted.  And erupt it did.  But it has got me wondering how this got so out of hand.

It's plainly oblivous that Dr Jansen either reads the internet or has "staff" doing the searching for him.  It's also plainly obvious that he took umbrage to a blog on the internet that called him DSM CIP satirically, and the diagnosis was not taken too kindly.  I think it is also plainly obvious this was the only initial blog read by Jansen and his team, else they would have noted two things:

1.  This was not the only blog that had Jansen's name in it.

2.  Jansen and his team would have realised the blogger "Jax" was also a claimant under ACC's Sensitive Claims Unit (SCU).

If Jansen and/or his team had done their homework, would they then have issued a lawyers letter to "Jax" claiming he was suing her for $250,000 in defamation?

It's very much plainly obvious Jansen and his lawyer were misguided in their approach.  When you sue someone for that amount of money you have it in mind the recipient has the money to pay.  So what conceivably initiated as an exercise to glean money has turned into a lesser exercise of seeking the blog be taken down and a public apology offered.

Now let's look at this more closely.  Jansen initially stated that he was defamed and wanted reparation.  Then after the Minister of ACC Nick Smith waded in, this was reduced to an apology and removal of content.  What changed (apart from the minister's intervention!!)?  Jansen was obviously inundated by the media for comment which to date he has refused.  It seems his action stirred up a hornets nest and not only the media climbed into him, but as can be seen at "Jax" blog, many sympathetic voices have joined the fray, many suffering at the hands of ACC's SCU, and ultimately it's architect, Jansen.

I applaud "Jax" for not taking the blogs down.  Two things that our democratic society is based on were never entertained by Jansen and his lawyer:

1.  Freedom of Speech

2.  The Rule of Law.

It's quite obvious that Freedom of Speech is at issue with this action.  When a Government employee tries to stop something in the Free Press then their is an issue for Government to deal with.  Jansen stepped over the line by trying to gag a blog that is in the public domain (albeit at the time 15 or so people).

The Rule of Law.  If the blog was so defamatory and Jansen felt it was, why then didn't he and his lawyer seek a Court Injunction to have the blog taken down.  To date this has not happened so the blog is free to float in peoples reading radars.  Jansen is the loser for not using the full weight of the law, but doubt is also evident that the Courts would have agreed with him. Loser twice.

Seriously, this case has highlighted that Jansen is indeed incompetent, primarily in his knowledge of Free Speech and the Law and deserving of his DSM CIP diagnosis (which as "Jax" alludes to was self diagnosed (satire).  It also highlights how thin skinned and defensive he is, something I would not expect from a member of a government organisation.

"Jax" you have my full support and I do hope this works out well for yourself and all the silent voices out there that have been battling ACC.  ACC cannot blame you folks, they set up the system for you in the first place.

Ka kite ano