|
|
Peter
Ellis web site - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: In this morning's mail From: "jfwilson"
<[email protected]> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:49:31 +1300 from "Victims
of sexual abuse have a legal right to ACC financial compensation" "You may
be entitled to a lump sum of up to $25,000 and ongoing payments valued in
excess of $150,000" "Sexual abuse may take the form of
rape, incest, violation or assault.
Whatever the form of abuse suffered, the consequences and effects of
the abuse can be ongoing. Symptoms can
include for example loss of self-esteem, depression, anxiety, irritability
and concentration difficulties. Many
people that have suffered from abuse are not aware of their entitlement to
relief and compensation. We can
assist by assessing options for entitlement and assisting with claim lodgement
with ACC. Although a financial award
can never alter the fact that the abuse has occurred, a lump sum payment or
ongoing payments may assist in
the recovery process. It is important
to be aware that an abused person need fear no repercussions from the abuser
in making a claim. The abuse does not
have to have been reported to the Police.
The abuser does not have to be named. If you believe that you may be
entitled to compensation fill out the attached freepost form and return it to
us. We will then advise you of the
appropriate steps to take. Your
information will be completely confidential to the claims process. Our fee for advising and representing you
is 25%
(plus GST) of any resulting lump sum plus all of any first quarterly
payment made by ACC. If your claim is
unsuccessful, there is no charge. If you would like us to pursue a claim on
your behalf fill in the freepost form
(attached) and return it to us
as soon as possible." Anyone with a little imagination and short of funds could be
sorely tempted. I do not pay any money
to the ACC, but if I did I would be angry. What on earth does sexual abuse
have to do with accident insurance? John From [email protected] Mon Jan
07 20:20:02 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: "Sonn"
<[email protected]> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:20:02 +1300 ... and shame on Wakefield Associates, Barristers and Solicitors
for taking ALL of the first quarterly payment PLUS 25% of the FULL
payment. Of course they're keen to
pursue any claims on your behalf because of their genuine human concern. If a victim is entitled to ACC they should be able to access
their entitlement without being violated again. S. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
06:24:34 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: [email protected] Date: 7 Jan 2002 17:24:34 GMT Sonn <[email protected]> wrote: and shame on Wakefield Associates, Barristers and
Solicitors for taking ALL of the first quarterly payment PLUS 25% of the FULL
payment. Of course they're keen to
pursue any claims on your behalf because of their genuine human concern. It goes a long
way towards confirming lawyers as being one of the lower forms of life. If a victim is entitled to ACC they should be able
to access their entitlement without being violated again. But first they
should be able to show some real evidence of sexual abuse - not just say-so
or hear-say from 20 years ago or conviction of the person responsible based
on flimsy circumstantial evidence or solely on the word of a child. From [email protected] Tue
Jan 08 11:20:34 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: Gurble
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 11:20:34 +1300 On 7 Jan 2002 17:24:34 GMT,
[email protected] wrote: But first they should be able to show some real
evidence of sexual abuse - not just say-so or hear-say from 20 years ago or
conviction of the person responsible based on flimsy circumstantial evidence
or solely on the word of a child. Unfortunately,
this is what happens all too often. It's very easy to accuse someone of
sexual abuse, especially when there is a great big carrot out there.
Unfortunately, unless a sexual abuse complaint is made soonish after the
event, the lack of physical evidence means it is very hard to prove or
disprove. And, as we all know, it's guilty until proven innocent when it
comes to sex crimes. I think the
saddest biproduct of a large number of false sexual abuse claims is that it
casts a shadow of disbelief on the real victims, meaning that some of the
wankers that actually DO do this sort of thing are more likely to get away
with it. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
11:22:34 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: "PapaBear"
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:22:34 +1300 "Gurble" <[email protected]>
wrote in message Unfortunately, this is what happens all too often.
It's very easy to accuse someone of sexual abuse, especially when there is a
great big carrot out there. Unfortunately, unless a sexual abuse complaint is
made soonish after the event, the lack of physical evidence means it is very
hard to prove or disprove. And, as we all know, it's guilty until proven
innocent when it comes to sex crimes. I think the saddest biproduct of a large number of
false sexual abuse claims is that it casts a shadow of disbelief on the real
victims, meaning that some of the wankers that actually DO do this sort of
thing are more likely to get away with it. True - The
victims aren't believed and the accused aren't believed. It's a weird
situation. PapaBear From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
19:16:39 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: [email protected] (Cath) Date: 7 Jan 2002 22:16:39 -0800 I was on the understanding that the maximum payout was
$10,000. Plus ACC would continue
paying for on-going therapy. From my daughter's experience, $10,000 is little compared to the
long term damage genuine victims suffer.
No amount of money can be placed on that. What makes us both angry is the offender
admitted to what she wrote in her statement and the Police never charged him
so he is walking around capable of doing it again. He could be your next door
neighbour. Was she the only victim
of his, no. The other young girl's
parents decided not to lay a complaint with the Police but I made sure they
knew about it. As she was under 21, the amount had to be paid into either the
Public Trust or into a lawyer's trust until she reached 21. A flat fee of 25% of a claim is the normal Can a member of the public lay a complaint with the Law
Society? Adopting the Cath From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
20:07:43 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: [email protected] (Newsman) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 07:07:43 GMT On 7 Jan 2002 22:16:39 -0800, [email protected]
(Cath) wrote: I was on the understanding that the maximum payout
was $10,000. Plus ACC would continue
paying for on-going therapy. From my daughter's experience, $10,000 is little
compared to the long term damage genuine victims suffer. No amount of money can be placed on that. Why should any
money *at all* be paid by the taxpayer? What is the
money *for*? Newsman From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
21:45:47 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: John Cawston
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 21:45:47 +1300 Newsman wrote: Why should any money *at all* be paid by the
taxpayer? If sexual abuse
is at the levels that have been claimed. Not one cent.. its a normal human
activity. What is the money *for*? If sexual abuse
is at the levels often claimed, a payment would prove that one was
"normal"; surely a good thing. JC From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
22:41:14 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: [email protected] (Newsman) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 09:41:14 GMT On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 21:45:47 +1300, John Cawston [email protected]
wrote: If sexual abuse is at the levels often claimed, a
payment would prove that one was "normal"; surely a good thing. How might the
payment of money "prove" any such thing? Newsman From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
23:07:47 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: John Cawston
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:07:47 +1300 Newsman wrote: How might the payment of money "prove"
any such thing? Its a known
fact that impressionable young females need to be considered as "one of
the gang". Any girl not abused by a parent, relative or member of the
Mongrel Mob would obviously be disadvantaged at school without a clause in the ACC legislation which
allowed them to claim such abuse at some time in the past which required no
physical evidence whatsoever, did not name a perpetrator (but allowed the
interviewer to speculate) and accepted bad behaviour as evidence of sexual
abuse. OK. I'm being
ironic, but it seems to me that sexual abuse has replaced the 50s and 60s fad
of being in therapy by JC From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
23:50:30 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: [email protected] (Brian) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:50:30 GMT On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:07:47 +1300, John Cawston
<[email protected]> wrote: Its a known fact that impressionable young females
need to be considered as "one of the gang". Any girl not abused by
a parent, relative or member of the Mongrel Mob would obviously be
disadvantaged at school without a
clause in the ACC legislation which allowed them to claim such abuse at some
time in the past which required no physical evidence whatsoever, did not name
a perpetrator (but allowed the interviewer to speculate) and accepted bad
behaviour as evidence of sexual abuse. OK. I'm being ironic, but it seems to me that
sexual abuse has replaced the 50s and 60s fad of being in therapy by I think there
is a lot of truth in your irony. While
the official Rape Crisis line is the supposedly rhetorical question "Why
would anyone claim abuse when it hasn't happened", the playground talk
among teens is another story. Fortunately,
even if what I say above is true, the rate of false allegations of abuse that
are taken further than playground stories has diminished to become a mere
fraction of the rate at the height of the problem in the early to mid 1990's. Of course the
rate of false allegations of sexual abuse diminished at the same time that
lump sum payments were removed. God help what
will occur when and if lump sum payments are reintroduced - without the need
for the supposed crime to be corroborated in any way. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
23:58:20 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: [email protected] (Newsman) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:58:20 GMT On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:07:47 +1300, John Cawston
<[email protected]> wrote: Its a known fact that impressionable young females
need to be considered as "one of the gang". Any girl not abused by
a parent, relative or member of the Mongrel Mob would obviously be
disadvantaged at school without a
clause in the ACC legislation which allowed them to claim such abuse at some
time in the past which required no physical evidence whatsoever, did not name
a perpetrator (but allowed the interviewer to speculate) and accepted bad
behaviour as evidence of sexual abuse. OK. I'm being ironic, but it seems to me that
sexual abuse has replaced the 50s and 60s fad of being in therapy by It's an entire
industry constructed on suspicion, rumour, lies, malicious gossip and, above
all, the perverted need to *punish* and to satisfy a lust for self-righteous
retribution; all of which were once the very stuff of ignorant village
societies, but are nowadays whipped up by a suggestive media feeding a bored
and suggestible public desperate to swill yet another serving from the
pig-trough of cynically contrived scandal. The very notion
of *money* as compensation is nothing less than conceding to naked venality
and greed in a society where little other than the $ sign matters. The signs are both
degenerate and malign. Newsman From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
14:21:48 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: [email protected] (P Thorn) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 01:21:48 GMT This is truly ambulance chasing.
I have been listening to the radio and it seems this is a nationwide
mailout. It may cause a backlash on
the company as several people have returned the mailer with very rude
messages enclosed. P. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
18:38:06 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: "paraNews"
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:38:06 +1300 "P Thorn" <[email protected]>
wrote in message This is truly ambulance chasing. I have been listening to the radio and it
seems this is a nationwide mailout. It
may cause a backlash on the company as several people have returned the
mailer with very rude messages enclosed. I expect the
labour party who explicitly said on their website before the last election,
that lump sums for mental injury WOULD NOT be reintroduced, would have
preferred the fact that they have
re-introduced lump sums for abuse etc to remain out of the news. Unfortunialty
for them, the greed of lawyers who saw a "gift horse" have tripped
labour up. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
21:40:39 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: Winston Wealleans
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 21:40:39 +1300 On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:38:06 +1300,
"paraNews" <[email protected]> wrote: I expect the labour party who explicitly said on
their website before the last election, that lump sums for mental injury
WOULD NOT be reintroduced, would have preferred the fact that they have
re-introduced lump sums for abuse etc to remain out of the news. Unfortunialty for them, the greed of lawyers who
saw a "gift horse" have tripped labour up. The Dominion ( 08 December
2000, page 8 ACC sex-abuse
payments to be vetted, says Cullen By David
McLoughlin THE Government
hopes to prevent another blowout in ACC sex-abuse payments by more careful
medical scrutiny of claims when lump-sum payments are restored under a bill
before Parliament. When lump sums for
victims of rape and sexual abuse were last available, the number of claims
rose from 221 in 1988 to 13,000 in 1993, when such payments were abolished
because of the rapidly rising cost. Critics said
many claims were fraudulent or driven by therapists "planting"
false memories. Claimants were almost always automatically paid $10,000 on
application, with no checks to see if the abuse happened and if anyone had
been prosecuted. Criminal
prosecutions for all categories of sex crimes have averaged about 700 a year
in the past 13 years but ACC claims related to sex abuse (including
counselling since 1993) have averaged 6000 a year. ACC Minister Michael
Cullen introduced his Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Bill to Parliament
last week. It reintroduces lump payments of up to $100,000 for accident
victims who suffer lasting physical impairment. It also
provides for lump sums for "mental injury caused by certain criminal
acts", defined as sex crimes including rape and sexual abuse. Claims
will be paid whether or not there has been a complaint to police or a
prosecution. Aucklander
Gordon Waugh, a long-time campaigner against false allegations of sexual
abuse, said the bill's open-ended wording would lead to further false claims
and a budget blowout. ACC continued
to pay therapists to counsel abuse victims after lump sums were cut off, he
said. There were 10,800 such new cases in 1994, falling slowly to 4400 in the
year to June 30. All new claimants from the date the bill is passed, expected
to be late next year, will be able to claim lump sums as well as having their
counselling paid for. Dr Cullen said
yesterday that the Government recognised the risk of spurious claims, but
planned tight constraints. Claimants would be assessed for lump sums only after
providing a certificate from a medical practitioner qualified to assess
mental injury. Asked why a
complaint to police or a criminal conviction was not needed, Dr Cullen said
that could disqualify many legitimate victims. The bill
provides payments for mental injury caused by sexual trauma, but not for
people traumatised by witnessing or surviving a crash without physical
injuries. Dr Cullen said it was decided the cost would be prohibitive. From [email protected] Tue Jan
08 18:41:56 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: Anyone you want me to be
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 18:41:56 +1300 On 7 Jan 2002 17:24:34 GMT,
[email protected] wrote But first they should be able to show some real
evidence of sexual abuse - not just say-so or hear-say from 20 years ago or
conviction of the person responsible based on flimsy circumstantial evidence
or solely on the word of a child. And it is just
as easy to deny actual sexual abuse by saying the claim was made on the
unsubstantiated word of a child. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
18:48:10 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: John Cawston
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 18:48:10 +1300 Anyone you want me to be wrote: And it is just as easy to deny actual sexual abuse
by saying the claim was made on the unsubstantiated word of a child. Peter Ellis
might disagree. JC From [email protected] Tue Jan
08 19:12:43 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: Anyone you want me to be
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 19:12:43 +1300 On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 18:48:10 +1300, John Cawston
<[email protected]> wrote Peter Ellis might disagree. And the
children that were raped and not believed by people like Brian R and Winston
W see it as being raped all over again when they are called liars. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
20:17:48 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: John Cawston
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 20:17:48 +1300 Anyone you want me to be wrote: And the children that were raped and not believed
by people like Brian R and Winston W see it as being raped all over again
when they are called liars. Provide the
evidence. Both for the rapes and any direct quotes from the (now) adults.
Provide any physical evidence supplied to the various court actions. JC From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
23:55:58 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: [email protected] (Brian) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:55:58 GMT On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 19:12:43 +1300, Anyone you
want me to be <[email protected]> wrote: And the children that were raped and not believed
by people like Brian R and Winston W see it as being raped all over again
when they are called liars. Greg, I have
never called the children at the centre of the Creche case liars. I do not recall Winston ever having done so
either. Peter Ellis was reported in David McLoughlin's 1996 article to be
concerned for the children. Sure, the
children were wrong in the stories that they were coached to
regurgitate. But I'd call
the child interrogators like Sue Sidey the liars, a lot sooner than I'd ever
think about claiming the children liars.
It was, after all the interrogators that made the stories up. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
19:27:28 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: "paraNews"
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:27:28 +1300 "Anyone you want me to be"
<[email protected]> wrote in message And it is just as easy to deny actual sexual abuse
by saying the claim was made on the unsubstantiated word of a child. The fact that
sexual abuse is so hard to prove or disprove, has meant that claims in
relation to sexual abuse one way or the other are a very powerful weapon in
the battle of the genders for power and control. Feminists made great
progress in obtaining power from men when abuse's profile was raised and now
mens groups are using false claims as the spearhead of their backlash. Which is why
Phill Goff can't back down over Peter Ellis. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
21:38:43 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: Patrick Dunford
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 21:38:43 +1300 In article
<[email protected]> in newsgroup nz.general on Tue,
8 Jan 2002 19:27:28 +1300, paraNews([email protected]) said... The fact that sexual abuse is so hard to prove or
disprove, has meant that claims in relation to sexual abuse one way or the
other are a very powerful weapon in the battle of the genders for power and
control. Feminists made great progress in obtaining power from men when
abuse's profile was raised and now mens groups are using false claims as the
spearhead of their backlash. Which is why Phill Goff can't back down over Peter
Ellis. Phil Goff can't
back down because, like Rod Donald, once elected he would come under
pressure from feminist colleagues not to take further action. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
21:36:45 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: Patrick Dunford
<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 21:36:45 +1300 Anyone you want me to
be([email protected]) said... And it is just as easy to deny actual sexual abuse
by saying the claim was made on the unsubstantiated word of a child. In the Ellis
case the interviewing techniques made most of the "evidence"
worthless. From [email protected] Tue Jan 08
22:14:01 2002 Newsgroups: nz.general Subject: Re: In this morning's mail From: "Dudley Dunn"
<[email protected]> Date: 8 Jan 2002 22:14:01 +1300 Patrick Dunford <[email protected]> wrote: In the Ellis case the interviewing techniques made
most of the "evidence" worthless. Goff hired a
stooge in Eichelbaum, gave him a narrow range of reference, the topic of
which was pure psychobabble, that was guaranteed to return the result Goff
wanted. And the prick won't read
Lynley Hood's book. Hood shows very
well what started and drove the whole thing. Goff, by
ignoring the obvious, is being grossly irresponsible and should be charged
with gross negligence and dereliction of duty. |
