Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Right to justice. In reality its a myth

  1. #21
    Oh dear. Like Telecom give a flying fig about this website.
    Oh dear. ".. every telecom store be hit with placards and demonstration".
    Oh dear. I can see it. 500 telecom offices all over New Zealand being absolutely bombarded by an army of two (2) people.

    Oh dear. What has this site quickly desolved into?

    Yoda, stop embarrassing yourself.

  2. #22
    swampfox:your policeman friend as hit the nail on the head

    another view is:A great equation for corruption is

    Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion Accountability

    do we tick all the boxes yeap i think we do

  3. #23
    bill of rights:
    you are entitled to your view however do not mock our efforts if your role is to ridicule ,one can only suspect you are a telecom employee, the writers are well aware of a group within telecoms structure who sole role is the troll thru websites and message boards and impose telecom pr spin into the discussion

  4. #24
    Of course I am a telecom employee. Of course I came to this site just in case you might come along later to bleat here.

    You brought your problem to this site, a problem which a tiny amount of research reveals to have been a problem of your own making, and of your own magnification (research which I did with a view to seeing how I could help you). I have as much right to comment on the situation as my research has revealed it to be, as you had to bring the problem here.

    That said, I understand what "querulous paranoia" is. I soon realised that anyone and everyone who even so much as asks you a question will instantly become your enemy. And I could predict that within two or three exchanges of postings, I too would be perceived by you to be your enemy.

    I will feed your condition no further. Good luck with your campaign.

  5. #25
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Blog Entries
    Quote Originally Posted by silverfox View Post
    bill of rights:
    you are entitled to your view however do not mock our efforts if your role is to ridicule ,one can only suspect you are a telecom employee, the writers are well aware of a group within telecoms structure who sole role is the troll thru websites and message boards and impose telecom pr spin into the discussion
    Rest assured that B.O.R is not a Telecom employee but just another member who has considerable experience at being shafted by the New Zealand justice system and although I often disagree with his views too, I would suggest that its best to focus on the issues and the common goal of sharing our experiences to promote change.

  6. #26
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Blog Entries
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    There are Telecom offices all over New Zealand. How about every Telecom store be hit with placards and demonstration? I am sure that Telecom will take notice - at least the media will take notice. The marginalised and voiceless should unite.

    I wonder when this website will be forced to close down by Telecom and their cohorts. They may hire some hackers to attack this website. I suppose, we can wait and see when the patient of Telecom and their cohorts wears out.
    FYI- there have already been several DNS attacks on this site, mainly from China & Russia and were probably in response to articles featured on the site several months ago. This site is still in its infancy and will grow over time.. its here to do precisely what you envisage..enabling the marginalised and voiceless to unite. Thanks for your now have an army of 3!

  7. #27
    As Kim Dotcom's legal team has shown....go to the source, check the legalities, publicise the wrongdoing..get the public annoyed with those overstepping the mark, media exposure does wonders...Telecom cares about its image..
    rights are typically not lost in one action unless its a revolution or coup.....rights slip away..through lack of courage, laziness , or unwillingness to confront a wrong....if all continue to take that backward step, they eventually find themselves in a place that they never intended to be saying why me and whom let this happen.
    Silverfox has taken up the batton , and thus far bested Telecom and their high priced lies and other goings we have a lone voice, with only his intellect and perservance to challenge a corporation backed by numerous people within HR and the Simpson Greison lawyer John Rooney...he has according to his blog all neccessary documentation ....the only thing lacking to complete is to shame various government agencies into doing the job that they are paid by the public purse to do and what the bill of rights entitles him......The world is powered by passionate people, powerful ideas, and fearless action.
    One strong belief: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
    I commend Silverfox's perserverance, his persistance and being not willing to to take a step back and not least the reality of the real power of the bill of rights.
    B.O.R. makes a comment re whom really pays attention to this site, as a recent recruit I ask if not what does this site exist for, if not to envoke change then exchange of opinions that goes no where. However if the opinions are widely dissiminated , the curiosity and the concern of the public stirs action and the first small step to change gains traction..

  8. #28
    B.O.R.....did your research reveal the letter from the Simpson Greison lawyer advising that the complaint letter did not exist
    I am interested in your conclusion that a quick bit of research revealed that silverfox's problem was all of his owning making...and what premise substantiated that.
    Silverfox is it possible to scan the letter confirming this to this forum.

  9. #29
    Reflecting on this , the pharse "orchestrated litany of lies " sprang to mind....this started with a lie...I further reflect that Justice McMahon was a lone voice , expressing an honest belief and maintaining his intergrity...and only recently has his stand been acknowledged when a public apology was given to the families of the flight crew by the CEO of Air New Zealand.

  10. #30
    bill of rights : its a pity you have decided to cut and run; you asked what i wanted from this in ten words i provided same however your "perception
    after a small amount of research is in error
    i will accept the admin advice and welcome your input .yes you have as much right to comment as anybody else and you have my empathy for the trails you faced
    however i will acknowledge i have a profound aversion to people mocking the efforts of others whose contributions where trying to help
    i will present my bona fides and answer swampfox query as well with the same document as well

    Attn Head of C I B

    Fraud and Defamation

    Paul Evans-McLeod vs. Telecom New Zealand


    I have found proof that a fraud was committed, written customer complaints, used in initiating the disciplinary process did not exist, and never had...

    Finally getting the admission from Telecom with the help of the privacy commission

    Fraud is commonly understood to be dishonesty calculated for advantage i.e. a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of what should have been disclosed –that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act on it to his legal injury

    Note: Ultimately for myself, it was not only legal injury, but financial hardship, and loss of health..The loss of close to $480.000.the loss of a large redundancy due to a very very old contract payout and a job of 39 3 months years duration.

    I am instructed by the Minister of labour Kate Wilkinson in her response to my concerns (letter 3rd oct) that this is a matter for the police

    I am further instructed by the local office of department of labour

    “Accordingly, in the event that you consider that there are elements of fraud or criminal wrongdoing it is incumbent upon you to lodge a complaint with the Police should you wish to request an investigation?”

    On 251011 I visited the Hamilton Central Police Station to attempt to lay a charge of fraud against my previous employer of 39 years 3 months

    I spoke with a constable Adam James who after listening intently to my concerns and after speaking with his superior informed me my request was of a rather complex nature could I please set it out in written form so it could be properly dealt with and sent forward thru the system

    On Sunday 13 Nov. 11 I again spoke to Adam James who passed me to his senior sergeant named Peter van der Wettering I believe, after a discussion with him he advised me to write a letter of complaint to your office

    Hence I am now talking to you I require this to be acted upon

    This is what transpired in their words, copies of all can be provided if the decision is made to pursue the charge, telecom will have copies of same signed off as true and correct.

    It is the act of fraud, deliberate and to my detriment that is requiring investigation

    Participants and Witness

    All participants in this protracted fraud are in my view culpable under the law. As it is part of their job requirements to make themselves fully cognisant with all the laws of the land it is an integral part of their job descriptions

    Bridgette Dalzell: National Manager Telecom: who had oversight of the process as her role dictates
    Michelle Young Site manager 123 Call Centre Hamilton (Bridgette Dalzell is Michelle's manager)
    Shaun Hoult my Team Leader (Michelle Young is his manager)
    Iain Galloway Site Human Resource Manager
    Hannah Sullivan head office Human Resource

    Peter Cooper-Davis Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union My support person who took copious notes throughout the entire process will be able to attest to the veracity of the information from an independent view point

    The Proof

    The following are excerpts taken form note of various disciplinary meeting held over the course of approximately 8 months of constant harassment

    Each provides a reference to the fraudulent document which doesn’t exist


    Escalations – 2 customers laid written complaints regarding your customer service

    Escalations throughout the period 02/02/10 and 03/02/10 related to poor tone and manner described by the customer as “condescending and rude”. On call recorded 17/03 you were recorded saying to your customer “will go back to the original premise where you be quiet and you listen, Ok? All I ask of you is yes or no answer and not a story OK?” (Play call in nice) nice is a machine that records all conversations

    Points of note
    2 written customer complaints affirms there are two complaints
    Manner described by the customer as “condescending and rude” described by customer


    Written warning 300509Consideration of your explanations

    Having carefully considered your explanations we do not accept that your explanations satisfactorily justify your actions for the following reasons;

    I do not accept that language that could be construed as patronising or condescending is appropriate in your attempts to control a call or were you deem the customer to be intellectually challenged. All customers have the right to expect a polite and professional service standard.
    Points of note

    Reference again to patronising or condescending is appropriate
    There is no way this intellectually handicapped girl had the intelligence to make a complaint I’m not denigrating her it just a statement of fact her disability just doesn’t allow her thought process’s to work that way

    plus many more over a long period of time all document refer to the fraudulent use of /or mention of a complaint letter which does not exist
    Copies of all can be produced detailing date, day time, reason for meeting attendees at meeting etc
    Unfortunately they fill a least two lever arch files

    And so on it went ending up with a final written warning and mediation and me being exited from the company on 20th of Aug 2010

    I decided to lodge on my own a complaint with the employment relations authority I did this without the assistance of a employment lawyer as past experience made me fully aware that telecom wins most of it battles with its deep pockets

    It employs the usual cooperate tactic of leading you around and around in circles, going nowhere using up time money and resources till you eventually quit again exhausted mentally physically and financially

    I persued an investigation on my own via the privacy commission to find the original copy of the written complaint letter describing my actions as condescending and rude

    Meeting stiff resistance from telecom alerted me that I was on the right track

    Proof from privacy commissioner excerpts taking from letter 25 march 2011

    Privacy Act Complaint: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited (Our Ref: Cr22243)

    In particular refer to your email of 24 March 2011. In you email your have advised that you have received further information from Telecom in relation to your request of 26 May 2010. You have asked for a response regarding information which you are still seeking, including details of a written complaint and details regarding access to your email accounts~

    As set out in my letter of 12 November 2010 Telecom had provided us with a copy of all of the information it was seeking to withhold from you, along with its submissions regarding why it believed it was entitled to withhold this information under the Privacy Act.

    I advised that I was satisfied that Telecom was entitled to withhold the majority of the personal information it was withholding under sections 29(1)(a), 29(lXf) and 29(2)(b), However, I also noted that there were several documents which I was not satisfied that Telecom could withhold.

    On this basis it is my preliminary view that Telecom has now provided you with all of the information you are entitled to under the Privacy Act

    however before we form our final view regarding your complaint. I would like to give a chance to comment on the information which Telecom has withheld. If you would like to comment please do so by 15 April 2011. If we do not hear from you by this date we will finalise our view on your complaint.

    Yours sincerely

    My Reply

    Subject: urgent questions

    Hi Sarah
    First thank you very much for your prompt reply, it is appreciated You have indicated Telecom are entitled to withhold information under Clauses 29(1)(a)29(1)(b) 29 (2) (b) of the Privacy act

    Can we please provide further details specific to the questions asked, as to which clause of the privacy act referred to which question asked
    These answers need to be precise in their detail as I cannot base any answers in rebuttal unless I know the specific clause each specific exemption was based on
    Unfortunately an answer of both or all clauses fails to provide the necessary clarity I require
    Also as 29 (2) (b) gives two specific reasons please clarify which of the two applies

    Specifically I require their response to the request regarding the written complaint supposedly written by the handicapped girl where it was alleged I was ‘condescending and rude ‘ Where is the complaint letter .Under which clause did they gain exemption under which reason applies

    Next reply from the privacy commissioner

    Dear Paul
    thank you for your email.
    You have asked for comments regarding the withholding grounds which Telecom has relied on in relation to two specific pieces of information that you have requested.
    The first request was for a written complaint. As set out in my letter of 12 November 2010, Telecom advised that, in terms of your request for details of two customer complaints which had been made about you, the information was contained in emails which were included in the documents previously provided to you.

    Any additional information is therefore withheld under section 29(2)(b) on the basis that it does not exist.


    If you would like to provide any further comments regarding my view that Telecom is entitled to withhold information from you under sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(f) and 29(2)(b) please do so by 15 April 2011. After this time we will be forming our final view regarding your complaint.


    Sarah Thompson

    Investigating Officer

    Office of the Privacy Commissioner


    Thank you for your prompt response, I am unsure from your reply, if you have had further discussions with Telecom, as a result of the last letter.

    I have assumed that you have, if not my apologies.
    With a skilful selection of words Telecom has provided a disingenuous response in an attempt to deceive you and to obscure the truth

    completely correct the first request was for a written complaint they say

    “Details of two customer complaints which had been made about you, the information was contained in emails which were included in the documents previously provided to you.”
    Details may have been provided, the original letter has not...Thus information has been provided, the specific letter has not.
    A written complaint was the basis of the disciplinary action, yet there is no actual letter able to be provided, it calls into question its existence. Its specific existence is important as it was one of the major points used in my dismissal it shows their duplicity right from the start of their dealings with me
    Thus they are playing with words
    Yes there was information containing in emails referring to “two” customer complaints.

    However only one of them was real; the other was never there. It doesn’t exist.

    Please refer to the submission to the era I forwarded to you earlier in the year to hold for your own information. (This can be resent if you require)

    It contains proof that on Monday June 15th 2010; Shaun Hoult, my team manager admitted no letter existed.

    Therefore it is not: “Any additional information is therefore withheld under section 29(2) (b) on the basis that it does not exist.” It is not additional information, it is one half of the two customer complaints they alleged “the information was contained in emails which were included in the documents previously provided to you”.

    As to the second they have blatantly lied again (unbelievably so)
    I can only assume that Telecom has skilfully worded it to direct you to make the conclusion you made
    Sarah, I acknowledge that my approach is becoming somewhat pedantic and appreciate your patience thus far. The 'devil" as they say is in the detail. If the detail requested exists, it is a relatively simple matter to provide it, to the privacy commission.
    We have instead, obstrufication, and a less than straight answers from Telecom....why the need???

    Warm regards


    I finally get the answer in amongst all the other rubbish what follows is the final report from the office of the privacy commissioner in its entirety
    the important excerpts relevant to the fraud are highlighted in red

    Dear Mr Evans-McLeod

    Privacy Act Complaint: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited (Our Ref:C/22243)

    I refer to previous correspondence concerning the Privacy Act complaint you have made about the actions of Telecom New Zealand Limited (“Telecom’).
    I have now had a chance to review this file in full and consider the issues raised.

    I am satisfied that in this case Telecom has interfered with your privacy by initially withholding some information from you without a proper basis.

    However I am also satisfied that you have now been provided with the information you are entitled to. It is also my view that there is no evidence to demonstrate that Telecom has accessed emails which you had sent and received from your work computer while you were still an employee at Telecom. I note that even if Telecom had accessed these emails, I believe it would have been entitled to do so in reliance on its clear computer use policy.
    The Privacy Act
    There are two main aspects to your complaint. The first is in relation to your request for information from Telecom. The second is in relation to your concerns that Telecom had accessed your personal emails while you were at work.

    Issue I — Telecom’s response to your request for informs at/on.

    This aspect of your complaint raises issues in terms of principle 6 of the Privacy Act. Principle 6 sets out that an individual is entitled to request access to the personal information which an agency holds about them. However, this is not an absolute right as the agency may withhold the requested information in reliance on one of the withholding grounds set out in sections 27-29 of the Privacy Act. This aspect of your complaint also raises issues in terms of part 6 of the Privacy Act which sets out the procedural requirements on agencies in terms of how they are required to respond to requests for information.
    Initial Request to Telecom
    As Telecom did not receive your initial request for information due to the fact that your email address had been blocked, I am satisfied it has not breached the Privacy Act by not responding to your initial request.

    Request of 26 May 2010
    You sent a fresh request for information to Telecom on 26 May 2010 asking for all of the information it held in relation to you.
    Telecom provided a number of documents in response to your request, it also withheld information from you under sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(f) and 29(2)(b). For the reasons set out in Ms Thompson’s letters of 12 November 2010 and 25 March 2011, I am satisfied that Telecom is entitled to rely on these sections to withhold information from you.
    I note that on a number of occasions since Telecom provided you with information in relation to your 26 May 2010 request, you have advised us that you believe there are additional documents which Telecom has not provided to you. We have sought comment from you regarding specific documents which you believe were outstanding and have provided you with Telecom’s responses in terms of why it considers it has already provided you with these documents, to the extent that they exist. As previously advised Telecom is entitled to refuse a request for information which does not exist under section 29(2)(b).

    My words
    Start “there it is the smoking gun “

    “this portion refers to the letter that was supposedly written customer complaint by the handicap girl who said I was “condescending and rude” they are therefore admitting fraud in the disciplinary process” end

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts