hi guys/Badger, i cannot see the relevance of the examples used the hearing should have been stopped, i would have stopped it, i would probably have been arrested and been in prison by now, absolutely ridiculous this sort of thing has got to stop what do they think they are doing. Can`t think of what will happen now but i guess the case is done with not much room for recourse, i can only hope you can move on, all the best for now,cheers

Yes Robbo, I agree when all the presiding Board members read this shit they should have said "get out of my sight you filthy little f****" ( which is what I would have said)but no they didn't even bat an eyelid, most of them Master Plumbers.

NOT ONCE BUT 3 TIMES, JUST NOTICED ANOTHER ONE FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.

Is there such a thing as discretion anymore, or taste....let alone common decency. Just shows the level of these people, each and everyone who let it ride.

COME ON FIONA GRAVEL, LETS HEAR IT OR MARK WHITEHEAD THE PRESIDING CHAIR AT THE VERY HEARING THIS WAS AIRED AT.

Whats your thoughts on this Master Plumbers hierarchy, lets have them out in the open. Because I'll tell you this for nothing if you think this is public you haven't seen f**** all yet. lets see your spin on this

The reply/admission from the Board stating what I already knew and apparently all acceptable.....no disgust or distaste OR AN APPOLOGY

It shows the mind set, inhuman, arrogant, self opinionated, self important- what is the trade we would call tossers, please see below

Dear Mr Gee

 

I refer to your email dated 13 January 2012.

 

Your email appears to have been two cases referred to by David Laurenson, counsel for the investigator, in his submissions at your recent disciplinary hearing and the preceding hearing that dealt with your application to stay proceedings.

 

At the disciplinary hearing Mr Laurenson referred to Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, a leading case on the standard of proof at professional disciplinary hearings and quoted a paragraph from that case where the Supreme Court referred to a case involving the alleged sexual abuse of a minor. The Supreme Court used this case to discuss the sort of evidence that will be required to prove a charge on the balance of probabilities and how what is required may vary depending on the seriousness of the allegations.

 

At the earlier hearing of your application to stay proceedings Mr Laurenson referred to L v Dentists Disciplinary Tribunal, which was a case where the appellant successfully appealed a decision of the disciplinary tribunal not to stay proceedings relating to charges against him concerning sexual relations with a former patient.

 

As you are currently appealing the Board’s disciplinary decision, it is not appropriate for me to comment on this matter. However, I have referred your email to Mr Laurenson, who is acting for the investigator on the relevant appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Iain McLachlan

Solicitor

THEY JUST DON'T GET IT DO THEY....ITS A F#CKING PLUMBERS WORK TRIBUNAL, they will stoop to any level. SICK!!

Child abuse is a very sensitive subject especially when no one really knows who is affected and what it can do to a person many years later. This sort of information shouldn't be used in this manner so freely to start with but that's a different subject isn't it.

What I don't understand is why they didn't use something relevant to your industry to prove a point, nothing there? I admit I don't know all the details and wont comment to much but I understand how this can be upsetting to you and agree that it's tactless, the letter should have been at least sent in a way that only you could open it.  You have been through so much, I take my hat off to you and your wife mate. Keep your chin up!

Did they actually quote the pieces you have put up or did they just make reference to the case as is normal when using case law as an example?

I think their actions and accusations speak louder about them selves than anything.Not one person has said to me that they find this acceptable, not one.....except the Board.

For example the comment that they quoted me saying about my self being a "mere plumber", they still to date can't show me where I said that in context. Which to me reflects their attitude to plumbers in general.

They have lied about me, sending out letters stating that I was issuing dodgy certs in Northland (never been their), one sent to the only high school in my main center of business.

Kerny, the spinless, phoning me up and "warning" me over the phone, same guy taken to court recently for bulling an office lady.

All paid trip(financed by us "mere" plumbers) to Melbourne.

Acting illegally in the face of the best practice rules laid out by the NZ Law Commission.

Etc, etc......

If any of us had done a tenth of this we would be sued back to the stone age and / or incarcerated.......and we live in a democracy?

TS as usual you are talking out of your sphincter it has no place at a plumbers tribunal.

It cracks me up when "professionals" think they know better.......it is plain sick and has no place in my life, now f**** off