Hotchin suing NZ Herald update.

Among the allegations from Hotchin is that the Herald and Gaynor had waged a long-standing campaign against him, according to his lawyers, the articles were 'highly damaging, incorrect and misleading.' This, amongst other things 'seriously damaged his personal and commercial reputation and caused him to lose commercial opportunities both in New Zealand and Australia.'

Here's another beauty, 'the New Zealand Herald is accused of acting improperly 'and/or with the intention of increasing sales.' How naive that seems to be, it suggests that people would buy the Herald to read about Hotchin and therefore there would be an increase in sales. Also, 'with the intention of increasing sales,' I wonder if Hotchin or his lawyers realise that a commercial enterprise is geared toward increasing sales, and just because that entity is a publisher doesn't discount them from that role of looking to increase business without any need to defame dear Marky. I think more than anything such claims show if not pure vanity, then a man under self-induced pressure, unwilling to accept his own shortcomings and unable to find a way out.

Mr Hotchin has launched some misguided media parades in order to re-establish his reputation. He seems totally unaware that when a multi millionaire pleads poverty or how much he put into a failed company in which investors lost millions, those investors just don't care. Hotchin's very fall from grace has echoed in the public mind because of the failure of his companies and the way investors feel they've been treated, both of which would have had greater impact on his reputation that articles written in The Herald. It is the investors that have spread the word and feeling about Hotchin. His white elephant mansion in Orakei I'm sure features more in the mind of the public than anything Gaynor has written.

But moreover what Gaynor has written might well be tested (if Hotchin succeeds to trial,) and measured against Hotchins assets being frozen in the Courts, the public feeling abroad about failed finance companies in general and Hotchin in particular. I don't think Hotchin has a dog's show, this action reeks of the anger of a man under pressure who thought the pheasant's should appreciate his greatness and the opportunity to lose money by investing in his brand. There is a sharp delusion showing here. I think Hotchin is bewildered that he is viewed any differently than the way he sees himself, and additionally confused why there is no sympathy abroad for him.

I've never agreed with the invasion into the privacy of his family, I think that has been unwarranted and the work of guttersnipes (old word there), but the stark fact remains that Mark Hotchin sewed the seeds of his own fate and public opinion of himself - he should grow some gonads and toughen up the bloody cry-baby.