Apart from interested observers and partisans who noticed, or considered gravely, that a blogger called Peter some naughty words. Such naughty words that Peter would be reduced to biting his fingers and rolling about the floor in bewilderment and hurt. Would the general public have noticed had Peter not cast himself into infamy by driving a tank over one of his employer's clients, and shouting back, over his shoulder, 'ya called me names, you said I couldn't drive a tank over a fully used pedestrian crossing - well cop that, ya squeamy chum!'
Well, I feel sorry for ya Pete. I've got a fair to middling size couch. I could kick the rampaging books and bits of paper from it and you could lie down, all comfy like, with a freshly washed dummy in ya gob and tell me what happened when that blogger said something naughty. I'm not advocating smacking Pete, no no no. But you might need a good smack to get you back on track instead of driving pedestrians over in your tank. Think about buying a hummer, downsize, reduce your own considered importance to a thimble-full and breath.
Showing posts with label Dr Peter Jansen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr Peter Jansen. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Dr Peter Jansen, the issue over how he was
able to 'locate' his alleged defamer.
I don't think it matters. Most people would agree that a defamer, respondent, or defendant in any legal matter can't find shelter because of their belief that their real identity or whereabouts was secret, and was thereby acting as some sort of shield against the allegations raised against them. That won't do in the final wash up.
However, the defamer once named and identified to the Court is able to build a profile of the person they apparently defamed. Many people would think that the Doctor's determination for compensation against his alleged defamer might also be a measure of his 'prick' like nature, or his attitude or general feelings of his sovereignty over those his professional life has impacted upon. Jansen never owned or controlled his alleged defamer and if he has overstepped his role as a Government representative and employee by engaging in a campaign against someone currently or in the past, being in his care - all the characteristics of that campaign should be judged both in terms of him being called an incompetent prick, and whether he (a man probably worth millions, earned in part by contract with the Government) is able to 'step out' from his contracted role, and bring to task, a client who is not only dissatisfied with his performance but sees him as a paid employee and public figure associated with ACC.
If the NZ public, represented by a Jury, consider that Jansen benefited from his relationship in planing the 'pathways' to better performance by ACC, whom he was also to be employed by and seen as being spokesperson, director, and architect of ACC and that his performance, along with that of ACC, was incompetent, it is impossible for the Doctor to be extracted from that recognised role into one where he can allege that if in the public mind ACC are recongised as being incompetent, he stood alone as being competent and not a prick. Oh dear.
I don't think it matters. Most people would agree that a defamer, respondent, or defendant in any legal matter can't find shelter because of their belief that their real identity or whereabouts was secret, and was thereby acting as some sort of shield against the allegations raised against them. That won't do in the final wash up.
However, the defamer once named and identified to the Court is able to build a profile of the person they apparently defamed. Many people would think that the Doctor's determination for compensation against his alleged defamer might also be a measure of his 'prick' like nature, or his attitude or general feelings of his sovereignty over those his professional life has impacted upon. Jansen never owned or controlled his alleged defamer and if he has overstepped his role as a Government representative and employee by engaging in a campaign against someone currently or in the past, being in his care - all the characteristics of that campaign should be judged both in terms of him being called an incompetent prick, and whether he (a man probably worth millions, earned in part by contract with the Government) is able to 'step out' from his contracted role, and bring to task, a client who is not only dissatisfied with his performance but sees him as a paid employee and public figure associated with ACC.
If the NZ public, represented by a Jury, consider that Jansen benefited from his relationship in planing the 'pathways' to better performance by ACC, whom he was also to be employed by and seen as being spokesperson, director, and architect of ACC and that his performance, along with that of ACC, was incompetent, it is impossible for the Doctor to be extracted from that recognised role into one where he can allege that if in the public mind ACC are recongised as being incompetent, he stood alone as being competent and not a prick. Oh dear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)