Brian Edwards Media

Posts Tagged 'Amanda Hotchin'

That odious non-journalist, Jonathan Marshall, is up to his old tricks in Australia and it’s not a pretty story.

Over the last couple of weeks Judy and I have  received phone calls and an email from Cathy Barker. Cathy is the wife of former  Spliz Enz  drummer Michael Barker.  Cathy and Michael are the parents of  teenager Tristan Barker who has become infamous in Australia –  where he has just finished school  –  and beyond for his anarchic and generally offensive rants on Facebook and Twitter.

According to Australian media reports, Tristan has ‘hundreds of thousands’ of teenage fans who hang on his every word. His Twitter page reveals that he currently has just under 15,000 followers, so I suspect his fan numbers may be exaggerated. But that’s still a lot of people and his on-line presence is undoubtedly significant.

Tristan’s methodology, by his own telling, is to slaughter as many sacred cows and offend the sensibilities of as many people as possible in order to make us all think. He is clearly highly intelligent and writes well.

But his outpourings are properly unacceptable, I would have thought, to even the most liberal mind. Here in New Zealand, Netsafe Executive Director Martin Cocker has described Tristan’s actions as ‘inciting of acts of hatred’. Whether that is Tristan’s intention or not,  I think Cocker may well be right.

Unsurprisingly, Tristan who is a Kiwi and whose parents live in Rotorua, has attracted the particular attention of the Australian media, most recently for allegedly assaulting Channel Seven’s Today Tonight reporter Dave Eccleston who had travelled to Rotorua to interview him. Eccleston required medical treatment. Tristan appeared in Rotorua District Court this morning, charged with common assault. He was remanded on bail until April 3.    Read the rest of this entry »

51 Comments , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lawyers for the Sunday Star Times threaten me with an action for defamation – but the threat is “not for publication”.

I have received a menacing email from a Ms Sarah Bacon, a partner in the law firm Izard Weston. The firm acts for Fairfax New Zealand Limited, publisher of the Sunday Star Times.

The email refers to my recent post The Hotchin Affidavits – Four witnesses swear that Amanda Hotchin did not speak the damaging words attributed to her by the Sunday Star Times.

Paragraph 9 of Ms Bacon’s email reads: “Your blog and the comments that follow defame our client, the Editor of the Sunday Star Times and Mr Marshall. Our client will not tolerate these false and defamatory publications. Our client expects you to immediately remove the defamatory material from your website (along with any cached material) and to ensure that no further defamatory postings are published.”

Paragraph 10 reads: “We also put you on notice that our client will be minded to take action against you if you draw any adverse inference from the fact that our client is unwilling and unable to engage with you on this issue in a public forum.”

I have read and re-read the Hotchin Affidavits post and there is absolutely nothing in it defamatory of the Sunday Star Times, its editor or Jonathan Marshall.  Read the rest of this entry »

105 Comments , , , ,

The Hotchin Affidavits – Four witnesses swear that Amanda Hotchin did not speak the damaging words attributed to her by the Sunday Star Times

On January 8 of this year I received an email from Amanda Hotchin. The email was in response to a post I had published on 16 May 2010, entitled Reflections on Not Caring in Hawaii. The post was highly critical of the Hotchins and in particular of a statement attributed to Mrs Hotchin in an article in the Sunday Star Times under the by-line of Jonathan Marshall. In the article Marshall reported having approached Mrs Hotchin at the property she and her husband were renting in Hawaii and having asked to speak to her husband, Mark.

According to Marshall, a conversation ensued in which Mrs Hotchin said, “We don’t have to justify where we get our money from or what it is spent on to anyone. I don’t care what anyone says.” These words appeared in quotation marks and not as reported speech in Marshall’s report, indicating that they were the actual words spoken by Mrs Hotchin.

It was primarily on the basis of this quotation that I and others accused the Hotchins of being indifferent to the plight of thousands of Hanover investors, many of them elderly, who had lost their life savings when the company went under.

In her email to me, Mrs Hotchin claimed that she cared greatly about what happened to the investors and denied that she had ever spoken these words, or anything like them, to Jonathan Marshall. She continued:

The “quote” is pure fabrication. I have four sworn affidavits from people who were present or nearby when I told the reporter to leave the property. Two of those affidavits are from two Americans working on site at the request of the rental management company (who I do not know personally) who overheard our exchange and confirm I said nothing like what I was “quoted” as saying.   Read the rest of this entry »

70 Comments , , , , ,

I receive and respond to an email from Amanda Hotchin

Stuff.co.nz

I have written four posts on Mark Hotchin. The first Reflections on not caring in Hawaii was highly critical of Hotchin’s and his wife Amanda’s seeming inability to comprehend why New Zealanders were offended by the contrast between the Hotchins’ current lifestyles and the current lifestyles of the thousands of Hanover investors who had lost not merely huge sums of money but their happiness and peace of mind as a result of Hotchin’s and Eric Watson’s greed and, by the most generous interpretation, mismanagement of the their investments.  

My comments had been largely triggered by a front-page report in the Sunday Star Times headlined Inside Hotchin’s Hawaiian Hideaway, in which Amanda was quoted as having said, “We don’t have to justify where we get our money from or what it is spent on to anyone. I don’t care what anyone says.”  

I concluded:  

It really is quite an extraordinary statement, exemplifying as it does all the characteristics of Level 1 moral development – absolute selfishness, lack of conscience and indifference to the welfare of others. I don’t doubt for a moment that these people love their children and are kind to animals. But the misery which their actions have brought to thousands of ‘mum and dad’ investors seems for them to fall into the category of ‘long-distance impersonal harm’, all the more distant from a lounger by the pool in Hawaii.    

I have nothing but contempt for most of the finance company shysters, whether on Wall Street or Queen Street, who have wreaked such havoc in the lives of those who put their trust in them. But really my contempt is wasted. They don’t care. And it is their not caring that is the unforgivable crime.   Read the rest of this entry »

197 Comments , , , , ,