Archive for August, 2019

The Streisand Effect

Friday, August 30th, 2019

I thought I’d write one more story about the decision of Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) to defy the Privacy Commissioner and hide the contents of the Marris Report. You see, I recently discovered something called the Streisand Effect.

The Streisand Effect occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended result of publicising the information more widely. Once people are aware that information is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread it is increased.

It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters to suppress files and websites including Swimwatch. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives further publicity. Rather than going away the problem for those intent on suppression gets worse.

The Streisand effect perfectly describes what has happened in the case of Swimming New Zealand’s (SNZ) effort to hide the Marris Report. If the Marris Report had been sent to me three years ago when I was working in Saudi Arabia the interest in its contents would have been minimal. I knew the accusations being made by Nikki Johns were not true. That part of the Report was of little interest to me or anyone else. If SNZ had been found responsible for making political mileage out of my situation I would have been interested but my work in Saudi Arabia would have reduced its importance. Certainly three years later SNZ’s role would no longer have relevance. The Report would have come and gone – long forgotten.

What did interest me, and still does, are any comments Marris might have made that could improve my coaching. I considered him a perceptive critic who could well have made suggestions that could improve my coaching. If that was the case I was interested in finding out what they were. Any advice that might improve me and the results of my coaching was more than welcome. At the time this was my main motivation for wanting to read the Marris Report.

That has never changed. My principal motive for wanting to read the Report is still to see what Marris thought I needed to do to be a better coach. But because SNZ refused to send me the Report the Streisand Effect began. What was SNZ determined to hide. Why were they being so secretive? I knew they had no interest in protecting my privacy. So who were they protecting? It had to be either themselves or the complainants. But why? My interest in obtaining the Report began to grow.

And then the Privacy Commissioner ruled that I should be provided with a copy of the Report. And still SNZ refused. The Streisand Effect grew again. What on earth was going on? The government agency responsible for privacy ruled that I should be given the Report and SNZ turned them down. Now my interest was huge. I still wanted to find out what Marris said about my coaching. But now I also really wanted to know what SNZ was hiding. Portions of the Report that were of academic interest three years ago were now fascinating. If SNZ was prepared to defy the law there must be something interesting they were frantic to hide.

And so I appealed the case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Tribunal could order SNZ to disclose the Report. Clearly force is what it was going to take. Only compulsion is going to reveal to me, to SNZ members and to the public what is in the Report; what SNZ has spent three years and thousands of dollars trying to hide. Still SNZ fight on. While their lawyer was on holiday recently they hired a legal privacy specialist at $600 an hour to continue the battle. Whatever is in the Marris Report is worth $600 an hour for SNZ to keep quiet.

It is an interesting twist of fate that I get calls from the media, wanting to dig into every aspect of my coaching; wanting to delve into every fabrication invented by any disgruntled complainer and yet it is me who is spending money wanting to reveal what an official investigation into my coaching has to say.

One journalist this week asked questions about perfectly legitimate and authorised credit card payments made over thirty years ago in the 1980s. I was also asked about my coaching in the USA, a period when the American Swim Coaches Association awarded me their Certificate of Coaching Excellence for the work I had done with a masters world record holder, an Olympic Champion and two Florida State Champions. I will seek to answer the press with open honesty – good or bad. Of course my career has had its ups and downs – both have received their fair share of attention. The press however would do well to remember that it is the complainers and SNZ that want the findings of the Marris investigation hidden. SNZ and the complainers are the ones doing the hiding around here. SNZ and others are making an enormous and costly effort to divert attention away from the findings of the Marris Report and onto my life and career.

The press and others would do well to go dig into why. Why has SNZ spent thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars on hiding the Marris information? I’m not hiding anything but SNZ and its mates certainly are – and to the tune of $600 an hour. Go find out why. Go find out what they are so scared of. Streisand would be hugely impressed with the effort SNZ have gone to in order to hide information. When the press goes looking they would do well to remember that.

Another Devious Turn

Wednesday, August 28th, 2019

The saga of the Marris Report took another devious turn this month. The Marris Report was commissioned by Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) to investigate complaints made by Susan Turner and Nikki Johns into my coaching. Four sources involved in the investigation had promised me a copy of the Report.

  1. The Report’s author Michael Marris
  2. The then CEO of SNZ Christian Renford
  3. SNZ Disputes Rules
  4. The law – specifically the Privacy Act 1993

But, for some reason, SNZ refused to send me a copy of the Marris Report. The table below summarises what has happened since then.

I filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner requesting access to the Report

The Privacy Commissioner found in my favour and recommended SNZ provide me with a copy of the Report.

SNZ defied the Privacy Commissioner’s recommendation and said, no. That is a huge stain on a public sporting body – to openly defy the Privacy Commissioner. It means no private information is safe with SNZ.

I filed a complaint with the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

SNZ said I could read the Report in their offices on the conditions that I could not take away any of the Report. I could not photocopy or take notes of the content of the Report. The Report could have anything SNZ wanted deleted before I read the Report. I could not discuss anything in the Report with my wife, my family or my friends.

I refused the offer on the grounds the offer fell far short of what the law allowed and what I had been promised. The offer also did not address the damage that had been caused by SNZ’s three year interference in my privacy.

The case is now in the Human Rights Review Tribunal process. I am waiting for a pre-hearing conference call and the hearing itself.

My claim includes a request that the Tribunal order the open publication of the full Report and a claim for $240,300 for damages incurred by SNZ”s interference in my privacy.

When you read the effort SNZ has gone to in order to hide the Marris Report, like me, you must be asking the obvious question – what are they trying to hide?

But then, a month ago, the saga took another new twist. This next table tells you what has happened during the month of August 2019.

On the 5th August 2019 I received an email from Sport NZ telling me they had received a request from an unnamed person for copies of letters and emails sent by Susan Turner to the Minister of Sport and Recreation complaining about my coaching. The information requested included my name. Would I give my permission for Sport NZ to send the emails and letters on to the unnamed person?

On the 5th August 2019 I replied saying that, before I gave my approval, I needed to know the name of the person asking for the information about me.

On the 7th August 2019 Sport NZ replied asking whether they could tell the unnamed person my name when they made the request to disclose their name to me.

On the 7th August 2019 I replied saying that yes Sport NZ could tell the unnamed person my name.

On the 8th August 2019 Sport NZ emailed me to say they were refusing to provide the unnamed person’s name – in order to protect his or her privacy. But could they send on the emails and letters anyway.

On the 8th August 2019 I replied instructing Sport NZ that they did not have my approval to disclose the information requested. It should not be provided. I did not say this but as far as I was concerned if the person wanting access to my personal information would not tell me who he or she was – then they had no business prying into my affairs.

On the 26th August 2019 Sport NZ replied saying, in spite of my refusal, they had decided to send the emails and letters to the unnamed person. They had been sent that day.

On the 26th August 2019 I filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner based on a breach of Principle 11 of the Privacy Act – being that Sport NZ had disclosed my private information without my approval – or even worse – in the face of my specific refusal.

Can you believe it? What a double standard.

Sport NZ refuse to provide the name of the person making a request for my personal information because of privacy issues.

And yet, the same Sport NZ, send my name and a pile of my information to the unnamed person against my specific instructions.

I imagine it is fine to ask why the privacy of the person requesting the information is so much more important to Sport NZ than my privacy. Talk about one law for some and another law for the rest of us. Clearly Sport NZ has never heard of all being equal before the law. Everyone is equal, unless you are a well-known critic.

The person requesting the information has some questions to answer as well. How come, whoever they are, is so interested in me but won’t even tell me their name? What is their nefarious intent in accessing my private information? Why is Sport NZ so interested in colluding in their scheme?

These are all questions for the Privacy Commissioner to sort out. I suspect the Privacy Commissioner will find Sport NZ as guilty as SNZ was found a short time ago. Let us hope that, if Sport NZ is found to have breached my privacy, it does not take an appeal to the Human Rights Review Tribunal for them to do what is right.

What all this does show is that the administration of New Zealand sport is NOT in a healthy condition. The appearance of corruption is overwhelming. In this case the bias against a well-known critic appears equally obvious. We will see.

World Junior Championships 2019

Monday, August 26th, 2019

I have never been a fan of age group swimming. Usually the results have little to do with talent or potential. Results simply reflect those whose adult genetic make-up has matured earliest. There is more evidence to support the argument that early age group success is a strong indication of failure as a senior than the other way around. The rule is beware of success in age group swimming. At age group championships pray for failure. It is usually a better indicator of success as a senior. Certainly beware of age group championship gold medals.

For example, swimmers I have coached, Jane Copland never won a age group championship but won senior titles okay. Toni Jeffs never won a junior title but won plenty of championships as a senior. Nichola Chellingworth never won a junior title but was successful as a senior.

The list of red-hot juniors whose flame fades early is just as long. Take Ashley Rupapera for example. In 2006/07 she was amazing; at 14 years old she claimed her second New Zealand national age group record with a 100IM time of 1:05.30. In the Junior Championships she entered 13 individual events, swam in 22 races and won four gold medals and two silver medals. That’s ten more races than Phelps in six fewer days. I don’t know what Ashley is doing today. However, sadly, it does not include elite New Zealand swimming.

We should learn from the example of Johanna Konta currently 9th in the in the world tennis rankings and 2017 Wimbledon Championship semi-finalist. At 14 years of age she was told by Australian Tennis that she “lacked the requisite talent and potential” to be a champion.” Carl Lewis, who himself was ranked fourth in the world as a junior, was convinced. He said, “There is no correlation between a childhood success and a professional athlete.”

Scientists at the American Aquatic Research Centre in Boulder, Colorado agree. In one study they scanned the hand joints of every member of the American Olympic swimming team. Their purpose was to determine what portion of the swimmers had been early developers, on time and late developers. Evidently the rate at which the hand joints close can measure an individual’s physical maturity. Of the forty athletes tested only two had matured early, five had matured on time and the majority were late developers.

The American scientists concluded that the probable explanation for the stunning failure of swimmers who develop early is the almost impossible burden of handling their early success, followed by the struggle to stay ahead of late developers who were such easy beats a few years earlier. Over and over again it happens; junior winners find it impossible to handle the “shame” of being beaten by slow swimmers who used to be miles behind and often didn’t even make finals. Interpreting it all as a failure on their part the early superstars go off to the local surf patrol or to a water polo team. And that is absolutely understandable.

And so with those words of caution here are the results of the New Zealand team at the World Junior Championships this week in Budapest, Hungary. Unlike Steve Johns I was hoping for PBs but desperately praying no one would win a race – or even make a final. If that happened, NZ juniors would be tracking along just fine.

Name Event PB Time Swum Place
Quinton Hurley 400 Free M 3:57.59 3:55.64 PB 20
Bre Crawford 50 Brst W 32.23 32.69 21
Zac Dell 100 Back M 55.63 55.93 15
100 Back M SF 55.63 55.56 PB 14
Luan Grobbelaar 100 Back M 57.32 58.09 42


Name Event PB Time Swum Place
Quinton Hurley 200 Free M 1:54.79 1:52.81 PB 27
Luan Grobbelaar 200 IM M 2:02.69 2:03.52 15
Erika Fairweather 100 Free W 55.60 56.21 16
100 Free W SF 55.60 55.73 12
Amadika Atkinson 100 Free W 56.34 57.51 36


Name Event PB Time Swum Place
Quinton Hurley 800 Free M 8:11.41 8:07.25 PB 15
Michael Pickett 50 Free M 22.34 22.61 4
50 Free M SF 22.34 22.51 5
Bre Crawford 100 Brst 1:09.98 1:11.22 24
Zac Dell 50 Back M 25.92 26.15 18


Name Event PB Time Swum Place
Michael Pickett 50 Free M F 22.34 22.46 4
Bre Crawford 200 IM W 2:18.46 2:23.70 36
Luan Grobbelaar 200 Brst M 2:16.19 2:16.26 18
Erika Fairweather 400 Free W 4:09.33 4:10.77 6
400 Free W F 4:09.33 4:08.78 PB 4


Name Event PB Time Swum Place
Luan Grobbelaar 400 IM M 4:21.81 4:23.83 13
Michael Pickett 100 Free M 50.39 50.47 12
100 Free M SF 50.39 50.49 14
Erika Fairweather 50 Free W 26.17 26.68 29
Amadika Atkinson 50 Free W 26.50 26.86 34


Name Event PB Time Swum Place
Erika Fairweather 200 Free W 1:58.84 1:59.87 3
200 Free W F 1:58.84 1:57.96 PB 1
Amadika Atkinson 200 Free W 2:02.20 2:04.80 34
Zac Dell 200 Back M 2:02.76 2:04.54 27
Bre Crawford 200 Brst W 2:30.05 2:34.52 25
Quinton Hurley 1500 Free M 15:31.85 15:31.72 PB 12

As you can see this New Zealand junior team has returned with one medal; a creditable gold by Erika Fairweather. In this case I believe that is dangerous. The swimmer next closest to danger was Pickett (4th). The average placing of team members was a safe 18th.

Dr John Mullen, editor of the “Swimming Science Research Review”, conducted a study published on the website, “Swimming Science”. Mullen examined 87 swimmers who had competed in the 2008 Junior World Championships and evaluated their performance in the 2012 Olympic Games. Of the 87 swimmers, 66 swimmers (76%) did not participate in the Olympic Games. Of the 21 swimmers (24%) who did qualify to compete in the Games, no one won a medal and just 3 (4%) managed to qualify for a final.

The message? Be careful of junior results.

And so while one medal is only a problem for the swimmer who won the medal, NZ’s very low ratio of personal best times is something to worry about. In this meet the team achieved 7 personal best times from 31 swims – 23%. This result continues a concerning feature of New Zealand swimming through the Commonwealth Games, the Pan Pacific Games, the World Short Course Championships the World Long Course Championships and now the Junior World Championships. The table below shows the PB times achieved by NZ swimmers in each of those meets.

Event No. Swims PBs Percent
2018 Commonwealth Games 65 18 28%
Pan Pacific Games 16 5 31%
SC World Championships 44 10 22%
LC World Championships 20 3 15%
Junior World Championships 31 7 23%
Total All 176 43 24%

Through 5 international meets an average PB ratio of 24% is nowhere near good enough. In excess of 50% should be a minimum. One would expect the PB percentage at a junior meet to be higher. The swimmers are younger and presumably in a higher rate of improvement phase of their careers. But, for some reason, that is not happening in New Zealand. The questions therefore are –

  1. Why is NZ’s PB ratio of 24% so low and
  2. Why is the junior PB ratio (19%) worse than the senior ratio and
  3. Why does the performance of New Zealand swimmers deteriorate the more important the meet involved. – from 30% for a regional championship like the Pan Pacific or Commonwealth Games down to 20% and 15% for a World Championship.

In my view the answer is too much championship racing. Evenly spread throughout a one year, twelve month, period New Zealand’s best swimmers have been expected to perform at their best in 5 major international championships plus 2 qualifying national championships. That’s 7 peaks in 12 months or 1 international PB quality peak every 7 weeks – impossible.

Of course I know that no swimmer swam the full schedule of 7 championships. However quite a few of New Zealand’s best swimmers swam in 4 or 5. Even that is a peak event every 10 weeks – still impossible. The sort of peak needed for a World Championships or Commonwealth Games requires twice that time, or around 20 weeks – a maximum of 2 per year.

And the problem of the race program is NOT the swimmer’s fault, or the coach’s fault. That problem is down to Steve Johns and Bruce Cotterill. They approved the national and international schedule and just look at what they expected. Really, they couldn’t organize a piss up in brewery.

Cry, The Beloved Sport

Wednesday, August 21st, 2019

The title of this article is an adaptation of the title of a novel written by Alan Paton called “Cry, the Beloved Country”. The book is a social protest against the structures of the society that would later give rise to apartheid in South Africa.  Paton depicts whites as affected by “native crime” while blacks suffer from social instability and moral issues due to the breakdown of the tribal system.

It shows many of the problems with South Africa such as the detrimental effects of fear as indicated in the following quotation from the narrator in Chapter 12:

“Cry, the beloved country, for the unborn child that is the inheritor of our fear. Let him not love the earth too deeply. Let him not laugh too gladly when the water runs through his fingers, nor stand too silent when the setting sun makes red the veld with fire. Let him not be too moved when the birds of his land are singing, nor give too much of his heart to a mountain or a valley. For fear will rob him of all if he gives too much.”

I too am beginning to understand fear; as the waters run through my fingers; as the sun sets on my sport. For fear, it seems, is robbing me of it all. You see, I am not a political animal. For me a set of 20×100 or a 600 time trial has life and interest. I would far rather spend time with Eyad in a swimming pool than in any Swimming New Zealand Board Room. But occasionally events occur that must be protested. Whether I do any good is unlikely; but at least I fought for what was right.

Here is what I believe has happened. The current Chairman of Auckland Swimming is an immigrant from Namibia called Williem Coetzee. Let me bore you a little with some African history. I do so only because, I believe, it is relevant to the malaise that is eating the soul from my sport. Namibia is an interesting country. In 1920, the League of Nations mandated the administration of Namibia to South Africa. It imposed its laws, including racial classification. From 1948 South Africa applied apartheid throughout Namibia. In 1990 Namibia was granted independence from South Africa.

All that is relevant because sometime in the last two or three decades Williem Coetzee decided to leave the problems of Namibia and immigrate to New Zealand. Since then he has become active in the administration of swimming, rising through the ranks to become the Chairman of Auckland Swimming. I have always thought of him as an efficient if somewhat boring administrator; someone who would maintain the status quo but was unlikely to inspire. Through the saga of the destruction of West Auckland Aquatics he behaved well but, in my opinion lacked courage or conviction when those qualities were needed most.

However if what I am told did happen this week my opinion has changed. You see Coetzee’s time as Chairman of Auckland Swimming is up. He has served the constitutionally required number of terms. Coetzee has done his bit. It is his time to go. Now I don’t necessarily agree with term limits but if that’s the rules – that’s the rules. Coetzee should pack his cardboard box and leave the premises.

But evidently not. As I understand it, an Auckland Swimming Special General Meeting, set aside for one year, the rotation rule. Coetzee can extend his rule for a further twelve months.

I am hugely supportive of immigration. Asians, Arabs, Europeans, Polynesians, Africans and others bring diversity and interest. New Zealand is a better place for the variety immigration brings. The New Zealand I left 46 years ago to go and live in the UK was a far more boring and dull place than the county I have come back to today. Without question the multi-cultural influence has been a good one.

That is not to say New Zealand should take up all the behaviours of those who make their home here. Saudi Arabia restricts women’s rights. We do not want that no matter how many Saudis immigrate here. Americans love their capital punishment. We can do without that no matter how many Americans buy expensive South Island farms. China struggles with western democracy. Asians cannot expect New Zealand to welcome one party rule.

And South Africa and Namibia may have lived for years ignoring the rights of those they rule – but Williem Coetzee cannot come here and turn us into some African dictatorship. The rules are the rules. It is his time to go. He must leave. Because of the same rule many good people are leaving swimming Boards around New Zealand – Bone in Hawkes Bay, Sibun in Counties Manukau. If they can be honest and leave, so should Coetzee. That brand of African politics, we can do without.

I am however just as disgusted with Cotterill and Johns, from Swimming New Zealand, for letting it happen. What on earth do those two do for their positions of power, status and fortune? Aren’t they supposed to protect the sport from people who defy constitutional rules? But instead they agreed to the Coetzee proposal. Whether we are talking about my privacy or constitutional term limits – rules it appears mean nothing to Cotterill, Johns or Coetzee.

As I have said, I doubt that my protest will make any difference. But swimming bled again today. Soon they will rob us of it all.

Be Careful With Words

Tuesday, August 20th, 2019

Bruce Cotterill, the Chairman of Swimming New Zealand, has been voicing his opinions again; this time on the popular news website, Stuff. I haven’t spoken to Cotterill since the collapse of West Auckland Aquatics, four years ago. Although that whole thing turned out badly for me and the club, Cotterill’s handling of a difficult situation seemed to be honest enough.

Sadly I cannot say the same for his handling of events that have occurred since then. The manner in which he has played cat and mouse with the complaints made about my coaching and the Marris Report into the complaints has been shameful. He has ignored a strong recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner. In my opinion he has lied to a Stuff journalist. He has encouraged Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) to fight a case before the Human Rights Review Tribunal. And through it all he has never spoken to me or communicated in any other way. Four years of silence is all Cotterill has delivered. And from his subordinate, Steve Johns, I have received two lawyer’s letters and one email – in four years, unbelievable, especially when there is a claim for quarter of a million dollars at stake. Good management? I don’t think so.

It is possibly off the point but I did think Cotterill got an easy ride from an investigating Stuff journalist. Now I discover Cotterill is an opinion writer for the same website. Fake news to benefit one of their own? Sure looks that way.

Let’s compare what Cotterill wrote on Stuff with my experience of his actual behaviour. There seems to be a serious disconnect between what Cotterill says and what he does. Here are three quotes taken from his Stuff report.

For all the right reasons, it’s now OK okay to speak up. If you’re a victim of someone else’s bad behaviour you can speak out. In fact, you now have permission to. And in a world driven by social media, you will get an audience too, and that’s OK.

Cotterill says, “For all the right reasons, it’s now OK okay to speak up. If you’re a victim of someone else’s bad behavior you can speak out. In fact, you now have permission to.” Why doesn’t he add the qualification, “But if you do I will fight you through the Privacy Commissioner. I’ll defy the Privacy Commissioner decision when he finds me in the wrong. Then I’ll fight you through the Human Rights Review Tribunal.” There is something Cotterill and SNZ are trying to hide in that Report and I’m going to find out what it is. You see, Cotterill has told me, “It’s now OK to speak up.” So, with his permission, that is exactly what I intend to do.

Iconic corporate titans from around the world are experiencing equally iconic downfalls. And all because they did something wrong that would once have gone unnoticed,

I have included this quote, not because it has any specific relevance to my privacy case, but because of its stunning lack of morality. What on earth does it say about Cotterill when he complains that the downfall of his corporate mates is not because they did something wrong, but because they got caught. How dare Cotterill complain that improved detection methods are to blame for making executive crime more difficult. If that is his attitude I pray to God he is never responsible for any organisation that has my money. I’m guessing the corporate crimes of the current Trump organisation get a Cotterill pass, because they haven’t been caught yet. Wells Fargo Bank, on the other hand, is bad because they got caught with 500,000 fake credit card accounts and had to pay a huge fine. Getting caught is no one’s measure of morality.

Cotterill may have worded this badly. I hope that’s the reason. Because if it is not there is no way he should be President of New Zealand’s national swimming organization.

As leaders, we don’t have much choice. When you think about it, irrespective of the issue, it is usually best dealt with promptly, firmly and fairly.

Over the years I have seen plenty of these instances. And my advice is always the same.

When your organisation is confronted with such a complaint or accusation, move forward proactively and respond.

Make sure the issue is treated with an appropriate level of priority. Get all the facts, and agree a response with your affected people. Don’t risk leaving it to others.

If you don’t have time to attend to every step yourself, check in with those charged with doing so every day; or twice a day if necessary. Ensure that you do what you say you will do. And most importantly of all, ensure that people on all sides are treated fairly.

This bout of Cotterill blather does affect my privacy case. Consider some of the claims Cotterill makes.

First, “best dealt with promptly, firmly and fairly.”

That is what he says. The reality of his actions is a four year legal fight, open defiance of the Privacy Commissioner, violation of SNZ Rules and decisions condemned by the law of the land. Cotterill’s words are well divorced from the reality of his organization’s actions.

Second, “move forward proactively and respond.”

Can you believe it? Cotterill says, “Move forward proactively and respond,” and the reality is that this saga has dragged on for three years and in that time I have had no response from Cotterill ever – not a phone call, email or letter. If that’s Cotterill’s idea of “move forward proactively and respond.” I’d hate to see what would happen if he decided to drag his feet, to take his time.

Third, “Don’t risk leaving it to others. If you don’t have time to attend to every step yourself, check in with those charged with doing so every day; or twice a day if necessary.”

If I’m reading this right Cotterill is telling me he has checked with Steve Johns about the progress of my complaint “every day; or twice a day if necessary.” Over four years that means my complaint has been discussed between 1460 and 2920 times. At least that is what Cotterill is telling 68,000 Stuff readers has happened. Let me apologise in advance but seriously Cotterill, I don’t believe you. And if a complaint that has found your organisation guilty of breaching my privacy has been discussed 2920 times nothing much has happened. It looks to me like you should be doing something about a 2920 times problem CEO.

Fourth, “ensure that people on all sides are treated fairly.”

This final hot air claim makes me angry. The Privacy Commissioner told Cotterill I was not being treated fairly. The law says I am not being treated fairly. The Report’s author says I am not being treated fairly. SNZ rules say I am not being treated fairly. And still Cotterill makes a public claim that fair treatment is high on his list of priorities – not if this case is anything to go by, it is not.

If my case is any measure of Cotterill’s behaviour, everything he says needs to be taken with considerable caution. There is not much here that links Cotterill’s words with the reality of his behavior.