Sometimes things smell and sometimes they really pong – but even when you look you can’t find the source – yet the smell lingers thickly in the air – I’m sure you’ve all had that experience. I really couldn’t go past this one, as it will make a beautiful cameo for the forthcoming revision of my book, The Christchurch Fiasco. Well, as I see it, the smell of two policemen who visited a man who wrote a series of innocuous emails (for four years), when you normally can’t even get them to visit a burglary, leaves a pretty strong whiff in the air. In fact its a stink! Isn’t it amazing that for the first four years, Southern Response were able to cope with the daily email, but the day came when apparently one of those emails broke the Southern Response camel’s back and proved to be simply too much! See http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/70984990/cop-visit-for-sending-daily-emails-to-insurer http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/christchurch-insurance-critic-gets-police-visit-over-emails-2015081109
Perhaps its all a matter of sensitivity, but the question is, whose sensitivity? Certainly the police are not noted for their sensitivity, so I doubt that it was them, which only leaves us with the probable conclusion that the perpetrator of the complaint to the police must be sensitive about something – is that where the smell is coming from? People’s sensitivities are interesting things but generally their sensitivities are perceived by them to be points of their own weakness or risk, so one might well assume that the source of this smell is pretty much centered around a weakness or risk in the complainant(s) situation.
Now not wishing to put a preconception in the reader’s mind….. but I can’t help but mention that in my experience such sensitivities are closely aligned with matters of conscience. Of course, I could be totally mistaken and it may be that the complainant(s) are wholly virtuous, however, virtue rarely smells let alone pongs. On the other hand, from the victims point of view, and by ‘victim’ I mean the victim of corporate harassment, the element of threat per se, seems to most of us, to have been entirely absent.
The Southern Response spokeswoman was kind enough to inform us that Mr Preston has now been elected to the Southern Response Hall of Fame – now that he is ‘one of only a handful of situations where the police had been briefed’. One hopes the police stood to attention when they were being briefed. After all in Government terms, Southern Response is only slightly removed from the Department of Police – not sure who has the upper hand however.
Oh well, I suppose we shall never know, however while that smell lingers on I have a definite feeling that something is rotting (or rotten) under the rug. Whilst this class of behavior might be expected in any of the ‘Five Eyes’ countries and while I suppose we can expect an increasing amount of it in New Zealand, it would be interesting to know whether or not the Australians conduct their insurance business in a similar manner. Of course our biggest insurer is Australian, but I wonder how many other Australian based operations are involved with the Christchurch recovery?
The irony of the situation is that once again, in this great little country of ours, we have a moral inversion. If the police should be going after anybody it is probably Southern Response that needs examination in light of the arguable fraud they are perpetrating on the people. This is likely to become even more apparent in the future. In the meantime the police had better call for reinforcements if Southern Response does not clean up it’s act as they will probably be interviewing an increasing number of people at the request of Southern Response. (Oops, shouldn’t have said that, I’ll probably get a visit).
So the question remains, who knows what about these sensitivities?