I FEEL LIKE A MOSQUITO BUZZING AROUND THE EARS OF A BULL ELEPHANT WHICH IS IN THE FULL FRENZY OF THE MATING SEASON (KNOWN AS "MUSTH").
BUT APPARENTLY NOT.
NOT ONLY IS THE SYDNEY CATCHMENT AUTHORITY RUNNING AROUND CHASING PEOPLE OFF THE EDGES OF PUBLIC ROADS IN KANGALOON, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS; NOW THE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR A MAJOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY FIRM HAS TAKEN TO ISSUING THREATS TO A HUMBLE BLOGGER.
IT IS TRULY RIDICULOUS AND DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE TO ANYTHING WHICH I MIGHT HAVE WRITTEN.
NOT ONLY IS THE SYDNEY CATCHMENT AUTHORITY RUNNING AROUND CHASING PEOPLE OFF THE EDGES OF PUBLIC ROADS IN KANGALOON, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS; NOW THE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR A MAJOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY FIRM HAS TAKEN TO ISSUING THREATS TO A HUMBLE BLOGGER.
IT IS TRULY RIDICULOUS AND DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE TO ANYTHING WHICH I MIGHT HAVE WRITTEN.
Also the three previous posts have also been withdrawn (at their request).
Ironically, the legal notice contains far more information than I could ever have hoped to elicit regarding the links between the company in question and the SCA.
I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO EXPLORE ISSUES OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY.
1 comment:
Yikes! I believe you are entitled to an enumeration of what specific allegations and imputations of said content are alleged to be false and defamatory, and the right to issue a correction or retraction of specific points/issues that might be considered contentious.
Blanket removal of the entire content is not legally justified. I have reviewed some of the content in question (part 2, located from web cache) and find no legal basis for blanket removal, as the only portions referring to Mr. Ross appear to be direct quotes for which there are witnesses.
In fact the only point of contention I can find in part 2 is whether or not Mr. Ross 'represented' the SCA; which as a paid contractor might be subject to more technical wording but hardly false or defamatory.
Post a Comment