Blog powered by Typepad


July 21, 2009


Frustrated md principal

Students and parents, lacking decency, integrity, or any sense of restraint, are the problem. If people were parenting their kids then issues with schools would solve themselves. If parents had to act with civility then school staff could do their jobs. In no other profession (except madhouse orderly) can a person you are "serving" threaten, impune, and verbally harass you with no fear of consequence. I say f* that parent and good job principal.

Frustratedmdprincipal. Principals, teachers, educators, lacking decency, integrity, or any other sense of restraint, are also part of the problem.

I wonder whether it matters to you the reason why the parent is so over-reactive?

At the end of the day it shouldn't matter what type of parent the parent is, schools should be able to educationally cater for all children and protect them from bullying and harm as should the family home.


Yes well Harry I personally believe that it is a problem. Next time you have an issue with a public servant not doing thier job and treating you with disdain be careful who you tell and what you say. The protection of public servants continues - it will be our downfall as these people should be open to scruitany and accountability.

You cannot really expect an ordinaly citizen to compete against a Barrister and a Solicitor. Did you read the Judgement?


Well it appears the court made the call, as I noted above.


It is nonsense to just presume that the public and the media are so self centered not everything is achieved because of self interests. You seem very Bias against the DET, something you should remember to take into account is the teacher, this case is about Beecroft Public School principal Jennie Ryan not the Department of education, this is a teacher who has served for over 40 years and not had a complaint. Is it ok for a Principal to take a parent to court for defamation? this will be decided in court but really it isnt that much different to the thousands of defamatory cases that go through the court and i doubt that it will impinge on parents free speech.

Jolanda: Hi Roger - firstly I would have to ask you how you know that this Principal has never had a complaint made against her?

Secondly I would say that if i present as being biased against the DET it is because we have made complaints against teachers and educational staff and our complaints have been covered up and children exposed to neglect and harm.

I agree that one must consider before they say negative things about anybody but when a parent has approached the Principal, when a parent has presented concerns and issues and they have been ignored then those involved should not be surprised when the parent expresses thier frustration and distress publicly. Not many people want to take things this far but certainly when you are treated with disdain and you are not afforded procedural fairness and natural justice you feel that you have no other choice but to air your concerns.

Definately I do believe that there should be avenues for people to have matters of defamation addressed quickly and without it costing them their house in legal fees.

Mere Mortal Mother

In the early 90's a male student had part of his finger cut off at the hands of a female teacher.
Several witnesses.
The incident made it to the evening news that night and was shown live from his hospital bed.
The case went to court , it was settled out of court .

It went to court and was settled only because of 2 major ingredients;
1 - witnesses
2 - the media

Jolanda. Yes Mere Mortal MOther the media is pretty much the law. If the media doesn't take up a story it is presented as though it is not a public interest matter and therefore of no concern. The DET think that its staff manipulating test scores in order to do harm is not a public interest matter and they think that because in general the public, unless it is their child, dont care.


Nina: The depth of one's sincerity is not a defense for defaming others, nor a protection against being sued.

Jolanda: Nina if the DET believes that what I am saying is not true and defamatory then why, when on two occasions when the Crowns Solicitors office threatened to sue me and I gave given them the opportunity to let me know exactly what I was saying that was defamatory and told them that once they I would review my posts and if it was defamatory make a retraction. They didn't respond. Doesn't that tell you that what I am saying is the truth.

Nina: Their are millions of people in the world who use the "I'm just being honest" defense in the hope that, by dong so, attention will be diverted from their vileness / stupidity / egotistic outrage / devotion to revenge, etc, etc.

Jolanda: There are also millions of bullies who defame and attack people trying to get justice.

Nina: Solicitors have told you about the "bottomless pit" of DET money purely so as to placate you and get you the hell out of their offices. They didn't want to touch your paranoid, hubris filled case, lest they look like dills, plus they don't like to lose, but they didn't want to tell you how appalled they were and how pitifully uncompelling your "evidence", so they told you that DET would spend endless money defending the case. Not true, of course. Gov't departments settle thousands of cases a year without ever going to court, and have very limited budgets for court cases.

Jolanda: So Nina are you saying that you know what the Solicitors I spoke to feel and think? Were you there? If you call destruction of state records, manipulation and tampering of state records, defamation (as my children and I have been defamed within the Department and externally), and a conspiracy to cover up that I can clearly show has occured as no evidence then you must be following the same process as those at the DET use. I would say that you are either in Education or related in some shape or form.

Nina: You know, budgets? It's the set amount of money given to a department, which is allocated to and must be spent in accordance with the governments directives, not just on whatever the heck someone in the department decides. They also have to spend that money on the agreed things, or, most often, give it back. They don't get to save up, in other words, for, say, court cases bought by people like you.

Jolanda: I haven't put up a Court case like you say Nina So what do you mean Court cases bought by people like you?

Nina: You have bleated for so many years, with such self-righteous indignation, and not just a small amount of defaming others, yet you never had the power of conviction, the backbone, to put it all in front of a judge. Too gutless.

Jolanda: No Nina I have never had the money to put it before a Judge. I have tried but the system in this country is set up to protect the criminals and in particular those employed by our Government. In this Country you need money to get Justice. It has nothing to do with guts, backbone or conviction and everything to do with money.

"If the Courts award damages to the Plaintiff then it means the respondent has unjustly publicly defamed the plaintiff.

Jolanda: Really Harry? Just like that is it?"

Well, YES, it is Jolanda. That's how courts work, you complete dolt! That's why they exist, to make those very decisions!

Jolanda: Judges are humans and many times their decisions are appealed because they get it wrong. Just because a Judge makes a decision doesn't mean it is right.

Nina: Didn't you used to be a para-legal?

I know para-legals have no legal qualifications, and it's very poorly paid work, but surely the fact of having worked with lawyers would give you a primary school insight into how the courts work, the purpose of court work?

Jolanda: Yes Nina 20 years ago I was a para-legal and it wasn't poorly paid work. We did third party personal injury and workers compensation matters and this is why I know how the Courts work and why money is what talks.

Why do you think you have the right to defame me on this blog?

Cassie O

Just letting you know, the DET does NOT have a bottomless pit of money. Our teacher was jsut telling us how they've been cutting HSC speaking examinations for languages shorter and shorter every year, in order to save money. (ie. they need to pay examiners less, because less hours are worked). Just one example.

Cassie: Trust me the DET has a bottomless pitt of money when it comes to covering up their misconduct. Given the way this Government is operating I would say that the majority of our taxpayers money is being spent on cover ups and public servants entitlements. It is disgraceful that our children are not being properly catered for because of their failures.


Yes i do believe in free speech, but free speech doesnt equate to I can say whatever i like just becasue i think it is right if it involevs a thrid party.

Thats why we have courts to sort that out - i'm still wondering why you have never taken any civil action seeing your so sure of your correctness?

Jolanda: Harry if you do not have the right to say what you believe if you sincerely believe it to be the truth then you do not have freedom of speech.

I haven't taken Civil action because I cannot find a Solicitor that we can afford who would take the case on. It seems that it is an area where nobody wants to venture with the main excuse being that the DET have a bottomless pitt of money and they will just drag the matter on until it destroys us anyway. That is the way of the system. We are just ordinary people Harry who have been dealt an injustice. The system doesn't protect us it protects the accused.


If the Courts award damages to the Plaintiff then it measn the respondnet has unjustly pyublicly defamed the plaintiff.

Jolanda: Really Harry? Just like that is it? You get a Barrister and a Solicitor and you put them up against an ordinary person from non english speaking background and you think that if the Court awards the Plaintiff damages then it must mean that the plaintiff has been unjustly defamed?

Harry: You have spent years complaining you have been unfairly treated yet seek to deny someone else the right to take action.

Jolanda: I never said that the Plaintiff should be denied the right to take action, what I said was that if damages are awarded against the Respondent then it is an erosion of our freedom of speech. This was a Principal employed by the DET. The respondent tried to have his grievances addressed, he was ignored. He wrote an email to fellow parents in his child's class and in his email he explained that he thought the Principal was incompetant, dishonest etc. and why he believed that she should be removed from her position. It was his opinion based on what he believed and can present are facts. He wrote the reasons why he had come to this conclusion in his email. It was up to the parents to come to their own conclusions as to what they believed. If we no longer have the right to voice our concerns without being sued and losing the case then we have no freedom of speech.

Jolanda: Harry I thought you were big on freedom of speech?

Harry: how hypocritical

Jolanda: how hypocritical

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)