Following your article “Old Mutual Super Salesman scores” [nose 16], readers need to be reminded that
· As an OM agent Gert Kueler represents Old Mutual, whereas a broker represents the insured.
· OM is a mutual organisation brought into being by an Act of Parliament, for the benefit of those insured by it.
Insurers happily rely on the principle that the insured is required to show utmost good faith in his dealings with the insurer. If he doesn’t he forfeits his insurance. What they are inclined to forget is that the insured is also entitled to expect utmost good faith from the insurer. Keuler is not the only OM agent allowed to take cession of a client’s policies, in spite of the Mutual’s contention that this procedure is “unethical”. I’d rather not amplify.
See page 14. – ed.
For whom the bell tolls . . .
Your correspondent Mr I J Muller of Cape Town is clearly confused. It is widely known that since the shock of my court victory over Stellenbosch philanthropist Dr Hobbit Rawl, it is I who have been published in noseWEEK under the nom de guerre “M Welz”.
Should Mr Muller persist in the dangerous and (it should be said) cheeky invention that Mr Welz has been laying claim in the Dental Journal to my own patent, I shall be forced to seek remedy in the halls of justice. Worse, I may be constrained to cancel both men’s subscriptions to the magazine formerly known as Millenium.
Managing Director, Churchill Murray
Publications, Publisher of Millenium.
Sorry Mr Muller, but Paul Bell wins our prize for cheek hands down: a subscription to noseWEEK to replace his subscription to Millenium. – Ed.
Noseweek’s Hall of Fame
Congratulations on your court victory. You and I might differ on political and economic philosophy but such differences are irrelevant in the search for truth, which seems to be noseWEEK’s main aim. I happen to be a free marketeer, but having worked for big companies I recognise that big business managers are as obnoxious as Marxists, hate free competition as much, and even worse, speak jargon-ridden drivel.
Congratulations on your legal victory. South Africa has long needed a fearless publication of your calibre to expose our over-confident criminals.
I’m struck dumb by your near throw-away line that in SA, a plaintiff in a libel action doesn’t have to give evidence that he or she has been injured. Here in Britain the plaintiff has got to get into the box.
The Observer won the actions brought by Chander Singh when he failed on three occasions to appear in the high court. Right now we’re all betting on whether [Harrods owner] Mohamed Fayed will prosecute his action against Vanity Fair because it will require him to give evidence and he may not choose to subject himself to cross-examination. This is the place to start a crusade on outmoded libel law. How can anyone sue for damages if he/she isn’t prepared to testify to injury? Some people have no reputation to defend. In many US states, celebrities can sue only if gross malice on the part of the defendant can be shown.
I applaud your plan to send copies to parliamentarians, but suspect they’d not be used for reading. The new lot of Orwellian pigs are already showing an alarming tendency to keep things quiet. Ergo, more power to your elbow.
No, not all, Mr Young . . .
Thank you for the complimentary copy of noseWEEK, which, as always, I found most interesting – particularly the editorial [In nose 16]. Wishing you best of luck.
Gill Marcus, MP
DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE
Ms Marcus is one of many parliamentarians who have received complimentary subscriptions to noseWEEK sponsored by our readers as part of our relaunch fundraising effort. Letter writers Kenny, Wallis and Young are among the many readers who generously contributed- Ed.
Copyright © 2019 www.noseweek.co.za