While we are on this topic 
I think we have all seen cases where the most outrageous stuff was posted in a forum, and “everybody” thought the poster was going to get busted for it, but actually nothing happened.
I wonder if the reason for this is that for a successful prosecution you need all of the following
and that is going to be difficult if the pilot (assuming the alleged PIC is identified and interviewed) just says he made the whole thing up. Let’s face it, a lot of stuff posted on the internet is made up on the spot.
With videos it is clearly different, as the famous US “helicopter job” one showed in 2009. But that one was not only provocative but the pilot had a previous record.
In most cases, even in the air ATC is not there to police you. I know of VFR rated pilots flying VFR-on-top back home from e.g. France that ask ATC for a cloud-brake to get back home. ATC would in some cases allow them to do the cloud-brake knowing the guys are flying VFR and are trying to get back home. Is it wise, I am not sure. Does ATC care? Yes or no. They should maybe care, but then they don’t always care too much. However, I remember also that airspace infringements can lead to action. Again, what is written on a forum is the least I would worry about. Then again, I don’t worry at all about potential punishments or fines or whatever. If I would be fined I would deal with it and forget it. Won’t allow myself to live in fear of …
Agreed. I would add to your three bullet points that:
Generally, there is an onus to prove the case against the defendant, unless it is a strict liability offence (although you still need to have the factual evidence you mention above).
With respect to posting on the internet, a concern could be that it is there “forever”, unless there is a global enactment of the right to be forgotten (unlikely as not realistic), which means that all the outrageous stuff cumulates to make a clown of the individual… maybe, or they become one of the “experts” who appear on TV.
I am not sure forever exists in a legal sense. Is there not a limitation on bringing prosecutions on old stuff, with a few obvious exceptions like murder and sex offences etc?
The UK doesn’t have a “statute of limitations” in general, AIUI.
Limitation Act 1980 for England and Wales, but that does not cover fanciful and outrageous statements on the internet 
unless they are defamatory.
The reference to “forever” was not intended literally (except in North Korea where I am sure they keep everything on everyone) and debating the meaning of “forever” is going to require input from Stephen Hawkins.
Anyway in practical terms I say NO, nobody is ever going to get done for something they “confessed” or boasted about on an internet forum, simply because 87.3% of everything written on the internet is untrue, and everybody understands that.
The FAA has busted a few, one that comes to mind is the porn-star couple that jumped, ahem, tandem, and posted the video .
That said, there is something much more probable:
Imagine that you post something here bitching about an inspector or examiner, without mentioning their name, but with sufficient enough information so that the inspector or examiner reads the post and recognizes himself…
Now that individual might not be in a position to actually prosecute based on the past incident, BUT they could easily “flag” the poster and nail him on something else at the next opportunity.
[ You were right – link removed… come on guys, the internet is full of this stuff ]
Even more guaranteed than FAA prosecution is Peter’s removal of that link.
Great stunt. Michael, you already gave me the second idea for a new business after showing me that gay catamaran cruise in Florida!
Have no f*ing idea what you’re going on about Achim !
