arj1 wrote:
I think they would if there is a clear indication of some malicious action. Agree to disagree.
That’s what I said isn’t it?
I guess, but the effect of that is a narrowing on the point of view
Most activities self select by personality, so that may not be surprising. I would not expect to find many leftists or socialists on a pilot forum because most of them are broke; apart from inheritance or hypocrisy it is impossible to make money without embracing free enterprise principles. And anybody stupid enough to glue their ar*se to the M25 will be much too stupid to get a PPL.
To another person that could just be the admins implementing a policy disallowing extreme views, and personal attacks. As I wrote above, nobody with a brain who runs a community site will allow it to be hijacked into a platform for such material, but this needs to be done actively; if one is passive, the site will go downhill fast.
It’s also not good for the objectivity in a larger sense as well as honesty.
To another person, that could just be the admins implementing a policy disallowing extreme views, and personal attacks. For example in the covid thread we disallowed all the conspiracies like 5G + nanoparticles + Bill Gates + whatever. In the Russia thread we disallowed pro-Russia stuff (it would be deeply hypocritical to do otherwise in a GA forum, which implies a very high level of personal freedom!) but there are just too many pro-Russia people here in the West, and I gave up on it.
Other channels work better for most people.
Definitely, for extreme views, and personal attacks, nearly all aviation forums and indeed most of the internet is far better than EuroGA. Advert-carrying sites love fights. I have a wonderful email from an admin of one UK site explaining how “robust posts” is an active mod policy (and the context was material which was absolutely vile).
Plus, all my interactions with the CAA are crap. None of the inquires of applications have worked as intended so far
Just because somebody is incompetent doesn’t mean they are not nasty 
Obviously, nasty and competent is worse…
First of all, have you got the confirmation of that sh$%list, for real? I heard from more than one person that it’s myth, and a threat from some grumpy employee.
There is definitely an informal sh*tlist operated by people who run the infringements policy. Actually I am sure every CAA does the same thing, but nobody will post it.
That’s the case in the British (common law?) tradition but is not the case everywhere. E.g. in Sweden a true statement can very well be defamatory.
That is bizzare, as is your previous post that in Sweden it is impossible to libel a company (which is self evidently not the whole story; I can think of really easy ways to destroy my competitors if it was that simple). I think these one-liners on Swedish justice must be simply wrong. But one needs to be practical; if you post a true statement and someone sues for libel, and you cannot prove it is true, then you are buggered.
I think they would if there is a clear indication of some malicious action.
I don’t think so – because you could retract a forum post, by saying you made it up. Let’s say I posted here that yesterday I flew straight through the LTMA at 2000ft, non-TXP. Several people at the CAA/NATS (same thing) will go into overdrive and will go through yesterday’s radar data, looking for primary returns in the LTMA. They won’t find any… nothing they can do. If it was a Vari-EZ, that might be different… But if somebody else did exactly that yesterday, I will be in big trouble because now I have to prove the plane was not flown yesterday, starting with airport logs.
Another reason for my view is the vast number of videos online which show clear illegalities, and there is no known action.
arj1 wrote:
First of all, have you got the confirmation of that sh$%list, for real? I heard from more than one person that it’s myth, and a threat from some grumpy employee.
Totally informal, perhaps we are not communicating properly.
When I say that I am on someone’s sh*tlist, I don’t mean my name is actually written on a register somewhere that is kept by an organisation as a matter of policy. I mean some bloke files my name away in the back of his mind and will screw me if he gets a chance in the future, e.g. I breach the regulations and the case crosses his desk.
Graham wrote:
arj1 wrote: First of all, have you got the confirmation of that sh$%list, for real? I heard from more than one person that it’s myth, and a threat from some grumpy employee.Totally informal, perhaps we are not communicating properly.
When I say that I am on someone’s sh*tlist, I don’t mean my name is actually written on a register somewhere that is kept by an organisation as a matter of policy. I mean some bloke files my name away in the back of his mind and will screw me if he gets a chance in the future, e.g. I breach the regulations and the case crosses his desk.
Graham, they do it even when you are not on the list. :)
I think if it is an extended definition of “they” (which includes CAA, NATS, etc.), then “they” already do it just for fun – just read some of the MoRs filed for CAS bust…
Sure, I get that – they are pretty firm about everything.
But what I mean is when your name has come to the guy’s attention as an ‘agitator’, as someone who is posting what they might consider anti-authority views on the internet, they will go extra hard at you if you’re ever unfortunate enough be the subject of an MOR like that.
I have a nice screenshot of messages from a CAA guy threatening legal action, over a totally made-up allegation. I probably won’t post it because it would really p1ss him off, and anyway he has basically vanished from social media after getting into loads of trouble there.
Peter wrote:
I think these one-liners on Swedish justice must be simply wrong.
I didn’t say it was irrelevant if the statement was true or not. I said that a statement can be defamatory even if true. The relevant paragraph from the Swedish law reads:
“Den som utpekar någon såsom brottslig eller klandervärd i sitt levnadssätt eller eljest lämnar uppgift som är ägnad att utsätta denne för andras missaktning, dömes för förtal till böter.
Var han skyldig att uttala sig eller var det eljest med hänsyn till omständigheterna försvarligt att lämna uppgift i saken, och visar han att uppgiften var sann eller att han hade skälig grund för den, skall ej dömas till ansvar.” (BrB 5 kap. 1§)
“Anyone who identifies someone as criminal or reprehensible in his way of life or otherwise provides information that is likely to expose him to the contempt of others shall be sentenced to a fine for libel.
If he was obliged to make a statement or if it was otherwise justifiable in the circumstances to give information on the matter, and if he shows that the information was true or that he had reasonable grounds for it, he shall not be held liable.”
Note the “and” in the final paragraph. (There is also a possibility of a jail sentence if the crime is particularly severe, but the definition of what constitutes libel is the same."
Truth must be a defence to a libel allegation.
Truth does not mean you can publicly defame someone. What matters there is the reason you are publicising that truth.
For instance you might call someone a “thieving b$stard.”. It might be true that the person is a thief and it might also be true that they are a b$stard but it will be taken into account why you have felt it necessary to publicise such a thing, what you gain from doing it and the amount of damage it does to the person you have accused of such and under what circumstances. ie was your attention to honourably warn or defame. It is roughly the same in France.
Hmmm I think I will stay in goode olde wet and rainy England with its 5000 year old legal system which predates the pyramids
