View Full Version : Jet Blast without Moritz is like a Virgin Mary

Lima Tambo
13th Apr 2002, 18:04
or a pub without beer. There's no point to it. It's a damp squib.
So c'mon Danny let him back in and put the Blast back into the proceedings .... or should we all go off to the Church social?
:D :D :D

13th Apr 2002, 18:53
I just got back from the Church Social. Moritz gate-crashed, interupted proceedings, and made several announcements; the consequences of which follow:

*The building fund appeal treasurer hurriedly departed muttering "Passport...where's my passport?"

*The choir master and the senior altar boy sobbed together in a corner.

*The Ladies Auxillary secretary (Mrs Hatfield? Who donated the urn?) and the guest of honour (Bishop Killcarey) retired in earnest conversation to the front seat of the Bishop's '67 Benz.

*Enraged mothers ran amok resulting in the Parish Priest being put in protective custody whilst he assisted police with their enquiries.

Best damn church social I've been to in years.

The Mistress
13th Apr 2002, 19:34
I have long suspected you of being yet another MS clone, LT <yawn>.

Even you can't fail to have noticed that the rate of posting has been slowing down lately and that it seems to have increased since the announcement of MS's departure.

If a poster pees off too many people they gradually stop reading, stop posting and eventually stop loggin in. Danny relies on a high-volume turnover of members to keep the advertisers interested. It is revenue from advertisers which helps to keep this site in existence. How do you know that some of the posters MS attacked aren't paying advertisers?

As the OWNER of this site Danny is LIABLE for any libellous or harassing posts made by his members. (Posting on the internet is a form of publishing). You may not have seen the 'Harpie' post aimed at Flaps earlier. I did. It wasn't funny.

MS & The Attention Seeking Clones were/are trying to dominate this entire forum by 'interfering' (my choice of words) in too many threads. Fine if it was willing to make a financial contribution to Danny to help run the site. Bet you £5 it didn't even offer. Yes, I'm "still just another number" after 2 years of reading but Danny WILL be getting some money from me - possibly at the next GatBash.

If you want to be insulted, go play on teenchat.com. The kids in my house are banned from using it.

Lima Tambo
13th Apr 2002, 20:43
Oh Mistress you are so hard! :D :p

I suspect that a lot of people log on just to read Moritz's latest!

It is also probable that Advertisers Dont Post - at least not to bite at Moritz's latest cast.

I don't think Moritz has posted anything libellous. And as for FLAPS - well anyone who boasts about their vaginal endowment deserves all they get! And what wrong with being a Harpie? Some people like wearing curly blonde wigs and wandering around with antique car horns.

As for peeing people off! Well you should know Mistress. I know you don't mind me taking the p*ss. At least you didn't last time! And as for licking your smelly stilettos, well I can't wait for next time.

Now if it is all about money - and it usually is isn't it Mistress? Then I will happily defer my next visit to you in order to donate £25 to Danny if he reinstates Moritz - and doesn't ban him again unless he posts something libellous.

I will just have to live with the pain of not seeing you for a while Mistress, but you know I like that!

Relistically there are only 5 or 6 wimps who get upset by Moritz - and you probably know them all Mistress.
:D :D

13th Apr 2002, 21:06
Moritz Suter is a GLADIATOR amongst plebians. Accord him the respect he deserves and admit him once more to the Arena.

Who else can reduce the lower orders to incandescent rage whilst elevating the cognoscenti to hysterical laughter.? :confused:

Tartan Gannet
13th Apr 2002, 21:16
I have to admit to having crossed the floor on this to some extent.

MS used to get my blood pressure up then she sent me a personal e-mail of a very supportive nature. This caused me to re-examine my stance on this.

I dont know what MS's latest sin might be but could there be a compromise?

Perhaps a sincere apology to the person offended and a firm purpose of amendment might do the trick.

As I have said however, and as stated by Mistress, ITS DANNY'S WEBSITE and yes, he could be sued for publishing a Libel. (Im sure m' learned friends will put me right).

So if Danny dont like it, that bird dont fly!

Lima Tambo
13th Apr 2002, 21:23

last time that happened policemen were turning in their badges and grown men were weeping in the aisles.

The Mistress
13th Apr 2002, 21:38
TG - Don't be fooled by one little iddy biddy e-mail. Morris & The Clowns, er Clones don't have a decent bone in their collective body. It probably realised it was about to be banned and was trying to make amends - much too late.

I am very sorry to hear about your family problems BTW.

LT - PPrune was getting along famously long before MS, you or I started posting. I dare say it will get along just as famously without us. - but I would say you are in greater danger of being banned than I am :p

As I don't earn my living in the way you suggest I do consider your response to me to be libellous.

13th Apr 2002, 21:58

Your bang on the money here, it's definately a few who couldn't see through moritz. and what he did was definately not libellous, quite who mistress think's can sue who and for what is beyond me. it would seem that there is a trend in calling people clones, I suggest mistress looks up the definition of the word before letting fly with her accusation, to my certain knowledge the boffins have not given birth to a human clone yet, and moritz would not be there first choice to clone would he?

Furthermore if there was ever an argument to bring Moritz back, look at one particular new posting, utter drivel.

Still each to her own I suppose.

Kalium Chloride
13th Apr 2002, 22:12
Gannet has a serious point.

Internet publishing law is still evolving, but on a magazine everyone from the writer to the editor to the publisher to the magazine's distributor can technically be done for libel.

When you consider that libel is the publishing and distribution to a third party of statements which unfairly damage the reputation of an identifiable individual, then you have to be extraordinarily careful when supervising a forum such as this.

It might already be too late, legally speaking. MS doesn't seem to have considered the implications of publishing his rantings under the name of an identifiable and highly-respected member of the Swiss airline community. I know I'd be livid if he'd been stupid enough to use my name.

Hagbard the Amateur
13th Apr 2002, 22:45
Hmm - this seems to be living proof that the real Moritz Suter doesn't read PPRuNe, luckily perhaps for MS (and Danny bejeezus.) I bet the bona fide Herr Suter has some realllllly expensive lawyers. Fingers crossed for some I reckon.

I wonder what would happen if I came on with the same stunt strategy using the name Richard Branson?

Kalium Chloride
13th Apr 2002, 23:46
Just for information -- and as a warning to the 'cut and paste' addicts on PPRuNe -- it's also no defence to say that a libel was published elsewhere first. If you reprint the offending article, you've created another libel and you are equally liable for it.

If you're going to print something dodgy (especially in the UK, where the libel laws are draconian) then you'd better make sure that one of the following applies:

* what you've written is true (and that, even if it is, you're not simply being nasty)

* it's a fair report of an official or public record, or it constitutes fair comment (such as an opinion on matters of public concern)

* it's purely opinion and not an assertion of fact, and that no-one can reasonably take what you're writing as anything except

* you're clearly expressing dislike, as opposed to making a specific charge

* the person in question has consented to what's being written about him/her

The Mistress
14th Apr 2002, 00:19
Thanks for that Kallium.
Certainly no consent here.

Nostrills - t'ain't me who'se talking drivel deary.

'It' certainly is just being nasty.

JPJ, Huggy - care to e-mail me on the latest law on this subject?

Four Seven Eleven
14th Apr 2002, 00:56
For those interested in the latest developments on the laws of defamation:

A recent case incvolved a high profile businessman, Joseph Gutnick, in Melbourne(Australia) who attempted to sue an online publisher for allegedly defamatory comments in an online article.

The publisher and the web server were resident in the USA. Gutnick succesfully applied to have the case heard in the Victorian (Australian) courts, on the basis that even though article was written in the USA, it was 'effectively' published in any jurisdiction in which it could be read. One of the reasons for wanting to do this was that the Austrlian defamation laws are more advantageous to plaintiffs than US laws. Gutnick used the argument that the damage to his reputation was most severe in the community in which he conducts his business and in which he lives.

!The trial has not yet taken place (and in fact the publishers have won the right to appeal the jursdiction issue) The legal effect of a win, however, would be that Gutnick would have the right to apply to the US courts to have damages awarded to him, which would then be enforcible under US law.

US courts have traditionally only upheld verdicts from foreign courts where the same facts would have succeeded in a defamation action in the US.

The effects of these decisions for Danny and PPRuNe are:

1. This case (That is, the question of jurisdiction, as opposed to the facts of the elleged defamation) , even though in an Australian jurisdiction would be a strong persuasive precedent in UK courts, unless specifically overturned by UK courts.

2. Posts on PPRuNE may be lead to a cause of action for defamation in ANY jurisdiction in the world. (Danny could end up defending Moritz's - or anyone else's - posts in the High Court of Ghana)

3. If an action in a foreign court were to be successful, Danny could find himself having to defend against an action in the UK to award damages.

4. Danny is a self-confessed despot, for obvious reasons.

5. Moritz, and anyone else for that matter, are perfectly entitled to do and say whatever they wish, wherever they wish - provided that they are willing to put their own names to the publication, and stand open to the laws of defamation.

6. As KC mentioned earlier, truth is not an absolute defence against defamation in some jurisdiction (inlcuding the UK, I believe)

The above is a personal opinion only from an uneducated and unqualified person hiding under the cloak of anonymity. At the risk if being sued, if reliance is made upon this opinion in a court of law, you are an IDIOT!

PPRuNE is bigger than any individual. Let's all be careful out thereEdited to delete reference to a 'trial'. The trial has not yet occurred. Additions and edits shown in green.

The Mistress
14th Apr 2002, 01:18
Cheers for that - pretty much as I had thought.

Don't worry - this is just what you see on-screen. There's a great deal more happening behind the scenes.

Nostradamus - Would you care to tell us all which Law School you flunked out of?

14th Apr 2002, 01:39
4711, can you point me to a site talking about the case and verdict?

The latest thing I can find is the article below (Jan 7), where Dow Jones won the right to appeal the verdict on jurisdiction, let alone on the case itself. In which case, you might be in trouble with Dow Jones for stating that not only had the case been heard, but that they'd lost!!

ADLaw (http://www.adlawbyrequest.com/international/NetLibel010702.shtml)

"Australian Supreme Court Allows Appeal In Online Libel Case

January 7, 2002

In a case that experts say will have broad consequences for Internet lawsuits, the Supreme Court of Australia recently ruled that Dow Jones, an American company, has the right to appeal a decision by an Australian appellate court that would force the company to defend an Internet libel case in Australia. Joseph Gutnick, a Melbourne, Australia-based businessman, originally filed the suit. Gutnick accuses Dow Jones’ journalists of making libelous assertions about his business dealings in the online version of Barron’s, a U.S. business periodical published by Dow Jones.

Both the original trial court and the Supreme Court of Victoria, an Australian state, ruled that Gutnick could file suit in Australia. The lower courts held that because people outside of the United States can access Barron’s, plaintiffs have a right to sue wherever harm is done. In this case, Gutnick claimed that he was harmed by the articles in Australia, the place where he lives and works.

Dow Jones argues that Gutnick should only be allowed to sue the company in New Jersey, the U.S. state in which the article was first published. The publisher also claims that allowing alleged libel victims to forum shop in different countries would severely chill online speech. The Australian Supreme Court has not yet set a date for the jurisdictional hearing".

14th Apr 2002, 08:45
Sorry, but truth is a total defence against the law of libel. Furthermore, a case in an Australian court is no precedent for a case in the UK (or anywhere else). Even a case in the UK provides no precedent for a higher court.

Four Seven Eleven
14th Apr 2002, 10:07
can you point me to a site talking about the case and verdict?

No, because as you correctly point out, the defamation trial has not yet happened, and is subject to an appeal on the jurisdiction issue. Unfortunately, I remembered Gutnick's "win" on the jursidiction issue and equated this with a trial win. The post has been edited to more closely reflect the facts. D'OH!!!

(A good site for Austrlain case law and legislation, however is:

A search for "Gutnick" should get you what you want.)

However, despite my appalling lack of even the most fleeting grasp of the facts, I do submit that the rest of my post is an accurate reflection of the law as it stands at the moment, ................in some jurisdictions.................., unless qualified by statute law................... and until amended. (Subject to the inevitable appeals.)

From my earlier post:
The above is a personal opinion only from an uneducated and unqualified person hiding under the cloak of anonymity. At the risk if being sued, if reliance is made upon this opinion in a court of law, you are an IDIOT!

See above

Furthermore, a case in an Australian court is no precedent for a case in the UK (or anywhere else). Even a case in the UK provides no precedent for a higher court.

I fully agree, but do not resile from my reference to a 'persuasive' (i.e. non-binding) precedent. Even US decisions are seen as 'persuasive' in many "British' system courts. The convergence of technology and cross border issues such as this one have led to much less 'isolationism' in law making.

Sorry, but truth is a total defence against the law of libel.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In NSW, Australia for instance, the Defamation Act (1974) SEct 15:

15 Truth generally

(1) Notwithstanding section 11, the truth of any imputation complained of is not a defence as to that imputation except as mentioned in this section.

(2) It is a defence as to any imputation complained of that:

(a) the imputation is a matter of substantial truth, and

(b) the imputation either relates to a matter of public interest or is published under qualified privilege.

Thus truth, is, of itself, not an absolute defence. It must be accompanied by public interest or under qualified privilege.

I repeat my warning above (see "IDIOT"). If anything, these posts have confirmed the complexities of international cross-jursdictional defamation cases.

In the end, was Moritz really worth the risk? Remember, he can always start MoritzSuter.com and say whatever he likes (subject to being sued by the 'real' Mr Suter and anyone else he may offend).

14th Apr 2002, 10:18
All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of PPRuNe Forums or Jelsoft Enterprises Limited (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

Seems to cover contingency.

Where entrance to a website is conditional upon acceptace of such a disclaimer, no prima facie case exists that could lend itself to successful litigation.

This is fact.

14th Apr 2002, 10:32
Kalium and Hagbard

I don't think anyone believes the poster MS is the MS of Swiss airline fame.

4711 and Orac

The house of Lords have been persuaded to accept australian cases as good precedent, especially when it might get them out of a sticky problem.

Lord Bridge, in Curran v Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association 1987 House of lords was accepted the view of the High Court of Australia in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman 1985, in which Brennan J declined to follow Anns a previous UK precedent of duty of care. It was also referred to in Caparo v Dickman 1990 agian in the House of Lords

14th Apr 2002, 10:34

Just seen your posting re disclaimer

You might just have a problem getting someone to stand uo in court to run that. I think most judges would throw it and the advocate) out.

Four Seven Eleven
14th Apr 2002, 10:59

I've got to agree with slj. Merely placing a disclaimer on a website - or anywhere else - is no guarantee against successful lawsuits.

I remember (DISCLAIMER: 4711's memory has proven to be deficient in the past - see posts above. Any reliance on any statements made hereafter is entirley at your own risk. 4711, his agents and progeny accept no reponsibility for any damages suffered. 4711 is willing to accept cash, however.) a case where a parking garage operator placed a rather large sign on their premises which basically purported to absolve them from any and all damges, 'howsoever caused, even if through negligence of XXXXXX or its employees.' This was ruled as having little effect, for a number of reasons:

1. You cannot 'disclaim' yourself out of your normal common law or statutory responsibilities. For example, your local rag can't just put a disclaimer on the front page and print whatever defamatory trash they like.(Yes, I know!:D )

2. In the case of the parking garage, the notice was inside the parking area, and thus could only be read by people once inside. It could not therefore be relied upon by people in deciding whether or not to enter. How does this compare with a 'disclaimer' which is published on a website. You have to enter the site to see the disclaimer - or do you? Discuss.

3. The parking garage sign contained so many words in 'fine print' that no sane person would ever have read it any way. Would any sane person be reading this? Discuss.


To give you an example of how a nom-de-plume may cause confusion:

Being an ignorant antipodean, I had never heard of anyone by the name of MS until I saw the name on PPRuNE. (Swiss airline chiefs are not well known around these parts) I wondered at the significance of the name, even to the extent of thinking it may be someone posting under their own name. If I had later been introduced to someone of the same name, in the same industry, with connections to organsitions mentioned by MS (see his earlier signature), I may easily have put two and two together and come up with "You, sir are a compete and utter cow's c*%#!". The real Mr Suter might have taken offence at this.:D

Kalium Chloride
14th Apr 2002, 11:31

I don't think anyone believes the poster MS is the MS of Swiss airline fame

I'm sure no-one on this forum, or anyone familiar with aviation, believes it's him either. But that misses the point -- libel centres on what the "common man" would think if he read the remarks.

You and I know that MS isn't the Swiss airline chap, but we have the benefit of specialist knowledge.

But suppose Joe Public sees the remarks made by MS -- on an airline website, of all things -- then sees a TV report about the real Moritz Suter. It's a distinct name: how is Joe, without specialist aviation knowledge, supposed to know the difference?

This is what makes libel such a minefield. It's not about how much you know, it's about how much everyone else knows.

I seem to recall a case during the Agusta-Westland tie-up when a publication came up with a witty headline (which I shan't repeat here, see earlier caveat) and, I believe, was successfully sued because the general public would have had a different opinion of its meaning than the aviation crowd.

14th Apr 2002, 13:58
You're entitled to your opinion, but having carefully read the contract I agreed to in accepting membership of Prune, I'd certainly run in up the flagpole of most beaks I know.

Can't speak for antipodeans law, but since all judgements made by courts of previous colonies modelled on Crown Law may seek ultimate arbitration in the ultimate appellate court, Privy Council, who cares? Regarding your specific points.

1. Correct, in part. It might be successfully argued that this website is private property.
The nature of the world-wide-web renders it excruciatingly difficult for any court to determine jurisdiction, Gutnick notwithstanding. The extent to which a plaintiff would need to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that "a representation that conveys an unjustly unfavourable impression" has occurred, is mind boggling. Unlikely, in my opinion.
Prerequisite to posting on this site is membership. Membership is conditional on waving certain rights. Private property owners are justly entitled to seek protection in this way.
Newspapers are commercial organisations, dependant on revenue for their survival. Although this site may have pretensions to become a self-sustaining commercial entity, I doubt it is at the moment.

2. Irrelevant; refer to 1. above.

3. Refer to 2. above. One obtains membership, and thereby the ability to post, conditional upon agreeing to the terms of the contract offered between the owner of the site, and any who seek the ability to post here. Furthermore, that the sight is anonymous further entrenches my opinion that no court (anywhere) would reasonably judge the owner of this website liable for damages, especially since a clear statement of intent regarding modification of questionable material is also made. It isn’t made in small print, whatever that is, it’s in big letters on the front door.

As for your statement to identity. Say, for the sake of argument, I called myself George W. Bush, or perhaps, Queen Elizabeth, or even Osama bin Laden. How do YOU propose establishing to the satisfaction of any reasonable court, that such affectations are anything other than jest, and the posts made under such obvious pseudonyms anything other than lacking in the sort of prerequisite credibility so necessary in securing a successful outcome to libel actions?


14th Apr 2002, 14:21

Point taken

14th Apr 2002, 15:02
Guilty but Insane.

14th Apr 2002, 23:08
JB like any other forum where opinions are bandied about. It has had it's fair share of 'characters', 'nuts' and virtual a##holes, in addition to the earnest simple and genuinely interested in companionship. There has been over the years a general bandying about of insults mild and not so, and the usual wind ups by the score, it's why we visit JB. A club house of the like and not so like minded.
MS arrived fairly recently in a blaze of insults and general nastiness that was a notch up on what had generaly gone before. He/she/ or it, has obviously collected a group who enjoy his/her/it's brand of 'humour' and finds the provocations as delicious titillation. Some here find it childish, some quite unpleasant.
One thing is certain, we are in the forum at the pleasure of the person who set it up and he is at liberty to eject whomsoever he pleases. If MS gets up his nose too much MS will dissapear, and that you can take to the bank.
MS has certainly stirred the place up, if lowering the tone in the stirring. He/she/it loves the mucky bits and is a tad on the virulent side. It leaves, I feel, a hint of something slightly unhealthy in the air. But there again he/she/it does have the clones, replicants and admirers which only goes to show the old adage still holds true, it really does take all sorts to make a world.

Moritz Suter
14th Apr 2002, 23:58
Lowering the tone, Mr. Paterbrat?

Your up versus down compass needs re-alignment!

Think, before you write, dear chap, not after!


Four Seven Eleven
15th Apr 2002, 03:04


Can't speak for antipodeans law, but since all judgements made by courts of previous colonies modelled on Crown Law may seek ultimate arbitration in the ultimate appellate court, Privy Council, who cares?

Appeals to the Privy Council have been abolished in Australia for many years (Don't have the Act at hand) The High Court of Australia is now the final court of appeal in all Australian jurisdictions as well as having original jurisdiction in constitutional and limited other matters.

Other Commonwealth jurisdictions may be different.

The point is that publication over the internet is a defendant's minefield and a lawyer's gold-mine. If the Upper Court of Zanzibar decides that they have jurisdiction, then that decision may stand in Zanzibar. It may have little or no effect on the plaintiff, comfortably ensconsed in sunny England, but I wouldn't plan too many trips to see the dolphins at Kizimkazi!

15th Apr 2002, 04:39
Four Seven Eleven,

Apron strings were cut with the Statute of Westminster (1931) and the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act (1942).

Interesting times, don't you think?
Best wishes,

Four Seven Eleven
15th Apr 2002, 05:51
Thanks Rainbow

Interesting times, don't you think?

Or as many have said to me before:" Intersting times. Don't you think??!!!"

15th Apr 2002, 07:08
Have long been a reader and very rarely a poster, and have been very entertained by this whole afair.

I would be curious to see a total number of posts where MS is the subject matter. It would seem it would seem that love or hate him / her, JB members can't seem to get through a day without bringing him up. Could that be considered some form of addiction?

If (and I suspect this is the case) the attention is what MS is after then he is doing a bloody good job. Seems he / she is able to create controversy now without doing a thing.

Just my $0.02

Moritz Suter
15th Apr 2002, 08:26

15th Apr 2002, 09:10
MS is just the latest ppruner that has caused some controversy and is currently getting loads of attention because JB is a bit boring at the minute (IMHO, or am I just remembering halcyon days through misty eyes?). Just like OCB, MS will fade into the background eventually, but at least it gives all the free speech (whatever that is) advocates something to complain about. I just wish everyone here would use respect for others as a modus operandi, just like you would if you met each other in the pub. (which is where I'd rather be right now.) and while I'm on this thread, I must obviously have no sense of humour because I dont find MS funny, whether he means to be or not.

Have fun everyone.:)

(edited cos of finger trubble like always!)

The Mistress
15th Apr 2002, 09:42
MS and it's revolting clingons are the ones who should think before they speak. Defaming people is illegal.

Moritz Suter
15th Apr 2002, 09:42
My Dear Mishandled,

Greetings to a fellow Swiss!

Erklären Sie Ihnen was, mißhandelt, ich beabsichtige, jedermann mit Respekt zu behandeln, bedingt zu ihm zeigend mir. Würde das mit Ihnen okay sein?