Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

2018 Light Aircraft Association AGM award vote

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

2018 Light Aircraft Association AGM award vote

Old 10th Oct 2018, 22:53
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 1,141
Received 55 Likes on 28 Posts
Originally Posted by gasax
There is a staggering posting on the LAA - David Mole's motion is because he thinks that is what she wants!!!!
Well who would have guessed! Quite why the legal advisor would recommend this to the membership remains cloaked. The seconder of the Stewart Jackson, works for Boeing. TCT's major sponsor was - yep Boeing.

So is this what the LAA committee are running scared of? How about a little honesty?
I have just read through those and have written a lengthy post which I may or may not publish here, there re one or two points I need to check first.

But does anyone else find this rather odd. From TCT's supporting statement.

Having requested the information this year from the LAA, I now know that from early 2016 the Board received a succession of emails demanding my public disgrace. The sources were evidently the same as those of the ongoing PPruNe campaign; some of them joined our Association

Yet information highly pertinent to making a reasoned judgement on how to vote and why you will vote that way is not being given to the association members. To some extent I can see where Mr Mole is coming from but I fear he is missing the point.

All the members know is that TCT has threatened legal action/ made legal threats (however it is worded). Without knowing what those threats are means that the members unable to make a decision on how best to respond and protect the LAA.

Let me use the following examples to express my point.
Example 1: " Get my award back or I will sue you for £750,000 damages".
Example 2: " Get my award back or I will resign my LAA membership and seek legal advice to get reimbursement of my membership fees".

Both of these in the blind would be classed as threats of legal action against the LAA. However, how the members would vote in either example would be vastly different.

............................

Separate thought. I think that real caution is warranted on how this mess is resolved. On several occasions TCT has threatened legal action but this has come to nothing. The reason being that there is a stack of evidence out there, compiled over the past 4 years or so, which shows "our" side of the argument and she has not shown anything to back her claims. She cannot claim to have never misled anyone when there is ample written, audio, and video evidence to counter such a claim.

However, if she is given the award back then she has an ace to play; she can genuinely claim that she was right and "we" were wrong (on this point only) but that might be enough for her to seriously consider seeking redress. This could be a substantial financial claim: In the first instance that claim would be against the LAA.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2018, 23:36
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 682
Received 9 Likes on 5 Posts
How could anybody hope reasonably to succeed in a legal claim against an Association simply because the officers of the association authorised (as they are bound to do) a democratic vote in line with its formal Articles, and the result of that vote then went against the complainant?

It doesn't seem a credible concern.

A far more damagjng outcome for the LAA is being seen in this thread and on their own forum, where members are turning on each other and some Board members - often, it seems, because those individuals hold a different opinion regarding TCT, and doing so is seen by some as a form of Class conspiracy.

The greater damage to the Association now isn't being done by TCT. It is being done unintentionally by other members via unsupported accusations against the LAA Executive.

It is very sad.

Last edited by hoodie; 11th Oct 2018 at 05:46.
hoodie is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 07:00
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: La Rochelle.
Age: 48
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Having arrived 'down-under' following my navigation to Australia (courtesy of BA), I thought I check-in on the latest. My first port of call was the LAA forum where I read a somewhat surprising note from the company secretary. Now I may be wrong and the articles of association for the LAA are very specific but statements such as, 'Board members are obliged by the rules to keep the proceedings of the Board confidential. ' raises my eyebrows. This is the LAA we're talking about, not a FTSE100 company. One of the prime duties of board members is to exercise accountability to shareholders - or in this case, paying members. That means briefings when necessary ie in extraordinary circumstances (!) and a comprehension of and responsibility for the interests of the shareholders.
Other organisations with power vested in them by the CAA such as the BPA, BHGPA and the BGA are completely open with websites where members and the public can easily see minutes of executive meetings and AGM's. The only exception is with disciplinary issues. At times like this,the best option is always to be open and transparent - especially to the people who pay for the organisation in the first place- otherwise, as can already be seen on the LAA site, questions of impartiality start being raised.
clareprop is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 07:02
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 568
Received 68 Likes on 19 Posts
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

Let me use the following examples to express my point.
Example 1: " Get my award back or I will sue you for £750,000 damages".
Example 2: " Get my award back or I will resign my LAA membership and seek legal advice to get reimbursement of my membership fees".

Both of these in the blind would be classed as threats of legal action against the LAA. However, how the members would vote in either example would be vastly different.
Why should they be treated vastly differently? As far as I can see, in both your hypothetical examples, they would both be threats - indeed blackmail - which would both be construed to have the clear sole intention to reverse an action voted upon by the members of the LAA, for compelling reasons to them at the time.

The only difference would be the sum involved in the threat. As no legal action appears to have been initiated on its own merits (and everyone needs to ask the very serious question "why not"?), adding the threats doesn't seem the best way to win the hearts and support of a group of voters.

Ask yourself the questions:

a) is it likely the LAA feels threatened by the threat of being sued, and should voting LAA members feel threatened to vote in her favour just to appease her whims?

b) if she resigns her LAA, who would be bothered in the slightest?

Neither threat would be in the least bit tempting to the average, intelligent, principled LAA member.
pilotmike is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 07:50
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 808
Received 24 Likes on 15 Posts
This all getting totally out of hand - If I were Chairman, or on the Board I would seek to have an EGM, postpone the AGM to have a crisis meeting as to the strategy and
handling of this mess --- now a very delicate matter that is seemingly about to implode the Society and it's membership.

I first of all would want TCT suspended from the LAA and haul her in (alone) for a meeting to ask her the pertinent Q's that for so long have remained unanswered - these are pivotal to the Award being again honored to her (or not)
rog747 is online now  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 07:53
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 1,141
Received 55 Likes on 28 Posts
I work as a technical consultant within the firework industry, an industry which receives many claims for damages / injury each year. My role is to deal with these claims as efficiently as possible. They range from replacing damaged clothing to serious property damage and personal injury - yet all follow a very similar format when it comes to what evidence is available. In a great deal of cases it is easier to settle the claim for smaller amounts as a "goodwill gesture" rather than wasting many man-hours fighting the various companies corners - even when we know we are right. This frees up resources to put to the bigger battles.

Originally Posted by pilotmike
Ask yourself the questions:

a) is it likely the LAA feels threatened by the threat of being sued, and should voting LAA members feel threatened to vote in her favour just to appease her whims?

b) if she resigns her LAA, who would be bothered in the slightest?

Neither threat would be in the least bit tempting to the average, intelligent, principled LAA member.
Given the background to my thoughts above and applying the same train of thought to the two points quoted .
For a) we would be 100% certain to stand our ground and fight our corner, whereas for b) we would be almost 100% certain to settle "out of court" to reduce costs.

I won't know how best to act if I do not know what the customer is seeking by way of recompense. Knowing the threat and being able to take the path of least resistance for us makes sense.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 07:57
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rog747
This all getting totally out of hand - If I were Chairman, or on the Board I would seek to have an EGM, postpone the AGM to have a crisis meeting as to the strategy and
handling of this mess --- now a very delicate matter that is seemingly about to implode the Society and it's membership.

I first of all would want TCT suspended from the LAA and haul her in (alone) for a meeting to ask her the pertinent Q's that for so long have remained unanswered - these are pivotal to the Award being again honored to her (or not)
Just for the sake of intelligent debate, and I would not want to pre-judge... what on earth could she say in such a meeting that a reasonable person would accept?

What words might explain, in a reasonable fashion, the overpowering evidence that she is unfit to be honoured, in any way, by her aviation peers?

That's a serious question. Do any of you really think that there exists, deep in the fog, a Rabbit so awesome, that if pulled out of the hat, would make sense?
airpolice is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 08:08
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 808
Received 24 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by airpolice
Just for the sake of intelligent debate, and I would not want to pre-judge... what on earth could she say in such a meeting that a reasonable person would accept?

What words might explain, in a reasonable fashion, the overpowering evidence that she is unfit to be honoured, in any way, by her aviation peers?

That's a serious question. Do any of you really think that there exists, deep in the fog, a Rabbit so awesome, that if pulled out of the hat, would make sense?
Fair point - As I said above TCT should answer the Q's that members want to know the answer to -

What could she say? well, for her to -
Apologize for bringing the LAA into disrepute (again), make it clear to her how this is upsetting and damaging to the membership and to the Society, plus the costs that she is causing by having to arrange the AGM around her and her antics.
Apologize for suggesting misogyny by the Society. (Her own tagline is Bird in a biplane)
Apologize for abusing the Society's Members AGM forum for pursuing a personal feud with another member on it.

I am sure I can add more - she is totally out of order and I cannot understand how she has run roughshod through, and around the Society.
She should have been reined in.

Once a level playing field is established with her - then and only then, should the Society and its members then decide whether the Award is suitable to be again honoured to her or not.

Last edited by rog747; 11th Oct 2018 at 08:44. Reason: some edits
rog747 is online now  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 08:50
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LAA needs to extricate itself from this mess. To my mind the solution is simple and revolves around ONE question, which I, as a member, pose below.
We appoint people to make decisions on our behalf. If we are unhappy with their performance there should be a motion of no confidence, which, if passed ought to result in the person(s) concerned stepping down or being removed from their post.
The awards committee made a decision based on information available to them at the time. They later revisited their decision and decided it should stand. Their decision was then overturned by a vote at the 2016 AGM.

The ONE simple question that I suggest should be addressed is “Was it right to allow the decision of the awards committee to be overturned in this way?” The answer to that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of the spat between the two principals and their supporters.

If you start with that question, rather than the intricacies of the argument between the protagonists (which is no business of the LAA) it's easy.

To my mind it was wrong to allow the decision to be overturned in this way, in the same way that it would be wrong to allow a decision by the CEO or our airworthiness experts to be overturned by a simple majority at an AGM.

LAA should not be involving itself in the wider argument.
Mike Cross is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 09:00
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am not a member of the LAA, so I make this point respectfully and with a certain amount of diffidence.

The whole history of the original award, it’s withdrawal and the failure of Ms Curtis-Taylor to address the questions asked of her have surely brought the LAA into disrepute. That is very sad because the overwhelming majority of its members are honourable pilots, who just want to get on with having their aircraft approved, go flying and enjoy the other benefits of their membership.

It is difficult to assign the cause of such disrepute to anything other than Ms Curtis-Taylor’s original alleged actions and her failure to address them properly.

In that connection, the suggestion in a recent post that the LAA Board should ask her the questions directly and personally is a good one and is, perhaps, the only way to “lance the boil”, provided they insist on clear, specific and unambiguous answers, and then publish them to the membership.

If she fails to respond properly, it is difficult to see any justification for the award being returned nor any basis on which she could remain a member of the association.

If that were to happen, based on the facts as we know them, although I am not a lawyer, I can see no basis on which a legal challenge could succeed and IMHO it would just end up with the plaintiff losing a great deal of money as the defence would simply be a recounting of the established facts and a statement that the plaintiff had been given every opportunity to address the criticisms of her actions and had refused to do so.


Jonzarno is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 09:31
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 78
Posts: 1,100
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike Cross
LAA needs to extricate itself from this mess. To my mind the solution is simple and revolves around ONE question, which I, as a member, pose below.
We appoint people to make decisions on our behalf. If we are unhappy with their performance there should be a motion of no confidence, which, if passed ought to result in the person(s) concerned stepping down or being removed from their post.
The awards committee made a decision based on information available to them at the time. They later revisited their decision and decided it should stand. Their decision was then overturned by a vote at the 2016 AGM.

The ONE simple question that I suggest should be addressed is “Was it right to allow the decision of the awards committee to be overturned in this way?” The answer to that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of the spat between the two principals and their supporters.

If you start with that question, rather than the intricacies of the argument between the protagonists (which is no business of the LAA) it's easy.

To my mind it was wrong to allow the decision to be overturned in this way, in the same way that it would be wrong to allow a decision by the CEO or our airworthiness experts to be overturned by a simple majority at an AGM.

LAA should not be involving itself in the wider argument.
If I am reading this right you seem to be saying T C-T should not have been stripped of the Bill Woodhams Trophy.
The Awards Committee made the award with the information they had before them. Later further reliable information came to light and the membership felt that she should be deprived of the Trophy, this was after a democratic vote. The situation is very far from unique; athletes who have cheated and figures in public life who have been disgraced spring to mind.

Your comparison of the situation with a decision by the CEO or airworthiness experts seems somewhat irrelevant.
Planemike is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 14:58
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 1,141
Received 55 Likes on 28 Posts
According to TCT (on 5 Live today) she has contacted the LAA to try and get a meeting to get this all resolved ( "...urged them to meet with us and discuss it but all of that was blocked" ). She also says that at the award removal she was not allowed to make a defence. "At no point did anybody contacted ...contact me from the association so I was never able to present a defence..."

Full audio here:
See how many lies, truth avoiding answers and anomalies you can spot.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/p06nkhpr

Last edited by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY; 11th Oct 2018 at 15:08.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 15:37
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike Cross
LAA needs to extricate itself from this mess. To my mind the solution is simple and revolves around ONE question, which I, as a member, pose below.
We appoint people to make decisions on our behalf. If we are unhappy with their performance there should be a motion of no confidence, which, if passed ought to result in the person(s) concerned stepping down or being removed from their post.
The awards committee made a decision based on information available to them at the time. They later revisited their decision and decided it should stand. Their decision was then overturned by a vote at the 2016 AGM.

The ONE simple question that I suggest should be addressed is “Was it right to allow the decision of the awards committee to be overturned in this way?” The answer to that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of the spat between the two principals and their supporters.

If you start with that question, rather than the intricacies of the argument between the protagonists (which is no business of the LAA) it's easy.

To my mind it was wrong to allow the decision to be overturned in this way, in the same way that it would be wrong to allow a decision by the CEO or our airworthiness experts to be overturned by a simple majority at an AGM.

LAA should not be involving itself in the wider argument.

Mike, I think you are close, but not actually on target.

The importance of the Awards Committee in this is that they should have proposed the motion to rescind. Having discovered, or at least having had it explained to them, that they had been deceived, there is surely some moral obligation to either make it right, or ask the membership whether or not they are content to allow it to stand.

What we actually got was a member raising a motion, which highlights the fact that the Committee were happy to not take action. Subsequent statements show that the upper reaches of the LAA were not prepared to resolve this, in a way that the majority of voting members wanted.

Now that we have had a vote, and the award rescinded, we should be dealing with the reluctance of the LAA Board to distance the remaining good name of the Association from the TC-T camp.

Looking at all that Tracey has said and done, I am unable to find where she has furthered the stated aims of the LAA. As more of her lies are broadcast by the BBC, there is an increasing certainty that the wider public will associate her name with fraud, and worse. She has today said in a BBC interview that she was not allowed to make a defence when the vote was taken to rescind the award. That's even more black and white lying than the Herne Bay video

Why is is so difficult for the Board to see that?
airpolice is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 16:16
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Horsted Keynes, West Sussex.
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike Cross
The ONE simple question that I suggest should be addressed is “Was it right to allow the decision of the awards committee to be overturned in this way?”
.........................and it does have ONE simple answer too Mike . You may not have followed the original LAA HangarChat debate on this , had you done so then you would have noted that the honourable chaps of the awards committee did indeed contribute . They made the valid point that her flights were not quite as meritorious as originally thought , but considered them worth an award anyway .Also , there were no other nominees.
When challenged by several others who didn't agree , the members were urged to take up the matter via the democratic process as a motion at the AGM if they were in disagreement . I don't need to bother 'cut n pasting' , it's all there in TC-T Episode 1 2016 !

As the subsequent enquiry into the Chairman's conduct has shown , everything was perfectly as per laid down LAA procedure .

Your comments regarding the small turnout of voters is a bit mystifying as well . Most AGM matters only generally bring out a small percentage of the membership anyway. The 2016 TC-T vote was a relatively large turnout . I have made it quite clear , both in 2016 and for the re-match that it is very important that as many of the membership as possible turn out , in order to make it representative of who thinks what .

One aspect of TC-T Episode 2, 2018 that is becoming a bit tedious , is having to explain things that were hammered to death the first time around .

There are some very ugly and distasteful things which have allowed all this to re-emerge again . I believe that TC-T has been handled very well considering !

I'm not very interested in her little spat with Sam either . She clearly has very little of substance to offer though , or this would have been settled years ago . All I want is that she takes her talons out of the LAA !
Chris Martyr is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 16:40
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to TCT (on 5 Live today) she has contacted the LAA to try and get a meeting to get this all resolved ( "...urged them to meet with us and discuss it but all of that was blocked" )
I know it’s a point I made earlier but, based on this quote, I would urge the LAA committee to offer a meeting and publicise that they have done so. At that meeting, she should be asked the obvious questions and clear, detailed and unambiguous answers insisted upon; and those answers, whatever they are, should be published verbatim so that members can be better informed when they decide how to vote.

To be clear: if she provides good and satisfactory answers, she should get the award back and receive an apology; if she can’t or won’t do that, she should not and the reasons why should be published.
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 16:43
  #256 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,953
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
I am a retired journalist,broadcaster and pilot with a lot of long distance flying in my log book.

I have no axe to grind with Tracey or indeed anyone else involved in this saga.

However having spent most of my career with the BBC,Associated Press and Reuters I think I am qualified to assess the difference between the truth and spin.

If Tracey thinks I have made any errors in what I have published then I am happy to correct and apologise.

The Light Aircraft Association would no doubt have received a threatening letter such as this one below with was sent to myself and Sam Rutherford some time ago.

I replied that as a journalist I publish all such threats in true Private Eye fashion.




My Client: Tracey Curtis-Taylor

Introduction

1. I am a barrister at Matrix Chambers specialising in media and information law, including the
law of internet-related harassment and data protection. I write to you on behalf of Tracey Curtis-Taylor.

2. As you are aware, Ms Curtis-Taylor is an aviator and adventurer. In 2013 she flew nearly

10,000 miles in a 1942 open cockpit Boeing Stearman, the Spirit of Artemis, from Cape

Town to Goodwood. The flight was inspired by and in tribute to Lady Mary Heath, the first

person to fly solo from the Cape to the UK in 1928. In late 2015/early 2016 she flew from

the UK to Australia, inspired by Amy Johnson’s epic solo flight in 1930. Further information

is available on her website at www.birdinabiplane.com.

3. As a result of her flying endeavours, Ms Curtis-Taylor has received the Light Aircraft

Association’s Woodhams Trophy in November 2014, the Air League Framed Address in

May 2014 and 2016, and is to receive to the Honourable Company of Air Pilots Master’s

Medal later this year.

4. The purpose of this letter is:

a. to put you on notice of my client’s claims for misuse of private information,

harassment and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 against you arising

principally from postings made by you under the pseudonym “Jay Sata” from about

April 2016 and continuing to date on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network

(“PPRuNe”) at www.pprune.org (although she also understands that you have made

similar statements elsewhere, including via email and to the media); and

b. to request that you take such steps as are necessary to remove the posts

complained of, to desist from harassing my client and to cease processing her

personal data with immediate effect.

In the event that you do not comply with the requests made in this letter, you will leave

my client no option but to consider legal proceedings against you in order to vindicate

her rights, including but not limited to seeking interim injunctive relief against you.

Matters complained of

5. As noted above, my client’s complaints arise principally from posts made by you under the

pseudonym Jay Sata on the PPRuNe forum, specifically at www.pprune.org/privateflying/[/url]

579030-tracey-curtis-taylor-merged-threads.html, being a public forum thread you

started on 14 April 2016.

6. It appears that since creating the thread you have made in excess of 378 posts to it. I also

note that on 31 May 2016, in a post timed at 20.22, you claimed that the thread had had

over 22,000 views. It is therefore apparent that your posts have reached a very substantial

number of people.

7. The general theme of your posts is to allege that Ms Curtis-Taylor has deliberately and

dishonestly sought to mislead sponsors, the flying community, the media and the public as

to the manner in which the flights referred to above, specifically, that she has repeatedly

misrepresented that all legs of these flights were undertaken alone and without support.

You also accuse her deliberately concealing the true state of affairs, by way of example, in

the way that the documentary about her Africa flight was presented. You also accuse her of

having obtained the awards referred to above on a false basis, namely, as a result of her

dishonest representations that she undertook the flights alone.

8. These allegations are untrue. Ms Curtis-Taylor has never sought to mislead anyone about

the way that her flights were undertaken. By way of example, this is immediately apparent,

from watching the documentary made about her 2013 flight. Whenever she is interviewed

in it, she repeatedly refers to “we”, “we’re”, “everyone” and “everybody”. In a number of

shots, it is obvious that there is someone sitting in the cockpit in front of her. Finally, the

DVD extras feature short films in which others are flying with her. When it has come to her

attention that certain statements made on her behalf, eg on her website, may be

misinterpreted, she has taken prompt steps to correct them. Further, none of the awards

referred to above were given to Ms Curtis-Taylor on the basis that her flights were

undertaken alone.




c. You were a source for the Daily Mail article published on 2 July 2016 which

repeated many of the claims made by you in the forum.

d. At 09.95 on 19 September 2016 you emailed Mr Robson the Royal Navy Royal

Marines Charity raising an objection to her involvement with the charity (and making

specific reference to the fat that she was a guest speaker at a dinner two months

earlier) on the basis of her alleged deceptions and citing the content of the PPRuNe

forum, and the Daily Mail article, as evidence in support. In doing so, you omitted to

inform Mr Robson of the facts that you are Jay Sata, the source of the majority of

the material on the forum, and that you were a source of the Daily Mail article.

e. You are responsible for repeatedly editing Ms Curtis-Taylor’s Wikipedia entry to

make reference to the false accusations referred to above.

11. In the event that it becomes necessary to do so, Ms Curtis-Taylor will rely on these and any

other communications that come to her attention in support of her claims against you.

12. Ms Curtis-Taylor is aware that, in pursuing the course of conduct outlined above, you have

been acting in pursuance of a joint enterprise with Mr Sam Rutherford. Accordingly I have

today written to Mr Rutherford to put him on notice of Ms Curtis-Taylor’s claims against him.

Legal Claims Arising

13. Your activities give rise to a number of legal claims against you as follows:

(a) For harassment, contrary to section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997;

(b) For the tort of misuse of private information; and

(c) For breach of statutory duty, contrary to section 4(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I set out in more detail the basis of each of these claims in turn below.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

14. Under s.1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the PHA”) a person must not

pursue a course of conduct:

(a) which amounts to harassment of another; and

(b) which he or she knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.

15. A person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to

harassment if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the

course of conduct amounted to harassment of another.

16. References to harassment include alarming the person or causing the person distress

s.7(2), and “conduct” includes speech s.7(4).

17. A claim for harassment may be defended if the course of conduct is pursued for the

purpose of preventing or detecting crime or if, in the particular circumstances the pursuit of

the course of conduct is reasonable. However, the test of a person’s purpose is not wholly

subjective. He or she must have thought rationally about the material suggesting the

possibility of criminality and formed the view that the conduct said to constitute harassment

was appropriate for the purpose of preventing or detecting it. The test of rationality imports

a requirement of good faith and an absence of capriciousness – see Hayes v Willoughby

[2013] 1 WLR 935 (at [13] to [17]). The test as to whether or not pursuit of a course of

conduct is reasonable is therefore an objective one.

18. Accordingly, the relevant questions are:

(

Ms Curtis-Taylor and encouraged you to identify yourself.

(c) At 13.01 that day “bose-x” described your conduct towards Ms Curtis-Taylor as

a “vigilante campaign”. At 16.16 bose-x also stated that “whatever we think of

the woman we do not have the right to invade her privacy or stir up internet hate

campaigns”.

(d) Also on 8 June at 21.30, DaveW pointed out that you were making the same

points, over and over again in a short period of time, and described your conduct

as “a repetitive scattergun witch-hunt”.

20. Further, in light of the above, you were, from at least early June 2016, in possession of

information which would lead a reasonable person to think that his course of conduct

amounted to harassment. You were being told this in plain terms by other forum members.

Further, and in any event, you were aware that many of the claims you were making

against Ms Curtis-Taylor were based on an extremely selective analysis of the “evidence”

that you presented against her, not least because another member of the forum, “Flying

Lawyer”, kept pointing this out to you.

21. In light of the above, you would have no defence to a claim for harassment against you. In

this regard, I draw your attention to Brand v Berki [2014] EWHC 2979. In that case, the

defendant alleged that the claimants had assaulted her and complained to the police.

Thereafter, she emailed journalists, politicians and others alleging the claimants had

committed a number of very serious criminal offences. She also made allegations on a

website, publicised via her Twitter account. The defendant claimed that she was not

harassing the claimants at all but exercising her right to reveal serious matters, and that her

rights were being thwarted by police inaction and failure. In 2015, Mr Justice Jay granted

summary judgment against her: [2015] EWHC 3373.

22. In QRS v Beach, [2014] EWHC 3057 the claimant, a partner and chairman of a law firm,

brought the action on behalf of himself and in a representative capacity for others in the

firm to prevent the Defendants from posting defamatory statements on websites which

alleged corruption, failure to act in their client’s interests and untruthfulness. The claimant

relied upon the case of Law Society v Kordowski where it was found that the publications

on a website had been made in the knowledge that they would inevitably (and did) come to

the attention of those named on more than one occasion and on each occasion cause them

distress and harm. The Court agreed and, on the material before it, found there were no

available defences. Accordingly, on the basis that Mrs Justice Slade determined the

Claimants were more likely than not to succeed at trial, the injunction was granted.

Misuse of private information

23. On 7 June 2016 you posted a screenshot of a personal letter from The Honourable

Company of Air Pilots to Ms Curtis-Taylor dated 13 January 2016 stating that it had

awarded her the Master’s Medal for 2016 in respect of her flight from the UK to Australia.

The letter was addressed to my client at her home address, part of which had been crossed

out in biro but was still legible.

24. The publication of such a letter, including in particular her home address, amounted to a

misuse of Ms Curtis-Taylor’s private information, and particularly so in the context of your

campaign of vilification and abuse.

25. You did not remove the post despite the fact that, on 8 June 2016, “Cows getting bigger”

pointed out to you that the redaction was ineffective. At 13.01 that day “bose-x” stated that

s/he was “stunned” that the forum operators had permitted you to post the contents of a

private letter showing a private address in a public forum.

26. Instead, your response was to state that the address was the registered address of Ms

Curtis-Taylor’s company. This is irrelevant. It is not apparent, from the fact of registration of

the company at this address at Companies House that it is Ms Curtis-Taylor’s private

residential address. It is however apparent from your post.

Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”)

27. In making the posts about Ms Curtis-Taylor you processed her personal data within the

meaning of section 1(1) of the DPA. Since you decided the purposes for which you would

use that data, you are also a data controller in respect of that data for the purposes of

section 1(1). As a result, you were (and are) obliged to comply with section 4(4) of the DPA

in processing Ms Curtis-Taylor’s personal data.

28. By section 4(4) you are required to comply with the eight data protection principles, set out

in Schedule 1 Part I of the DPA, when processing Ms Curtis-Taylor’s personal data.

However, you processed that data in breach of those principles. By way of example:

(a) Contrary to the first principle, you did not process the data fairly, for the reasons

already set out above.

(b) Also contrary to the first principle, you did not process the data lawfully, because

your processing of it amounted to harassment and a misuse of private information

for the reasons already rehearsed above.

(c) Also contrary to the first principle, none of the conditions in Schedule 2 was met.

(d) The data was processed contrary to the second principle, which requires it to be

obtained only for specified purposes, and not to be further processed in a manner

incompatible with them.

(e) Contrary to the third principle, the data was excessive in relation to the purpose for

which it was processed.

(f) Contrary to the fourth principle, the data was inaccurate.

29. Whilst the DPA contains certain protections for the processing of personal data in certain

circumstances, none of these will protect you from liability. The protection for “domestic

purposes” in section 36 applies only to data processed for personal, family or household

affairs. Nor does the section 32 protection apply, because the posts were not made for

journalistic purposes; alternatively if they were, you could not in the circumstances have

held a “reasonable” belief that publication was in the public interest. In that regard, I remind

you that the posts were made to a public forum. And there are hundreds of them.

30. As already noted above in the context of the harassment claim, the processing of Ms

Curtis-Taylor’s data has caused her great distress. Accordingly she is entitled, pursuant to

section 13(2) of the DPA, to be compensated for the distress caused. In relation to the

construction of section 13, we draw your attention to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in

Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311 at [95] to [105].

Remedies

31. In light of the above, Ms Curtis-Taylor is entitled to the following remedies:

(a) Damages for harassment and misuse of private information.

(b) Compensation pursuant to section 13 of the DPA for breach of her data rights.

(c) An injunction against you to prevent further misuse of her private information,

harassment and breaches of her data protection rights.

(d) Pursuant to section 10 of the DPA, the prevention of any further processing likely to

cause her distress. Accordingly, this letter therefore constitutes notice pursuant to

section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to you to cease processing her personal data

with immediate effect.

32. As already noted above, however, Ms Curtis-Taylor’s main concern is to put a stop to the

campaign of harassment as it is causing her alarm and distress and to fear for her personal

safety. Accordingly, she will not pursue her claims for damages against you or require

payment of her legal costs provided that you:

(a) Provide written confirmation that you are Jay Sata, together with a postal

address for service in the event that it becomes necessary to serve any legal

documents upon you.

(b) The removal/deletion of all posts made by you on the PPRuNe forum about,

concerning or relating to Ms Curtis-Taylor.

(c) The removal/deletion of any other material posted by you about, concerning or

relating to Ms Curtis-Taylor in any other forum, website or social media including

but not limited to Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia.

(d) Immediately desist from making any further communications about, concerning

or relating to Ms Curtis-Taylor save for the purposes of taking legal advice and

responding to this letter.

33. If you deny that you are Jay Sata, or fail to provide the written confirmation sought, it will be

necessary for Ms Curtis-Taylor to apply to the Court for an order that the operators of the

PPRuNe forum reveal your identity. She will seek the costs incurred in doing so from you.

34. Similarly, if you fail to provide an address for service, and it becomes necessary to seek an

order from the Court that you do so, Ms Curtis-Taylor will again seek to recover the costs of

that exercise from you.

35. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as reasonably possible and in any event by no

later than 4pm on 25 October 2016.

36. Ms Curtis-Taylor’s sincere hope is that this letter will be taken in the spirit in which it is

intended - as a reasonable warning to you in the circumstances to desist forthwith in your

actions, and that it will put an end to this matter. It is not in anybody’s interests for this

campaign to continue.

37. Given the seriousness of the position, you are urged to take independent legal advice on

the content of this letter, and in particular before you take any further action. If you cannot

afford legal representation your local Citizen’s Advice Bureau may be able to assist you.

Please note that this letter has not been emailed from my email address as the terms of

Public Access do not permit me to conduct litigation on behalf of Ms Curtis-Taylor. Please

direct any response to the email from which this letter is sent, copying me in via my practice

team at: [email protected].

38. In the meantime Ms Curtis-Taylor’s rights are reserved and this letter does not restrict

those rights in any way.


Yours sincerely,

Lorna Skinne
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 17:31
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Interesting she talks about "not having a legal team' and using 'solicitors', then uses Matrix Chambers, an international law firm with 90 barristers...
My local jobbing solicitor used to charge £280/hour. What do Matrix charge...?!
Nige321 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 17:40
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On "Eye of the Storm", the BBC Radio 5 Live blog, Tracey Curtis-Taylor said "I've been a member for 15 years" (of the LAA).

LAA AGM 2018 Motion 1 Supporting statement by Tracey Curtis-Taylor: "Since 2005, I have been proud to be a member of the LAA,..."

Last edited by Forfoxake; 13th Oct 2018 at 17:19. Reason: One too many "a"s in quote.
Forfoxake is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 17:56
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nige321
Interesting she talks about "not having a legal team' and using 'solicitors', then uses Matrix Chambers, an international law firm with 90 barristers...
My local jobbing solicitor used to charge £280/hour. What do Matrix charge...?!
Actually Public Access is cheaper way of engaging a barrister but as she points out at the end of her letter, she can’t actually conduct litigation on TCT’s behalf. So no threat there then.

Last edited by runway30; 11th Oct 2018 at 18:00. Reason: Spelling, again
runway30 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2018, 17:57
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder if she has threatened her ex-husband yet?
runway30 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.