Originally Posted by gasax (Post 10270683)

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?

Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY (Post 10270781)

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.

Originally Posted by pilotmike (Post 10270960)

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.

Originally Posted by rog747 (Post 10270993)

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)

Originally Posted by airpolice (Post 10271002)

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?

Originally Posted by Mike Cross (Post 10271047)

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.

Originally Posted by Mike Cross (Post 10271047)

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.

Originally Posted by Mike Cross (Post 10271047)

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?”

---

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" )

---

---

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

---

---

---

Originally Posted by kghjfg (Post 10271823)