Away for a day and it's gone

[AIMS by IBM]

Originally Posted by DingerX

From a Professional Philosophical point of view,
there is a distinction between statements of opinion and statements of fact. Statements of opinion propose (but, unlike arguments, do not seek to demonstrate) interpretations for facts.

As pointed out earlier, allegations of fact also have legal significance. This is particularly true in a board like this one which is purportedly by and for professionals, yet anonymous and available to all (Welcome to one of the problems of the internet).

So any statement claiming a factual incident where a given flight from a given airline busts safety regulations on a given day is going to attract attention. And you can bitch about Ryanair's counter-allegations all you want, but while there's an investigation in process that will determine the facts -- in a legal sense at least -- there's no reason to make statements of fact about the situation without indicating sources.

So this means that the general public should just accept the reports from the Egyptian CAA on the Flash Air crash, simply because they have no access to the facts ?

In other words, if you control the facts then you can post what you want!

I think that Danny should publish the letters he has received from any lawyer from any Airline that has forced him to remove a tread and put it in the Legal Bin or at least send a copy to those posters that were named in it.

I believe that Ryainair, taken into account the channel 4 saga, has every reason to avoid this from happening again.They are not being treated in the same way as others.

If clearly the Egyptian CAA is not up to speed (on two occasions this was proven by facts NTSB) why is Egyptair allowed to fly to the UK?

Is it not a fact by itself that people are indeed posting on these issues?

Maybe Nietzsche was right: "it´s all about power and God is death"

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by AIMS by IBM

I believe that Ryainair, taken into account the channel 4 saga, has every reason to avoid this from happening again.They are not being treated in the same way as others.

I think many posters here think that PPRuNe is a place where one can have the sort of free discussion that goes on in a pub, or crew bar, or whatever. Somewhere that one can say whatever one likes, without fear of follow-up or retribution, whether it's true or not.

Unfortunately, much as we might like it to be, that just isn't the case. PPRuNe isn't the pub. The laws that govern what PPRuNe might be legally liable for are not the same as those that govern what you might be legally liable for in a face-to-face gossip. And that's quite separate from the enforceability question - what's said here is written and open for all to see, unlike the ephemera of words spoken but never put down on paper.

So Danny has to take legal complaints seriously, or else risk seeing PPRuNe brought down by legal action.

There is a separate issue of why Ryanair is so quick to make legal complaints to PPRuNe, apparently taking a different view about this from other airlines and organisations that are regularly discussed here. That, IMHO, speaks volumes for Ryanair rather that PPRuNe. It may reinforce the opinions that some of us hold about Ryanair generally, whether we know more or less about the airline and the way that it is run.

But it doesn't change the position that if there is a legal complaint, Danny has to respond to it - which he has done.

[CamelhAir]

Anyone want to talk about why this seems to be so complicated, this so called investigation , so the IAA reads PPRuNe and starts an investigation,

The key to understanding this lies in understanding the role of the IAA. In order to do so, you must first bin any preconceptions you may have, perhaps formed by knowledge of other authorities, as to their role. Rather than effectively regulate FR, and others, their role is simply to collect all those lucrative fees from FR, and avoid at all costs upsetting the applecart, as to do so would risk MOL running off to Latvia to register all his aeroplanes. Now and again if something gets a little too public, like in this case, they must put on a show of investigating, all the while remembering where MOL has threatened to register the aircraft. Don't think effective regulation, think more the muppet show.

[Wing Commander Fowler]

DingerX - small point but "I like the colour green" is NOT an opinion - it is a fact! "Green is a lovely colour" is an opinion........

[AIMS by IBM]

Time for a change.

Originally Posted by Globaliser

There is a separate issue of why Ryanair is so quick to make legal complaints to PPRuNe, apparently taking a different view about this from other airlines and organisations that are regularly discussed here. That, IMHO, speaks volumes for Ryanair rather that PPRuNe. It may reinforce the opinions that some of us hold about Ryanair generally, whether we know more or less about the airline and the way that it is run.

But it doesn't change the position that if there is a legal complaint, Danny has to respond to it - which he has done.

So then why does Danny create a perception about Ryanair by explaining why he has banned this tread while he does not do so for all other banned threads.

The perceptipion is created that Ryanair has something to hide, but this may well be the case for many other airlines that have made the same request in the past.

So Danny, put your cards on the table or face the risk; you may be judged to be impartial.

Now that would be a true reason to wipe this Forum from the face of this earth and start a real PPNe that hopefully is immune to this kind of manipulations.

PPRuNe is as much a business venture as it is a Forum.

[Rainboe]

Don't be so daft people, why should the forum owner risk being sued because of unsubstantiated allegations here? He has been notified in writing that a legal department is looking at what is said. Are you suggested that he should keep the thread up? Are you willing to pay his costs of possibly £1/2 million (or more) in damages and costs in the High Court for him- ie are you willing to shoulder the responsibility for him, legally? If not, then stop demanding the forum owner publish, because he will be dammed if somebody's 'anonymous' unsubstantiated allegations and critical comments are proved to be incorrect! It could still happen.

[EI-CFC]

Originally Posted by Flap 5

As has been said much has been said about other airlines.

Oh well, that makes it alright then, doesn't it?

The thread was removed, and pretty correctly considering some of the stuff that was posted.

[cwatters]

Rainboe is quite right. I believe recent legal cases have demonstrated that you are liable for what you say online - just as you are liable for what you say outloud in a pub or any other public forum. It's what and how you say it that counts.

What makes people think their posts here are anonymous?

[Bomber Harris]

Danny is being his usual rational self. However, I am worried about his "mates". Who are all these guys saying "well done danny" for taking the post off the air? Lets gets this straight...somebody with bigger pockets than danny says "take the post off or i sue your ass off". Danny takes the post off. This is NORMAL RATIONAL behaviour. If Danny said, "to hell with you guys...see you in court", now we could say "well done danny", "bully for you", "danny is an idiot, don't take them on", "you'll burn in hell danny for taking on a skygod" or whatever else you felt. This becomes material on which we can comment.

So if you are one of the lapdogs saying well done danny, then maybe you understand how MOL operates his game!!!

Anyway, let the disussion on freespeech continue, which is what this should be about.

[Rainboe]

Well as a lapdog that understands how MOL works (which is legally), I quite understand that MOL is very likely to sue the arse off anybody who makes accusations and comments about his company that may be construed as in anyway incorrect. Don't you? Exactly how I would behave if I ran a company and some darn website posted unsubstantiated and possibly incorrect accusations/criticisms about my company. 'Free speech' be damned- there often ain't such a thing- it depends what you are going to say. Rights of free speech are not rights to say and accuse what you like- this ain't Parliament where you can say what you like. Free speech brings responsibilities for you to personally be accountable for what you say, and while people hide behing anonymity here with what they say, it is the webmaster who is directly accountable. So in court, where would the 'well done Danny' people be? Backing him up, or will he look around and see 100,000 Prooners have mysteriously vanished totally? Nobody has any right to question if he decides to delete anything he likes.....it's his football.

[Farrell]

Does the fact that we're still discussing this thread and again mentioning the 'supposed' events that happened on that night mean that even though the thread was pulled, that anyone who reads this new thread can pretty much work out what the content of the original thread was????

[MarkD]

Danny should publish the letters he has received from any lawyer

Ryanair certainly seem to like publishing correspondence of their website - remember that C4 programme?

[Few Cloudy]

Keeping to the point

There are two threads:

The removed thread containing the Rumour (or Allegation) and

This one - which is about the removal of the first one and the ramifications.

In my opinion, judging by the very detailed and well researched posts by Danny, he has had some sleepless nights trying to keep this thing on an even keel.

It is all very well for people to complain about a perceived giving in to the airline concerned. They don't appreciate that PPRuNe is not a free for all public service - leastways not this side of Jetblast (non moderated). It started off as a hobby and grew so big, that requests, threats or court action occur on an irregular basis and have to be taken seriously.

If you feel like filling Danny's shoes right now and treading the narrow path between freedom of expression and upsetting some eager lawyer then I question your seriousness.

The best suggestion of how to deal with cases like this in the future, I found to be the idea of keeping only the thread title going, with an explanation from the Moderators for the reason. To the Mods and Danny I would say, don't expect everyone to read between the lines of your explanation - short and sweet will have to do in future.

Good luck,

FC.

[LTNman]

This all reminds me of Robert Maxwell and the missing pension funds. When questions were asked out came the lawyers. After his death the truth came out.

[Local Variation]

Having sat on the sidelines for along time, my only surprise is that this has taken so long. And sure enough here we are.

The ever increasing amount of vitrialic (sic) accusations thrown at this airline in particular and another which happens to fly our proud union flag on it's famous tails around the globe made this day inevitable. I fully understand the actions of the airline and that of the owner of this wonderful website. They both had little choice I fear.

Working for a corporate outside the industry, I have on a small number of occassions requested action be taken as that employed by the airline in question, regarding statements made about the business I work for. And sure enough the legal time deemed it necessary to protect the rights and the image of the company and out came the size elevens. You look in wince and leave it, wince and leave it. Then bang, the line is crossed and you say "enough is enough".

Better all get used to it and fast.

[threegreenlights]

AM I MISSING SOMETHING????

I have been reading this thread with some interest and notwithstanding the views about free speech. Here are the facts one more time.

1. Someone in the industry makes allegations on PPrune of a serious nature.

2. The matter is being investigated by the IAA.

3. Lawyers demand the thread is removed pending outcome of investigation.

4. Danny removes the thread.

Points one to four seem quite reasonable.

So let us wait and see what the outcome is. In the meantime the Captain has final jurisdiction on safety margins as has always been the case.

[PAXboy]

Those shouting for 'free speech' ought to bear in mind that that means the right to speak your opinion without fear of being persecuted by the government of the day. I sit to be corrected on that but giving an opinion behind a posting name, when someone else might get it into trouble is not the same thing!

Secondly, Danny has made it clear that, when the case has been investigated, he will be allowed to publish the results. He gets to print the truth, once it is known, and then people can say what they want. Therefore, he has not kow-towed to FR but has won!!

[spekesoftly]

Earlier today I read an excellent post on this thread written by Danny. He obviously has his own good reasons for subsequently deleting it, but it's a great shame that his detailed overview of the many rules pertaining to this subject has now gone. Perhaps when the dust has settled, Danny would consider re-posting an edited version, leaving out the specific 'Ryanair Connection', if necessary?

[Speed of Sound]

Originally Posted by LTNman

When questions were asked out came the lawyers. After his death the truth came out.

I hope you're not suggesting that somebody 'offs' that nice Mr O'Leary?

SoS

[A330busdriver]

Tell me this has nothing to do with large banner ads at the top of PPRUNE's home page for...........................



................................RYANAIR.





He who pays the piper calls the tune?????????????????