Ryanair loses legal bid to identify website critics
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost deferred until next Friday 21st. There is also the likelihood of perjury prosecutions being initiated in the near future.The possibility that the Ryanair board may find the presence of so many bullies, liars and individuals otherwise 'unburdened by integrity' too much of an embarrassment will no doubt create a number of vacancies in Ryanair management. However, the penalty for perjury should ensure that the day-to-day living expenses of certain parties will be minimal for a considerable time, so they won't miss the pay. (An opportunity for you to polish up your C.V.. eh Leo?) Meanwhile, the puppet master will get off scot free, while the scapegoats do the time.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oilhead I was told that the entire letter was read out, so I think that paras 1 & 2 are probably there as para 1. (Actually I am repeating what I heard in a long discussion / speculation..... including costs, what FR will do next, etc.).
As for costs, etc. the (alcohol enabled) wisdom is that this is going to be interesting. Err... not much, but that took about an hour. More interesting is the "fact" that an appeal by FR is inevitable, even though they will lose it. Apparently an appeal will allow the big boss to do nothing about those executives found to be not entirely truthful. (As in he can justify inaction).
Which brings me back to the man we love to hate, Leo H-C. He said some uncharitable things about Captain John Goss (whose innocence was well established by the judge in passing) and the captain who was demoted after the fatigue event. In each case Leo supported and promulgated a management version of events by alluding to poor behaviour on behalf of these two colleagues.
Any chance - fat chance? - of an apology by Leo for adding to the Ryanair PR push to establish that there had to be a fire if Ryanair claimed there was smoke? Leo, if you are to have even minimal credibility you will have to face facts and show some willingness to engage with the real world - and without using poetry to obscure things.
As for costs, etc. the (alcohol enabled) wisdom is that this is going to be interesting. Err... not much, but that took about an hour. More interesting is the "fact" that an appeal by FR is inevitable, even though they will lose it. Apparently an appeal will allow the big boss to do nothing about those executives found to be not entirely truthful. (As in he can justify inaction).
Which brings me back to the man we love to hate, Leo H-C. He said some uncharitable things about Captain John Goss (whose innocence was well established by the judge in passing) and the captain who was demoted after the fatigue event. In each case Leo supported and promulgated a management version of events by alluding to poor behaviour on behalf of these two colleagues.
Any chance - fat chance? - of an apology by Leo for adding to the Ryanair PR push to establish that there had to be a fire if Ryanair claimed there was smoke? Leo, if you are to have even minimal credibility you will have to face facts and show some willingness to engage with the real world - and without using poetry to obscure things.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 70
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pleasurable as I'm sure it is to chide Leo HC, lets not lose sight of the total lack of real reaction, so far, from FR, perhaps that will change after Friday, and I hope the damages/costs awarded are sufficient to make them Appeal, just so we can have the pleasure of FR being slaughtered, again, by IALPA in the Courts.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: limbo
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Escalation of Legal Costs is a tactic that Ryanair uses to beat opponents into submission. Danny Fyne made refernce to this here:
But even as bloody minded as they are, they did not loose this court case in Dublin, they were slam dunked. How even they could justify spending the money on an appeal is beyond me.
Ryanair has a record of going to court over anything that they feel is claimed to be unfair criticism....... As they have very deep pockets, not many people can afford to dispute them when any allegations do arise, including myself here at PPRuNe, but it would appear that many people think PPRuNe is the only platform where they can at least raise their allegations.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As badly as they lost some would say that appealing shows that you are true to your convictions and believe that the courts have treated you unjustly. Afterall its no use making a press announcement stating how you were unfairly treated etc if you don't bother appealing. An appeal also takes time and Ryanair will be hoping that in the intervening months it all dies down a bit and any anxious auditors/shareholders etc will forget the whole thing - assuming that they really cared in the first place anyway.
Be interesting to be a fly on the wall in the boardroom though. There have been many commentators that have said that MOL has taken the company about as far as his skillset will allow and that a change in style could be needed. Be interesting to see what the rest of the year holds.
Be interesting to be a fly on the wall in the boardroom though. There have been many commentators that have said that MOL has taken the company about as far as his skillset will allow and that a change in style could be needed. Be interesting to see what the rest of the year holds.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cartoon strip
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, that's interesting, the FR politburo has removed its version of these events from its website news section. It was there up to this morning. No doubt some trusty wordsmith is, as we speak, crafting a new version of events or perhaps hoping to airbrush out the actual history so far....
But wait, the Friday ruling has yet to come. The costs? Did someone say perjury?
Time for another poem I think
But wait, the Friday ruling has yet to come. The costs? Did someone say perjury?
Time for another poem I think
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: right behind you
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Have just finished reading the entire verdict.I believe that the judge could not have read the situation more completely.word in legal circles dublin side is that ther will be at least 2 perjury proceedings on the back of this case and possibly a contempt of court proceeding.screwed the pooch this time.
Might This:-
relate to this??
the FR politburo has removed its version of these events from its website
possibly a contempt of court proceeding
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair have been very successful (in the past) of using their deep pockets along with MOL's madman like attitude to scare people off.
What is happening now is their is no longer fear.
Capt. John Goss continues to work in Dublin and that gets on MOL's T1TS.
Many pilots have spoken against RYR management in court and some senior RYR figures have effectively been called LIARS.
Dragging people through courts have 2 purposes.
1. You win (well we can see they never do that)
or 2. You exhaust people (sorry boys not any more).
Ryanairs main priority should be to try and protect their management as these guys are in a very precatious position.
And, as Mr. O' Brian, Bagnall etc. may well find out is that MOL cares as little for them as he does for the Pilots.
What is happening now is their is no longer fear.
Capt. John Goss continues to work in Dublin and that gets on MOL's T1TS.
Many pilots have spoken against RYR management in court and some senior RYR figures have effectively been called LIARS.
Dragging people through courts have 2 purposes.
1. You win (well we can see they never do that)
or 2. You exhaust people (sorry boys not any more).
Ryanairs main priority should be to try and protect their management as these guys are in a very precatious position.
And, as Mr. O' Brian, Bagnall etc. may well find out is that MOL cares as little for them as he does for the Pilots.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RogerIrrelevant69
Hmm, that's interesting, the FR politburo has removed its version of these events from its website news section.
(Thanks to Firefox's cache for this one!
)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought that Ryanair did NOT put that Press Release past their lawyers before it went up.
I would also have thought that when the lawyers saw it ..... it came "off" the site pretty quickly.
After such a comprehensive drubbing you would have thought they would have been extra careful. But not this bunch.
Ryanair is clearly an organisation for slow learners.
I would also have thought that when the lawyers saw it ..... it came "off" the site pretty quickly.
After such a comprehensive drubbing you would have thought they would have been extra careful. But not this bunch.
Ryanair is clearly an organisation for slow learners.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the avoidance of any doubt :-
Perjury
"The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath"
and
"criminal offence of making false statements under oath"
Watch out for "Mr Big" in the showers guys ...........
Perjury
"The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath"
and
"criminal offence of making false statements under oath"
Watch out for "Mr Big" in the showers guys ...........
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anybody throw any light on this perjury thing.
If smoebody is up on a charge of any particular crime and pleads innocent, i.e. I didn't do it, I wasn't there.............. and is subsequently found guilty, you see a sentence given for the crime but no charge of perjury.
What I am trying to say is, can somebody define the difference between perjury and the giving of a side to a story that is not accepted as true.
In this case (and I don't have the summaty to hand,) the judge said he didn't believe RYR etc., he didn't actually say they lied. That is a conclusion to be drawn but not what he said.
What I am asking is. Will the charge of perjury stick here?
If smoebody is up on a charge of any particular crime and pleads innocent, i.e. I didn't do it, I wasn't there.............. and is subsequently found guilty, you see a sentence given for the crime but no charge of perjury.
What I am trying to say is, can somebody define the difference between perjury and the giving of a side to a story that is not accepted as true.
In this case (and I don't have the summaty to hand,) the judge said he didn't believe RYR etc., he didn't actually say they lied. That is a conclusion to be drawn but not what he said.
What I am asking is. Will the charge of perjury stick here?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 70
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the perjury thing is wishful thinking. Highly unlikely that there would be any sort of "state" prosecution in this situation, and I think it unlikely that IALPA would want to spend the time/effort/money on launching a prosecution which might fail and give Molly yet more publicity, and if it succeeded, proves what? That Ryanair has some managers who lied under oath? What a surprise, and anyway, the judge already said it.
I think there are more important fish to fry than pursuit of already discredited FR employees.
I think there are more important fish to fry than pursuit of already discredited FR employees.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW good questions. I'm not setting myself up as an expert, because I am not - but I did ask about this and allied matters earlier this week and was told as follows:
1. The "Facts"
There are two findings of "false evidence" on the part of two FR witnesses and a further two FR witnesses gave testimony "found to be unworth of belief". (On an aside, that means that for all practical purposes the four key FR witnesses was each found wanting). The former are the two which potentially attract the charge of "perjury".
The judgment also contains several statements by the judge in which he used the words "I find as a fact ..." etc. (More on this below).
2. Significance
All the judge did was deliver a judgement. He himself does not generate (directly or indirectly) an investigation about "false evidence". He has identified something which can or might lead to an investigation or charge of perjury. The judge does not (normally) take any action.
3. What the future might hold
Any issues relating to alleged perjury require a formal complaint to be made to the Irish police if the matter is to be pursued. (Note: if I got this right it is the perjury that is alleged when making the complaint - but the "false evidence" is a finding of fact by the judge). Apparently such a complaint can be made by anyone.
In this regard it is worth noting that in the REPA case one of those accused of giving "false evidence", the Ryanair "Director of Personnel and In-Flight" Mr. E. Wilson, himself initiated an Irish police investigation of the REPA moderator sued by Ryanair as part of the REPA case. The judge found that there were no grounds to justify calling that investigation and made a disparaging reference to the action by Mr. Wilson.
4. Appealing the judgment
This judgment, I am told, can only be appealed on matters of law. In other words, the judge's findings of fact cannot be challenged. This answers somebody's question above about "repeating perjury" - that does not arise as there will be no examination of witnesses. In respect of any Appeal the judge was stated (to me) to have done a good job in (legally) demonstrating that the Ryanair action lacked any merit in the first place - though at this point my grasp of the nuances is weak.
5. The bottom line
The outcome was represented to me as being a "nightmare" for Ryanair. They did more than lose the case - they were routed and the reality revealed to all. Senior Executives, who rarely blink without permission from on high, did some very strange things and made some very strange decisions that are now manifest to all.
If there are any errors of interpretation above it would be exceedingly helpful if someone with legal training would comment / correct any of the legal points that rely on my understanding of third party information.
1. The "Facts"
There are two findings of "false evidence" on the part of two FR witnesses and a further two FR witnesses gave testimony "found to be unworth of belief". (On an aside, that means that for all practical purposes the four key FR witnesses was each found wanting). The former are the two which potentially attract the charge of "perjury".
The judgment also contains several statements by the judge in which he used the words "I find as a fact ..." etc. (More on this below).
2. Significance
All the judge did was deliver a judgement. He himself does not generate (directly or indirectly) an investigation about "false evidence". He has identified something which can or might lead to an investigation or charge of perjury. The judge does not (normally) take any action.
3. What the future might hold
Any issues relating to alleged perjury require a formal complaint to be made to the Irish police if the matter is to be pursued. (Note: if I got this right it is the perjury that is alleged when making the complaint - but the "false evidence" is a finding of fact by the judge). Apparently such a complaint can be made by anyone.
In this regard it is worth noting that in the REPA case one of those accused of giving "false evidence", the Ryanair "Director of Personnel and In-Flight" Mr. E. Wilson, himself initiated an Irish police investigation of the REPA moderator sued by Ryanair as part of the REPA case. The judge found that there were no grounds to justify calling that investigation and made a disparaging reference to the action by Mr. Wilson.
4. Appealing the judgment
This judgment, I am told, can only be appealed on matters of law. In other words, the judge's findings of fact cannot be challenged. This answers somebody's question above about "repeating perjury" - that does not arise as there will be no examination of witnesses. In respect of any Appeal the judge was stated (to me) to have done a good job in (legally) demonstrating that the Ryanair action lacked any merit in the first place - though at this point my grasp of the nuances is weak.
5. The bottom line
The outcome was represented to me as being a "nightmare" for Ryanair. They did more than lose the case - they were routed and the reality revealed to all. Senior Executives, who rarely blink without permission from on high, did some very strange things and made some very strange decisions that are now manifest to all.
If there are any errors of interpretation above it would be exceedingly helpful if someone with legal training would comment / correct any of the legal points that rely on my understanding of third party information.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cartoon strip
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one GGV, that looks like a lot more than idle banter to me.
I think the bollocking the judge gave to these witnesses goes a long way. Looks like unless the DPP goes after them, it's unlikely to go to a perjury case.
Will they try this nonsense again? Seems unlikely unless they are a complete bunch of numpties and really do want to invite the wrath of the DPP.
Hmm, poetry corner has gone a bit quiet......
I think the bollocking the judge gave to these witnesses goes a long way. Looks like unless the DPP goes after them, it's unlikely to go to a perjury case.
Will they try this nonsense again? Seems unlikely unless they are a complete bunch of numpties and really do want to invite the wrath of the DPP.
Hmm, poetry corner has gone a bit quiet......