ANONYMITY ON POSTINGS TO END.

Richard Mole · Post by **Richard Mole** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:32 pm

There is also the little matter of courtesy!
Whilst robust exchanges are quite evidently the staff of life for some, the tenor of some of the wilder postings has been downright offensive even when I am casually reading threads that are not my main focus of interest.
I think this may be a widespread view, at any rate shared by most of those at the recent Strut meetings I have attended.

So lets stay legal - and decent with it!

leiafee · Post by **leiafee** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:32 pm

If everything posted on the LAA domain is going to be assumed to be an official viewpoint then I'd rather no longer be associated with it by name in any case.

Frankly right now, being linked to an organisation which treats, and speaks of, its membership with such contempt as displayed in this thread, makes me wish I could pack in even my "real life" membership.

It's not the first time this has wound me up. The very first magazine I received as an enthusiastic new member contained a nasty little jibe about member who'd chosen to keep their build details private. Since then, a similar attitude has repeatedly manifested itself on the bulletin board and elsewhere.

I've borne with it because I value the goals of the organisation as a whole and believe in the principle of "don't vote then don't whinge" so think supporting at least one GA organisation is important as a pilot.

I'm seriously starting to question my reasoning, and at the very least will no longer be using the board --it's too bad for my blood pressure...

Trevor Harvey · Post by **Trevor Harvey** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:33 pm

I still stand by the Police state & ransom remarks along with heavy handed management tactics. I am now retired & thought I had seen the last of that type of "do as yr bloody told" kind of stuff. Apparently not.
This is supposed to be a pleasure / hobby / fun thing, yet here we are getting told about yet another rule that we must follow.
I have no problems putting my name to whatever I say. I am used to being flamed for thinking & talking out of the box. However there are some poor souls out there who, by virtue of their position in life / employment, are restricted from using their real name as it would place them & or their employer in a difficult situation. This means effectively that persons who have far more knowledge on aviation subjects than such as I & are well known & respected for it, will no longer be allowed to share said knowledge with the rest of us.
Now, I don't give a toss if someone wants to rip my last remarks to bits & disect them in any way. The fact is this forum will be the poorer as a result of this new rule.
Having said all that I actually do believe it would be nice if we could all use real names, but freedom is freedom, you know, the stuff that William Wallace got hung drawn & quartered for!!

JonKil · Post by **JonKil** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:38 pm

this has blown from a small molehill to a large mountain...
chaps. in the scheme of things this argument is so silly that it isn't even funny any more.
While I see that some think that this is a big issue, I really do look at the other chaps position (ie.administrator/moderator) position, make it a bit easier for them.

Life is too short, live the dream..., go fly.

Jon Kilpatrick,
LAA#:026434
6'-1".....yes 6'-1" and getting mad.. !

Dave Hall · Post by **Dave Hall** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:54 pm

It's pretty distressing to find that the breath of fresh air that blew in recently with promises of more open-ness and information exchange has already been knobbled. I don't want to shoot the messenger, though.

The LAA runs on its volunteers, and younger members such as Leia Fee, who has spent hours on supporting LAA Youth & Education, are the future of the organisation, and should be appreciated and supported in return.

Many of the other posters have given staunch support to the PFA over decades. Why are their opinions on this topic also given so little regard?

Leia and myself will be helping out at SPLASH again this year - we had a good team of people there last year, but more are welcome. Contact Peter H to volunteer.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:19 pm

“However there are some poor souls out there who, by virtue of their position in life / employment, are restricted from using their real name as it would place them & or their employer in a difficult situation. This means effectively that persons who have far more knowledge on aviation subjects than such as I & are well known & respected for it, will no longer be allowed to share said knowledge with the rest of us.”

Give Peter a chance, he may be able to make a slight exception in the same way the BMAA have done.

Rod1

Trevor Harvey · Post by **Trevor Harvey** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:25 pm

Rod1 wrote:“However there are some poor souls out there who, by virtue of their position in life / employment, are restricted from using their real name as it would place them & or their employer in a difficult situation. This means effectively that persons who have far more knowledge on aviation subjects than such as I & are well known & respected for it, will no longer be allowed to share said knowledge with the rest of us.”

Give Peter a chance, he may be able to make a slight exception in the same way the BMAA have done.

Rod1

I know exceptions can be made. But, exceptions of this nature only highlights the fact that some people can be trusted to "behave themselves" under a false name whilst others cannot be trusted, apparently. This is I believe, the whole point of this thread.
The Management have made a decision to not allow anonymous postings based on the assumption that some may be detrimental to the Organisation.
I would much rather see a "3 strikes & you are out" type of policy rather than the typical management "blanket rule" system.

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:41 pm

Steve Neale said

Re the BB, user names cannot be changed, the SW will not allow it. People will have to register yet again (is this the third or fourth time?) and they simply won't bother.

Cirrus272 said

An innocent question to the BB administrators.

I understand we can't change our user names, but can we delete ourselves from the BB or is this something we need to ask the administrators to deal with?

For the record. User names CAN be changed in PHPBB, no problem, however it needs to be done by an Admin so you email John Dean with your request, telling him your existing User Name and what you want it changed to and he can do it if he has a mind to.
The reason for having to re-register when we went to the LAA Forum is because the underlying software changed.

Peter Harvey said

This forum is for the members. But it is a resource for ALL members, not a subset. It's also a valuable resource for potential members, enthusiasts, GA pilots, the public at large, even our colleagues in the CAA, EASA, the DfT, police...

Ah that explains why potential members can't post on it, for example to ask a question about the organisation.

He also said

Either change your user name, or add your real name to your signature.

I see you've done the latter on your first post on this thread Peter. By your third post you'd given up and your fourth fifth and sixth posts did not carry a signature. Lesson in how to modify your profile required methinks. You might get a better response if you led by example.

I prefer to post under my real name but each to his own. The suggestion that LAA is at risk from what's posted here is laughable. If they promptly remove stuff that is defamatory when it is brought to their attention by a complainant there is no problem. If they are worried by this they should seek some authoritative legal advice, there's plenty of case law to support the position I've outlined.

Nick Allen · Post by **Nick Allen** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:47 pm

However, there have been a couple of occasions recently when we’ve had to remove posts.

Dear CEO, Purely out of academic interest, were these posts submitted by pseudonymous BBer(s)?

If posts are removed, then perhaps a notice could be put up saying e.g. "A post by [x] on the subject of [y] was removed because the moderator deemed this [z]." Then we'd all have an idea what was going on...nothing like some gentle self-policing.

flyin'dutch' · Post by **flyin'dutch'** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:04 pm

I prefer to post under my real name but each to his own. The suggestion that LAA is at risk from what's posted here is laughable. If they promptly remove stuff that is defamatory when it is brought to their attention by a complainant there is no problem. If they are worried by this they should seek some authoritative legal advice, there's plenty of case law to support the position I've outlined.
_________________
Mike Cross

Mike has hit the nail on the head.

Operators of BBs are obliged to maintain them and take-off/moderate that is libelous or worse, but as Mike says they have to do so in a reasonable time frame.

So if Mike says that I am a cr@p pilot and I am offended by that and let the mods/admin know then you have to take it off; that is not the same as actively surveillance just to make sure that nothing potentially dodgy ever gets posted.

I am sure that Pete Harvey has the best of intentions, and after all nobody wants to see harm done to the LAA, but this is the umpteenth time that an attempt seems to be made to control what is said by folks.

Maybe a comprehensive review of the communications policy is what is needed.

Peter Harvey · Post by **Peter Harvey** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:38 am

Hi folks
I'm a bit short of time, but to gently respond to a couple of points.

Can we be clear here. YOU DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE WHAT YOU WRITE, JUST BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT. LAA IS NOT PLANNING TO CONTROL WHAT YOU WRITE. FREE SPEECH AS NORMAL.

Mike - 1) I didn't provide my signature everywhere, but my user name is MY name - I suggested (helpfully?) you use the signature if you don't want to change your user name (thanks for using yours BTW).
Mike -2) LAA at risk is not laughable if you'd read what I did on a couple of occasions.

Cirrus272 - can you delete yourselves? Not sure. Don't post, same solution, or have I missed something?

Nick - yes the damaging posts were by anonymous BBers.

Trevor - 3 strike arrangement. This problem is actually very rare. When it happens, the damage can be disproportionate and with the wrong post, at the wrong time, potentially catastrophic and very fast. So here's the rub. Do we close the 'chat' area, or ask folks to use their names in the HOPE that they'll THINK about what they're writing, the medium they're using and the potential readers? We chose this path. We're hoping it works, but it's still a risk.

If someone wants to slam, sledge another person on this forum, I'm not planning to delete, unless there's a complaint. Business as usual then.

Maybe you good folks could discuss the limit of what should be moderated. IN the meantime, please use your real names.

Rod1 - thank you for the re-iteration. If folks have a problem using their real name, contact me (as per the original post).

Welshman and G_info. Yep, you see the power of the web - what you are, what you publish, being out there for others to use and abuse as they wish. It's our problem too and we're doing our best.
As to this BB being a threat: I really want this BB. I believe in free speech, freedom in the air, on the ground. All too many times the government encroaches on our abilities as humans to make our own decisions. We're policed everywhere it seems and it galls me. I'm truely sorry you and others find the simple request to add your name to what you write so draconian. It's hoped this simple expedient will allow the continuation of this forum in the same way, with no other moderation other than your own. If you want to criticise me, the LAA or anyone else, you go ahead. I don't think that's a problem (hurtful, yes), or reason to moderate, we're all entitled to our views. The common laws of the land apply as normal.
I asked you to put your name to your words, to (indirectly of course) protect your association from larger issues. If you can't do this, I offered you to contact me to explain why and request an exception.

Dave - thanks for the offer at Splash, very welcome.

I've posted seperately about general stuff going on.

Pete Harvey

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:25 pm

Peter

pharvey may be a contraction of your real name, in the same way that HarryH is a contraction of his and leiafee is a contraction of hers. It is not however your real name, any more than mikec or mcross is my real name. People may guess at the identity of the poster from an initial but they won't know.

When posting you can choose to attach your signature or not. In your profile you can also choose to automatically attach your signature when you post. If people want to go your suggested route of using the signature they should also set their profile to automatically add the signature, otherwise it gets missed off, as yours did. The alternative is to e-mail John Dean and ask for a change of user name.

In relation to the legal liability issue I reiterate my advice to seek guidance. The High Court has determined that innocent dissemination is a valid defence. i.e. if someone posts something defamatory that LAA does not know about then LAA has a defence. If however it can be shown that LAA knew about it and knew that it was defamatory and then continued to host it then they would be liable.

Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd was a case in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division in 1999.

Demon Internet hosted a newsgroup, in which someone posted something defamatory about the Plaintiff (Godfrey). The Complainant sued Demon Internet.

The UK Legislation is the Defamation Act 1996

1(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that:

(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,

(b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and

(c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a 'defamatory statement.'

In determining this requirement, section 1(3) states:

'A person shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only involved:

(a) in printing, producing, distributing or selling printed material containing the statement;

(c) in processing, making copies of, distributing or selling any electronic medium in or on which the statement is recorded, or in operating or providing any equipment, system or service by means of which the statement is retrieved, copied, distributed or made available in electronic form;

(e) as the operator of or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control'.

In the case quoted the Plaintiff (Godfrey) requested that the Defendant remove the offensive posting. It did not oblige, and the posting remained on its news server for two weeks. There was no dispute that Demon could have removed the posting at Godfrey's request.

The Court agreed that Demon was not the publisher of the defamatory material within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, it satisfied the requirement of s. 1(1)(a)[70]. However, the Court found that the Defendant did not meet the requirements of s. 1(1)(b) and 1(1)(c)[71 ], which were also necessary to establish the defence. Demon knew of the posting but did not remove it. Therefore, according to the Court, the Defendant did not take reasonable care, and had reason to believe that it contributed to the publication of the defamatory statement.

I hope this is helpful. When something of this nature lands on your desk from a lawyer it is naturally couched in the most terrifying terms. It's therfore worthwhile having some knowledge of what the legal position really is.

The UK courts are not awash with cases of bulletin board operators being sued.

Post by **John Dean** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:00 pm

A number of members on this forum have a username which is their real name even if in a form which is not usual, philhaward, tonywebber and leiafee being examples. I have no problem with any of these even if I come from a generation which prefers capital letters and spaces! If your username does not represent your real name clearly, then the easiest way to always show it on all posts is to put it in your profile as a signature. If you have any difficulty doing this, send me a PM.

As far as the law is concerned, a very eminent litigation solicitor once told me that in English civil law there was never any black and white, only shades of grey. Experience has shown me that statement is often very true. For any opinion from a barrister supported with case law, there will almost invariably be another barrister with an opposing view also supported with case law. Were that not true, barristers would not be as wealthy as they are!

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:08 am

post removed