Biggin A26 – And spectators who watch but don't contribute

This thread has run its course.

Moggy

As a further aside.
I’ve deleted my previous posts except this last one from this thread.
Not because I’m afraid of you or can’t verify my previous posts but because I’m sick to death of people like dave4otu who make one feel that there’s nothing here worth getting involved in any more.
For your information Dave, who ever you are, I stand by what I wrote in the post, and actually my original posts, but my goodness me, you’re a tiresome dullard and life for you must be a tedious business.
I’ve also written to a moderator by PM and offered to give him the dates etc–he says it won’t needed.
I’m done.
Enjoy your little World–I’ll be watching and laughing.

Possibly on a more serious note, posting a photo of a gentleman on a public forum of this nature may well be considered “Defamation of Character” as the said “Hedgecutter” person is not actually committing a criminal act!

The ‘gentleman’ is welcome to attempt to sue Andy for defamation.

But if you read what he has written, and bearing in mind there is photographic evidence, it would appear that all Andy has written is true.

Defamation, to be actionable has to be untrue.

QED

Moggy

As Andy is reluctant to be more specific about it, at a guess, the guy in the photo was probably nothing to do with airshows, airfields or anything else…just a convenient picture used by Andy to vent his feelings.

Agreed about the slander possibilities…food for thought.

Also worth pointing this out as well.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2053900/eu-court-holds-news-website-liable-for-readers-comments.html

I would imagine this holds for forum comments as well. Past history on this forum would suggest that anything that may be misconstrued from a legal point of view should be removed.

Possibly on a more serious note, posting a photo of a gentleman on a public forum of this nature may well be considered “Defamation of Character” as the said “Hedgecutter” person is not actually committing a criminal act!

Although this thread exhibits a balance between the various viewpoints regarding “freeloading” you simply cannot “slander” somebody or a group of persons in this way as the current law stands.

God forbid that the person in the photo takes offence, but it would seem that they would have a valid case to sue?!

The following taken from the current UK legal perspective.

Defamation – Elements of a Claim

Under Article 10(2) of the Convention, the protection of the reputation of others is a legitimate ground for restricting the right to freedom of expression. Libel and slander are legal claims that protect an individual’s reputation against defamation. An individual is defamed when a person publishes to a third party words or matter containing an untrue imputation against his or her reputation.

Libel and Slander

If the publication is in a permanent form (for example in a book, magazine or film), then the defamation is libel. It is slander if the publication is in a transient form (speech). Signs, gestures, photographs, pictures, statues, cartoons etc. can also give rise to a claim for defamation, but the most obvious types of defamatory statements are written or spoken words.

The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim. In libel claims, the claimant does not have to prove that he or she has suffered loss or damage as a result of the publication. In contrast, in claims for slander, the claimant must prove actual damage. There are however several exceptions to the rule that actual damage must be proved in claims for slander.

For example, if the spoken words accuse the claimant of committing a crime; of having a contagious disease; of being unfit for his or her office, business or profession; or if the communication is an attack of the credit of trades people; or an accusation of being unchaste or adulterous against a woman or girl. In these cases damage is presumed and need not be proved.

Meaning of Defamation

There is no single comprehensive definition of what is defamatory. Various suggestions have been made before the courts, including any material which:

Is to a person’s discredit.
Tends to lower him or her in the estimation of others.
Causes him or her to be shunned or avoided.
Causes him or her to be exposed to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
For a statement to be defamatory the imputation must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. Even if the words damage a person in the eyes of a section of society or the community, they are not defamatory unless they amount to a disparagement of the reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people generally.

A statement that amounts to an insult or is mere vulgar abuse is not defamatory. This is because the words do not convey a defamatory meaning to those who heard them (simple abuse is unlikely to cause real damage to a reputation). It is arguable that the defence of vulgar abuse is not available if the statement is a libel. The reason for this distinction is that it is more likely that written words will be taken seriously and understood to have a defamatory meaning.

In contrast to most civil cases, juries usually hear defamation claims. Once the judge has decided that the words – or other material – could possibly have a meaning that is damaging to the claimant’s reputation, the jury’s role is twofold. First, it must determine what the words mean in their natural and ordinary sense. Second, the jury must decide whether that meaning is defamatory. When deciding what the words mean the intention and knowledge of the person who published the words are irrelevant.

The law of defamation recognises two types of meanings. The first type of meaning is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. This is not limited to the obvious and literal meaning, but includes any inference which the ordinary, reasonable reader would draw from the words. The second type of meaning is the innuendo meaning:

False Innuendo: An alternative meaning which the ordinary, reasonable person who can read between the lines would infer from the words is known as the ‘false innuendo’ meaning.

True Innuendo: True innuendo arises when words that appear to be innocent to some people appear as defamatory to others because they possess special knowledge or extra information (for example, reading about someone getting married wouldn’t seem damaging to their reputation – unless you knew that they were already married!).

A claimant can ask that the court consider a statement’s false or true innuendo meaning.

Publication

The words complained of must have been published by the person sued to a third party. Publication includes any means of communication even if only to one other person. Due to the breadth of the term publication, many individuals with only a slight connection to the work can find themselves ensnared in defamation proceedings.

However, the Defamation Act 1996 provides a defence to persons who are not authors, editors or commercial publishers of the statement if they took reasonable care in relation to its publication and they did not know and had no reason to believe that what they did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement. This is intended to cover printers, distributors, on-line service providers and live broadcasters.

The High Court has held for the purposes of the Defamation Act 1996 that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) which transmits a posting from its news server to subscribers who want to use it, is not the publisher of the posting, although at common law it would be considered to be. However, the court held that because the ISP had not removed the offending material as soon as it was notified of its existence, it had not acted reasonably and the defence under the Defamation Act 1996 was not available.

Identification

A claimant must prove that the defamatory statement refers to him or her. In most cases this can be done without difficulty, as the claimant will be named. However, a claimant who has not been referred to by name must prove that the words complained of were understood by some readers as referring to him or her.

The claimant can rely on the fact that he or she was referred to by a nickname or initials or that he or she was a member of a class or group of people included in the defamatory statement.

The fact that a publisher did not intend to refer to the claimant is irrelevant to the question of whether or not that person has been defamed. A person whose name is the same or similar to that of a fictitious character can sue for defamation if the words complained of would be understood to refer to the claimant by reasonable people who knew him or her.

Similarly, a member of a group or class of people can sue in relation to a defamatory allegation referring to the group as a whole, if the group is sufficiently small that the allegation would be understood to refer to him or her personally.

Andy if the man in the hedge bothered you so much you posted a picture here……why didn’t you stop and talk to him ? surely more useful than posting here.

Agreed Charlie – but I do think there is room for improvement.

Well that is true of almost anything, I suppose.:)

Except he wasn’t–and as I said he was a major safety headache.
I’d like to waste more time arguing with you but I can’t be bothered so I’ve filed you in the same box as the freeloader.

So are you going to enlighten us as to where he was?

True story – I have personally witnessed one person that has posted on here, get two minor electric shocks whilst climbing up the fence between the NAM site and the adjacent motor auction site. This was to take photographs of the museum’s aircraft, rather than pay to come into the museum.

It took me an age to stop laughing!! :applause:

Footnote: The ‘electric-fence’ is on top of the motor auction fence not NAM’s.

Dave – just a further general point. We are enthusiasts on here to a greater or lesser extent otherwise we would not be members of an aviation forum. But we have to bear in mind that we are in a minority at most and certainly the larger air shows. The majority are there for a good day out with some good air displays by favourites like BBMF, Red Arrows and Vulcan.

Agreed Charlie – but I do think there is room for improvement.

You’ve obviously never been to a show at Old Warden.
And I didn’t throw a hissy fit, I just think he’s a t*at–no hissy fit there at all.
As to other shows, I couldn’t care less, I hardly ever go to any.

As it happens I have been.
Regards the guy in your picture – seems to me if the picture in post 142 is the place. he had every right to be where he was whether you like it or not.

Dave – just a further general point. We are enthusiasts on here to a greater or lesser extent otherwise we would not be members of an aviation forum. But we have to bear in mind that we are in a minority at most and certainly the larger air shows. The majority are there for a good day out with some good air displays by favourites like BBMF, Red Arrows and Vulcan.

Yup freeloaders, pisses me off having paid to try and get aircraft pictures without a load of distraction and clutter in the backgrounds to get pictures with these bums standing in the background..

Remember the freeloaders standing behind the B-1 taking off at Waddington, if I’d had my way, they would have daubed them in barbecue sauce as they went to the fence, thus ensuring a perfect roasting.

The only person that ends up paying is those that legitimately pay, having to offset the extra policing etc that the organisers have to pay through higher ticket prices.

Charlie:

1:I did say “not an easy one”.

2:The fact is that the cost is probably at least part of the reason for those lurking in the hedgerows.There IS room for creativity but it seems that the will may not be so apparent.

3:This is something that several keen photographer friends of mine have mentioned and could be a financially viable thing.

4:Minority…here maybe where many will quite happily watch the BBMF again and again because those are the only Spits/Hurricane/Lanc they have ever seen…but out in the wider aviation enthusiasts world “something new” would be a draw.As to “what”?…well that is another question I will agree.

Interesting points, Dave, but:

1. That is a bugbear and at many airfields probably one you are not going to be able to do much about. If it is that big a deterrent I am sure a percentage of those spectators leave early anyway.

2. This has already been discussed ad infinitum and there are those of us who disagree with the contention and those who do not. Presumably the hundreds of thousands who attend every year disagree.

3. That’s an interesting suggestion and one which might be easier to provide at some venues than others.

4. But what? And why, anyway? I suggest you are in a minority – see point 2.

Hissy fits? You have posed the question now. Why don’t those we have called “freeloaders” come in? Some have already responded in this forum.

Is that not a public footpath green sign there as well.

You ain’t going to stop it.They wont go in if they don’t want to ,it’s up to the organisers to make it so fantastic going in that people will want to.

In which case they (the organisers) need to concentrate on a number of things……

1:Make access and exiting far far easier….one of the biggest put-offs are the traffic jams at major shows.Not an easy one I know – but one that needs addressing.

2:Make shows more affordable.There surely is scope here for creativity.

3:Make much better provision , within the show grounds , of suitable facilities for those who wish to photograph landings/take-offs – perhaps an enclosure at extra cost, near the threshold, away from the rugrats etc.

4:Probably the most difficult …try to have something “different” to attract the paying public.For instance, much as I like the BBMF or Red Arrows on an occasional basis, I’ve been watching them for decades…they do not attract me to a show.You can’t just keep on serving up the same-old same-old and expect people to keep coughing up the cash.

None of these will stop people exercising their right to stop and watch from outside…but you may entice a few more in.Throwing hissy-fits about Freeloaders etc. isn’t likely to help persuade any “outside-the-fence watchers” here to come in….better to try and find out just what will bring them in.

If this is the location in question, there’s nothing the event organisers can do. As long as the ‘spectator’ has not parked his vehicle at this location within the highway boundary, there’s no offence committed.

Pedestrians would be quite within their rights to stand on the grass verge, and ‘admire the view’, so long as they’re not obstructing the highway.

Also, in regard to adjacent ‘private’ fields/land, let’s not forget that ‘trespass’ in itself is a ‘civil’ offence and not a ‘criminal’ offence, so the Police would have no powers.

Just my thoughts.

Is that not a public footpath green sign there as well.

You ain’t going to stop it.They wont go in if they don’t want to ,it’s up to the organisers to make it so fantastic going in that people will want to.

He doesn’t look that keen- rather disconcerted, I would say!;)

He could be cutting hedges in his spare time? …. he is a very keen hedge cutter!