The VN appears to be composed of multiple stamps with an I shaped stamp – perhaps it’s an inspector’s mark?

I’m leaning towards a Hampden – closeness of nacelles and the (might be deceptive) width of the wing in that perspective.

Malcolm, you haven’t understood the point that I was making. Maybe you don’t want to. It has nothing to do with Key Publishing and the publishing of defamatory information. It concerns eBay and the steps that it could or should take to avoid – or, at least, minimise – the risk of items being offered for sale that are, not infrequently, intentionally misdescribed. But I won’t labour the point for it seems that to do so would be, metaphorically speaking, to waste my breath on you.

With all respect AA please read what Creaking Door said in post 60. There are safeguards above and beyond what one’s own ignorance or vendor trickery may cause if you pay using Paypal etc. That’s all I use – no cash, cheques etc. If an item is purchased and it is found to be deliberately misdescribed which has led to it being purchased then that process will sort it out. On one occasion I had recourse to that and was fully satisfied with a refund. Again I come back to the simple principle of caveat emptor which places some burden on the purchaser to make sure in their own best interests that they are not being tricked. If in doubt don’t buy – that is all that is needed.

But in all seriousness how can Ebay actually impose a validity check on every item that is offered for sale. To do so would cause such a massive cost burden that Ebay would go out of business and the millions of people who use it for buying and selling happily would be deprived of readily accessible international sources for items they can’t get locally or can sell at the best price through an auction. It isn’t perfect but the while I agree that in a perfect world all vendors would be honest the truth is they aren’t and therefore it is up to the would be purchaser to take some responsibility – after all it’s their money.

Me too.

Hey Beermat – we could make a bit of money here. I’m not noted for my apologies for being rude, how about we put it on Ebay, it’ll bring a fortune. I suggest a 50/50 split. :highly_amused:

Tap tap.. hello? Is this on?

The seller can choose whether or not to display questions.

So? In which case if you have doubts don’t buy. What is so difficult in that.

Isn’t it far simpler to not buy an item which you perceive to be a fake. I exercise that ability all the time.

It isn’t in Key Publishing’s financial interests to allow comments and posts that may expose it to legal action and that is their absolute right, just as it isn’t in our personal and financial interests to make comments or posts that might expose us personally to costly legal action unless we are deliberately seeking to cause a civil action. I have already outlined clearly why I agree with Key’s actions and also hinted without going into specifics why I agree. Obviously I can’t do that because of the aforementioned legal aspects.

I like Ebay the way it is – I buy things that I can judge to be kosher and on a number of occasions have bought things that other people had failed to recognise as being quite valuable. Ebay offers a range of items from the mundane to the highly valuable, but it is not their responsibility to educate the customer, that responsibility lies solely with the customer. If a person is silly enough to spend a large sum of money on something that is a fake then clearly they aren’t quite aware what caveat emptor means. If people are selling fake or dodgy items on Ebay then surely anyone who claims to be interested enough in the items to want to buy them should also be interested enough to have some knowledge of what is real and what is fake.

In the same way it is the responsibility of an individual poster on this forum to recognise what is permissible under libel laws before they post and not complain if Key in their efforts to protect both themselves and the other forum users from the fallout of legal action decide to delete a comment or thread – I cannot see the problem in that.

Or maybe the thread can be called ‘People’s Opinions on eBay items, NOT KEY PUBLISHINGS VIEWS’, and each post can begin with the cut-and-paste disclaimer ‘This is entirely my own opinion and does not reflect the view of Key Publishing corporately or any if it’s representatives in any way’…

I suspect that the act of publishing, even with such a disclaimer, would be quite rightly construed by an aggrieved party, who we must also remember might not actually be guilty of fraudulent intention, as libel regardless. We might remember that this isn’t about differences over theoretical political or historical issues where opinions can quite rightly differ but concerns matters where one person states publicly that another is attempting to defraud for personal gain. No publisher would wish to be drawn into such a conflict unless they themselves were convinced of both the bona fides and reliability of the person making the claim on a forum run by that publisher and even then they would be very wise to first examine whether the cost involved would be of benefit to them.

I am quite aware that the media does this sort of thing quite regularly but you would find that usually the media doing it has their own interests involved in the form of the publicity and sales it brings them and importantly before they rush off and accuse people they have sought legal advice and verified the veracity of the claim to the best of their ability. Further to that any story they present is usually worded in such a fashion to suggest rather than state.

A very sensitive area and one in which I think Key acted wisely in removing the thread.

Blimey

A person can make up any old cr*p to dishonestly make money, but if they are called out on it publicly they can threaten the use of the law to silence an ‘open’ forum?

Actually they can even though they might lose – the problem is that if you make the accusation about the falseness and get sued you have to defend yourself and that requires expensive lawyers. Individuals and businesses will often stay silent rather than face the legal costs because it is a civil matter and even if costs are awarded to you there is no guarantee that you will get your money back even though you are right. It sounds silly I realise but that is the crux of the matter. Costs involved are calculated and if there was little likelihood of ever recouping then it is not worth pursuing. So in matters like Ebay and sales of this type in general you really have to exercise caveat emptor or have sufficient funds and the inclination to use them to win – and even then if you do you still might be out of pocket. I imagine that it is this caution that lies behind the withdrawal of the thread and the fact that this is a public forum rather than a private confidential conversation.