What happened to the BC air ambulance post?

[InsertCoffee]

2 hours ago, Sockline said:

I don’t think anything that you stated was the issue nor the catalyst of the thread whatsoever. 
 

There was a brand new member, FATO or FAFO, that had posted a picture along with some malicious accusations. It’s extremely rare that I’m shocked by what’s said on this site nowadays, but I was genuinely shocked someone would be dumb enough to post that on a public forum. Stupidity at its finest! I can’t blame VertMike for just deleting the thread, honestly I agree with the decision. 

Oh, that being the gear collapse picture? It didn't really seem to mean very much without the story behind it.

[CM119]

14 minutes ago, InsertCoffee said:

Oh, that being the gear collapse picture? It didn't really seem to mean very much without the story behind it.

Even posting partial facts that in its own vacuum can be interpreted as something other than what happened is enough grounds for a libel suit (ie// the picture of the collapsed gear). The accusations of fraudulence and inside information deals is what the problem was with that post.  I wouldn’t be surprised if that FAFO finds themselves being served for that.  Those were very serious allegations.

[CM119]

3 hours ago, Sockline said:

I was genuinely shocked someone would be dumb enough to post that on a public forum

I wasn’t,  the forums really can be a virtual lobotomy some days.  Even if the accusations are 100% legitimate they can still lead to a libel suit.  Very risky indeed, something that should be handled behind closed doors, not on a public forum where it’s clearly intended to harm parties being accused (grounds for libel).  

[CM119]

8 hours ago, Icewind said:

It is not defamation if a statement is factually true.

In this case it’s libel, and you’re not exactly correct.  They can still find themselves defending a statement of claim where they will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their accusations are true.  It’s not what you know it’s WHAT YOU CAN PROVE.  Way too much risk for a vexatious post on vertical in my opinion.  

[2007]

I don’t come here every day so I missed out on the offending posts that caused the shut-down of the original thread.

I do know that I wouldn’t be too worried about having someone threaten libel over an internet post on this forum. Maybe it’s because I generally don’t post stupid $hit….

I would however be very worried if I had a massive law firm like Fasken Law naming the procurement manager for the Provincial Health Services Authority, along with the BC Emergency Health Services in a lawsuit. All brought on by a corporation with lots of lawyers and lots o cash.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

If this is like any of the other procurement processes that always seem to go sideways in Canada, get your popcorn ready…..could be a long show.

[CM119]

43 minutes ago, 2007 said:

I generally don’t post stupid $hit

Of which it most certainly was.  I’d be worried if I was that individual, but like you said, I wouldn’t post something that could be leveraged into litigation.  

[InsertCoffee]

2 hours ago, 2007 said:

I don’t come here every day so I missed out on the offending posts that caused the shut-down of the original thread.

I do know that I wouldn’t be too worried about having someone threaten libel over an internet post on this forum. Maybe it’s because I generally don’t post stupid $hit….

I would however be very worried if I had a massive law firm like Fasken Law naming the procurement manager for the Provincial Health Services Authority, along with the BC Emergency Health Services in a lawsuit. All brought on by a corporation with lots of lawyers and lots o cash.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

If this is like any of the other procurement processes that always seem to go sideways in Canada, get your popcorn ready…..could be a long show.

You are not wrong about the bit about Fasken being a firm one shouldn't take lightly. They don't have a reputation for screwing around, if I were the province I'd be taking this pretty seriously. 

 

Especially if there's merit to Airbus saying that Ascent switched away from the 145 at the last minute because BCEHS said they had a preferred airframe before the proposals were submitted. 

[InsertCoffee]

3 hours ago, CM119 said:

Even posting partial facts that in its own vacuum can be interpreted as something other than what happened is enough grounds for a libel suit (ie// the picture of the collapsed gear). The accusations of fraudulence and inside information deals is what the problem was with that post.  I wouldn’t be surprised if that FAFO finds themselves being served for that.  Those were very serious allegations.

That would be a pretty big reach, especially in a province such as British Columbia, we have pretty strong anti-SLAPP legislation here. The suggestion that someone on this forum is likely to be served is absolutely ridiculous, especially with the complete lack of actual damages.

 

Posting a picture of something that happened isn't the basis for a successful lawsuit. One of the key defences against a defamation lawsuit in BC is the truthfulness of the statement, hard to argue against the photo unless it can be proven to be doctored.

[CM119]

26 minutes ago, InsertCoffee said:

The suggestion that someone on this forum is likely to be served is absolutely ridiculous, especially with the complete lack of actual damages.

There were personal attacks made in those posts that have nothing directly to do with the medevac contract in question.  There is absolutely a high legal risk  to the individual/individuals who made those posts.  

[CM119]

31 minutes ago, InsertCoffee said:

Posting a picture of something that happened isn't the basis for a successful lawsuit.

Correct, but posting that picture and claiming several items of gross negligence is another matter.  Again, an unnecessary and vexatious post.  If there’s a concern deal with it personally and not publicly smear someone hiding behind anonymity.