Sven wrote:City1983 wrote:I fully understand the Source of the Article that 'you' read in your Thread.
The words "Withheld" as to who owned the Aircraft that "killed" are synonymous with feelings of wrongdoing on behalf of the Owners of the said Aircraft. And being withheld the information could, should and would imply that the Owners are deliberately keeping of hiding something about the Aircraft, which the Public have the right to know about. That is the Mischief that the Thread is alluding to...
I see Sven's point there where it goes into detail about the Environmental conditions in which such an Aircraft has to fly into, for its smooth operational function.
If that implies that Sala was Killed, then it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Owners were responsible for the air Worthiness of the Aircraft and, if found this be responsible, then indeed did Kill Emiliano Sala.
I must say it was an interesting read, Sven, into the Ultimate Blame attached to our Player's Death.
My take on things: David Ibbotson was no way experienced to fly in such conditions and, definitely not qualified to fly for the reasons given and pointed out in Sven's thread.
The AAIB and The CAA will need to prove or disprove that any wrongdoing was caused by the Owners of the Aircraft in question that ultimately caused the death of these men?
Thanks (I think) but the highlighted elements above were not said by me, so far as I recall
The owners of the aircraft could have a number of reasons for non-disclosure (adverse publicity being just one) and it is not unusual for aircraft owners to 'lease out' their aircraft for others to use and provide an income for when it is not being used by them (which in most cases is the majority of the time)
Now is not the time to apportion 'blame', if there is any, as that will be done by the appropriate authorities but the article was of interest in relation to the whole sorry Emiliano Sala tragedy
Yes, quite.
It appears that some here are too naive to understand that people choose their words to convey a general feeling or atmosphere to the piece. It's very easy to suggest something without saying it in this way, and I should know because I used to do it for a living.
Nothing incorrect or dishonest about the words 'killed' or 'withheld ' but the writer wanted his piece to sound intriguing and dramatic.
Had he said, for example, "The identity of the aircraft's Operators has not yet been revealed by the Air Accident Investigation Authority, who will not give details of their conclusions into the tragic death of Mr Sala and Mr Ibbitson, until they've completed and submitted their report" ..... well the impression would be quite different of course.
You can't stop people phrasing things colourfully, nor would I want to since we all do it, but I find it worrying that some people seem so easily hoodwinked by very basic linguistic spinning - no wonder they're convinced when they see these Project Fear items which try to imply that your car won't start in the mornings if we leave the EU without actually saying it, or accept politicians appearing to promise or deny something without actually committing to anything.