Mr Latter explained the caption on the slide - which has been used repeatedly by the anonymous trolls on PPRuNe
As one of those who has repeatedly asked Ms Curtis-Taylor for an explanation of that slide, I’d like to make a couple of points.
1. I am not an “anonymous troll”. She knows perfectly well who I am (mine is scarcely the most cryptic user name here!) because a senior and well respected member of the GA community has personally given her the Three Questions on my behalf. I also offered, through him well over a year ago, to speak personally to her in a constructive effort to try to help bring some balance and a fair conclusion to the debate. I heard nothing back.
2. Ms Curtis-Taylor has had well over a year in which to answer those simple questions. Instead of a straightforward and open response, what have we seen?
In answer to the Hearne Bay video, after well over a year of silence, apparently, it was a slip of the tongue. But not one worthy of immediate correction, nor even correction as soon as it was questioned here, despite the storm of criticism it caused.
We also now have an “answer” to the question regarding the presentation slide. Clare Prop has already critiqued it, so I will not do so again; but as explanations go, it does seem a bit thin to say the least!
Incidentally: were there any other slides shown at that presentation? Perhaps pointing out the differences between her journey and that of MH; perhaps detailing the complexity and difficulty involved in her planning and support operations? If so, perhaps they support her response?
As to the question of how she earned her RAF wings, there is still no answer. I find that strange as, if I had earned the honour of wearing them, I would be happy to tell anyone how I had done so if asked.
All that said: one point that Ms Curtis-Taylor makes is a good one.
Given that the proxy votes in 2016 had obviously been cast before the meeting, she clearly could not influence them with any argument she made at the meeting and, equally obviously, it is likely that the same situation will apply this time.
That is why I find it strange that Ms Curtis-Taylor has not taken the time to engage with the community by addressing these questions properly ahead of the meeting while there is still time to convince proxy voters to support her.
Unless, of course, she has no confidence in her ability to do so convincingly based on the facts.
If it had been me, and if I had good answers, I would have given those answers, explained openly what had happened and let the members decide if what I had done deserved an award.
Perhaps she has been badly advised, but I suggest that the way in which she has refused properly to address the criticisms levelled at her could scarcely have been better designed to ensure that she should lose the award.
I think she might well have obtained a better result by facing up to the criticisms. I wish she had done that because the way this has gone is bad for her reputation, that of the LAA and does nothing to advance the cause of GA either.
And that is sad!