More likely because your initial post was,( in my unprofessional opinion), libelous.
I formed my opinion based on the reported quotes. I think it's reasonable to assume that the quotes in the press are accurate; they'd be exceedingly unlikely to fabricate them.
It's my opinion that to argue to a jury that holding a PPL vs CPL has no reflection on the competency of the pilot is extremely misleading. The standards which a pilot is trained to are clearly higher for a CPL, and Ibbotson had never demonstrated these standards.
Similarly, to try and convince a jury that an AOC has no relevance to the safety of an operation is misleading. This flight would not have happened if following AOC rules.
I'm perfectly happy to change my opinion if someone points out errors in my thinking. Mr Spence's argument of "well nobody objected" is unconvincing. It smacks of "it's only wrong if you get caught".