As I read Vince290's message, he's not arguing that the pilot was way out of line or whether Bell/SACAA had the right to ground the aircraft pending further investigation.
What he appears to be doing is following the line of comment made earlier by Catalogue2.
Cat2 questioned the severity of the reaction from Bell and asked whether this was entirely warranted in terms of establishing the structural integrity of the aircraft as distinct from "punishing" the owner of the aircraft and sending a blunt message to all other wannabee aerobatic pilots: "don't try it in any of OUR aircraft!".
If you read the list of requirements laid down by Bell, it makes you wonder why they didn't simply say:
(a) open fuel cap
(b) light match
(c) drop match into fuel tank
(d) Have a Nice Day!
I still want to hear what Gunns thinks about this!