I think people are perfectly entitled to read the correspondance, form an opinon, and comment on it. With respect, you have done so yourself...
Just for starters, had you considered that the correspondence between Ryanair and C4 is part of the jousting for position that comes with this territory?
Whether this web site is a suitable arena to discuss the correspondance is purely up to the owner, and seeing as this thread is allowed to remain, I assume he grants consent.
If there is evidence that contradicts that which Ryanair has presented, for example this letter from the IAA to the demoted pilot, it should be sent to the programme makers to be included in their show. Until we see it your assurances are heresay. All the 'wise' people have said is the evidence presented so far does not prove Ryanair has a problem - that is not to say there is no problem, just that these two reporters do not appear to have found anything wrong with the organization itself. It appears that they have found disatisfied employees, and a well trained and professional captain who will now be more careful when he jokes with cabin crew in case they are reporters breaching his trust . May this be a lesson to us all, yet another barrier between us and the people on the other side of the locked door.
As for this being 'he said, she said', nothing could be further from the truth. One side has made accusations with no supporting evidence, the other has rebutted those accusations and supplied supporting evidence. You may not agree with or like the evidence, but the only way to counter it is with evidence of your own. Saying 'I have seen a letter' is less persuasive than having sight of the letter (or memo) itself. Ryanair have presented evidence that can be tested in court, none of their letters were marked 'without prejudice' and I am sure they would not have included the evidence if they could not have it withstand robust 'cross examination' by the other side. They come over as being pretty smart.
Those who have evidence which would support the programme maker's case (or should I say 'bias') should supply it to the programme maker. It looks like they need all the help they can get.