Interesting comments from a variety of sources reagrding twosides post. My first thought when I saw this was to call MP and discuss it with him;his view was that having raised the topic he would suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous response. My view was that twosides would be better named twofaced. . .. .Nevertheless, we all have to realise 2 quite important points here:firstly, MP was involved in the entire process and the incident was not alleged, it actually happened. Secondly twosides was not involved in the matter: his opinions are not founded necessarily on fact, but on hearsay and his bigotry towards towards MP.. .. .Moreover, his close relationship with the fleet management and his assessment of the ability, or not, of a trainer, is at odds with his assertion that the female involved has not caused him any cause for complaint; may I suggest,2 sides, that you do not have the skill or indeed ability or experience to make such judgements when your colleagues and peers have found some lack of judgement on her part. May I further suggest that the entire tone of your post suggests that at some time in your career MP has found your adequacy as a pilot somewhat lacking and that your diatribe is actually founded completely on your desire to "get your own back". . .. .Never let the facts get in the way of a good story- well done twosides you have kept your end up!. .. .As to contacted's remark that it was essentially a personality clash - you obviously have some higher insight in to the matter than the rest of us; would you care to elucidate? As for the rest of your remarks perhaps you can explain how MPs post was "uninformed"? I do know that he was there; were you? The ending of saga, BTW, contacted, could have been brought about at the very beginning of the matter, before it escalated into affecting MPs health. You will no doubt wish to give us all the benefit of your undoubted wisdom as to why it wasnt.