Sliding Doors
You suggest that you are not relying only upon press cuttings to sustain your negative views of the owners of Longmint, but in support of your argument you have posted another press cutting! The article you have posted from the AOPA magazine General Aviation is almost entirely composed of material lifted, sometimes inaccurately, from previous press articles. You have no personal knowledge of the matters raised. Your reference to three companies which failed in the early 1990s recession is taken directly from the press reports. Those reports implied that some skilful investigative reporting was involved in uncovering this supposedly sensitive and secret information. In fact the information is taken from the prospectus published and filed by Erinaceous prior to its AIM flotation in 2003 and again in the prospectus published and filed by Erinaceous prior to its move to the Official List in 2004. It was therefore openly disclosed and public knowledge and correctly regarded as of little or no importance by those involved with Erinaceous. As far as AOPA is concerned it is regretable that they did not contact any of the people named and attacked, particularly since the principal two were individual members of AOPA.
You are correct in your assumption that my username indicates an association with Longmint, and also correct in saying that none of the press reporting is news to me. However, unlike you I have direct knowledge of the relevant facts. You of course, as is your right, rely upon the anonymity available to those who post on PPRuNe.
This is not the right forum for a line by line refutation of inaccurate and misleading press reporting. However, to give an indication of how press reporting quickly becomes fact in the minds of many:
1) There never was an SFO investigation into Erinaceous or any of its subsidiaries - the facts when they are fully reported will bear that out and show the company and its directors in a very positive light in relation to the events referred to. A criminal trial is pending against six solicitors, a surveyor (formerly employed by a subsidiary of Erinaceous) and a property developer. For obvious reasons I am not able to comment further at this stage but in due course it will become clear that press coverage on this was seriously inaccurate.
2) Fast Helicopters has at no stage owed Erinaceous any money whatsoever, contrary to the suggestion of a £1.2 million debt in the press articles to which you attach such weight.
You clearly have an axe to grind here. I posted in response to the suggestion earlier in this threat that the owners of Fast are in some way connected with the owners of Shoreham Airport. You challenged my statement that there is no truth in that suggestion. Will you at least have the courtesy either to state the basis for your challenge, or to accept my statement.
longmintflyer