A great many on here evidently have no clue - not unreasonably given the specialist nature of the discipline - and therefore I think it IS helpful to rule out some of the wilder theories that serve to call into question the safety of other, similar or even unrelated, aviation activities without good reason.
I am not suggesting that we lay out all of the details that an experienced eye can elicit from the evidence available so far - for a start, we understand the difference between causal factors and blame - whereas I have no confidence that the press does. For that reason alone, I suspect that those of us who can make logical conclusions will not post them in open forum - which, unfortunately, leaves a gap in the market for those who do not have the experience to deduce but are prepared to speculate - such as the priceless Mr Sharp.
However, please cease with the 'it is not possible to draw any conclusions'... Many of us have grown up with the understanding that any speculation is unhelpful in a time when accidents happened without video - and often even without witnesses, and when the priority was to inform NoK, formally, as quickly as possible - often in circumstances of some confusion. The circumstances of Shoreham are entirely different - and the public have a very legitimate interest in what went wrong - one that, arguably, exceeds our traditional sensitivity to anything that might be regarded as critical of individuals.
In this instance, I don't think it is unhelpful or unreasonable to observe that the aircraft was pitching throughout the recovery - therefore AH was providing a control input and g-loc CAN very reasonably be ruled out. Deduction, not speculation.
CM - I know you will respect the sensitivity so I'll PM you with more later, to both demonstrate my restraint as well as illustrate what CAN be ruled in/out, and what cannot...