Originally Posted by
stickandrudderman
Flying Lawyer, you surprise me.
I'd be interested to know which parts surprised you.
Everything?
I've never had any dealings with the owners - my contact with them is limited to a few passing exchange of greetings when I used to fly from Denham, fixed wing initially and then rotary - but I am aware that your opinion of them is not unique.
Given the extremely strong terms in which you expressed your low opinion of them, perhaps understandably exacerbated by the recent peremptory termination of your hangarage, I can't help but wonder if you read, or were even able to read, the judgment with the 'open mind' you claim.
Their pram, their toys, free country.
Not entirely accurate, as this decision amply demonstrates.
The feisty Beatrice Paul has always tended to generate strong reactions, favourable and unfavourable. However, people with shy retiring personalities do not, in my experience, make stands of principle - they tend to give in/compromise, particularly when threatened with being sued. I respect Mrs Paul for making a stand, even though she was unsuccessful, and particularly in circumstances where she had little or nothing to gain financially from doing so, and much to lose. High Court actions are very expensive for unsuccessful parties.
Opinions about the complainants and their motives will understandably differ.
-
I wonder if it would be as easy as suggested to reposition the slope training area? It would be a relatively simple exercise physically but other neighbours are unlikely to warm to the idea. They would be entitled to argue, correctly, that they were there before the nuisance (a new slope training area) was created.