And quite a few of said CPLs are quite willing to fly Dodgy charters too. Decision making isn't limited just to PPLs either.
I would suggest that ones career and training, whether it be in Aviation or not steers us into good and not so good decisions.

Making a PPL/CPL a director of a company involved in renting Aircraft, so that he can rent on shared costs, then get profits from the Company is also legal. So PPL rents aircraft from Company at £350 an hour. Cost shares and pays £10 an hour towards flying with the passengers on a shared basis. Flies 2 hrs. £700 to Company. Pilot as director gets £220, £200 profit for a PPL.

Is this more or less correct?
If so, is it it "right"

Nope, none of it is right. The FAA "common purpose" rules are the way to go and banning outfits like Wingly as well.

I understand now that they have now identified the real owner of the aircraft which is going to damn one individual.......

Is it legal and how many are doing it?
I agree It's not right, but if the CAA make an AOC so bloody difficult and expensive, what do we expect?

On the understanding that the second question is not rhetorical, I would offer the following comment.
If something is not affordable and it would involve breaking the law to obtain it then one must not obtain it. Take for example being offered one of these latest highly sought after mobile phones. If you are offered one at your regular watering hole really cheap and it turns out to have been knocked-off, could you be accused of being a receiver. Perhaps not the same thing will apply to flying services, but for sure you would know that it is cheap and any sense and reason should raise some doubts in your mind whether it is dodgy or not. If you are offered cheap fags, will you not suspect that they may have been smuggled.
Turning onto the matter of AOC`s being difficult and expensive to obtain, does that not show that it is for the sake of safety that it is. Should these legit operators who provide such services cut corners,cheat, fiddle, employ PPL`s, not carry out maintenance, fit bogus parts and do anything and everything to reduce costs to such levels so as to compete with rogues and put them out of their illegal businesses once and for all.
So, no I don`t go along that the root cause for unlawful acts is cost. That the blame may be laid on prohibitive cost of goods and services. If that would be sufficient to say excuse a thief, a cheat, a fraudster, then we might as well throw away all our law books and close all our prisons and turn them into housing of which we are in such short supply.

Some say laws are made to be broken and some do subscribe to that. But those who make a lifetime habit of it invariably do come a cropper sooner or later. Unfortunately in some cases their habit does have an impact on some unfortunates who have innocently been involved in their habits of dodging and diving.

As far as I can understand the whole mess, my conclusion is that it seems the regulatory authorities limited resources have so far been more focused on those who operate legitimate businesses and not enough on the unregulated sectors. I can only hope that this tragic event will be the catalyst for future change.

Bear in mind that no one but a person with dishonest/criminal mind could ever say that...

That is absolutely correct and is precisely why it has been cited.
The other reason why I have used it is within the context of "risk", which has been a feature of some of the discussion on this particular issue.

Not a matter of changing the law, but flaunting it. And when that is evinced enforcing it firmly and with all its power and weight upon the offender.

Would you class a private jet (either Turbofan or Turbo prop) as a 'commercial flight' if its fully licensed, run under the terms of an AOC and flown by fully qualified, type rated and adequately experienced ATPLS?

You may find the CAA Summary at the following link helpful in dealing with this question

:SUMMARY OF THE MEANING OF COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORT, PUBLIC TRANSPORT & AERIAL WORK


https://webarchive.nationalarchives....009May2010.pdf

I heard very tragic news just now on BBC Radio 4 of the sudden death of Sala's father from a heart attack at age 58.

Having lost a relative (my father) much too young at age 64 to a sudden heart attack when he was still in the midst of everything I can only begin to imagine the mental and emotional torment Mr Sala senior has been going through and while he may have had an underlying heart problem I highly doubt his death would have occurred this early in life without the appalling devastation of their place in the world and their financial situation that their son's tragic and wholly unnecessary death will have caused.

If Mr Ibbotson could be called to account he surely has an awful lot to answer for, although as unlike the pilot in the Shoreham crash or the pilot flying the Tiger Moth in which my late Uncle was killed in 1958 (in his early 20s) he did not survive while everyone else died he is at least saved from that ordeal.

I wonder if the Sala family will possibly now consider suing either of the two football clubs regarding the circumstances of their son's death or if there is watertight proof that Mr Sala acted completely on his own and without their knowledge in making these travel arrangements.

Blimey this is still running. Who's Henderson?

BACA has referred to this incident as a " watershed moment ". I agree with them. I hope it does indeed prove to be precisely that.
For that reason I also hope that the monitors of PPRUNE do allow it to remain active. At least such time when we may all come to the knowledge that, at least the heavy price paid by the tragic loss of lives may have been of some future benefit to others. Perhaps, then, we may also get to know who Henderson is.

A man cries from within, and those with kind hearts are easily overwhelmed by a torrent of tears. Such a man must have been Sala`s father.