Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads)

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads)

Old 14th Jan 2017, 16:48
  #3221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Thought the hand was in proportion to the person in the back but would be a pretty massive hand if it belonged to the person in the front.
Good Business Sense is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 16:50
  #3222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 608
I had not watched that video before. For any "avoidance of doubt", flying that low over a flock of birds is a really bad idea. They will be have unpredictably when scared, and may turn into your path. I like to be in a place (altitude) where they could not reach, no matter what they do. I don't know about a Stearman, but hitting one of those in a light metal 'plane will 50/50 bring it down.

I once hit a seagull during approach. I jinked all over trying not to, but is was suicidal. I hit it on the hull, so no harm done, but still not good, it was a close call. Water landings often involve maneuvering relative to birds, but I avoid whenever I can. Sometimes a few scaring passes first will help.

This flying demonstrates risk taking, or poor judgement.
9 lives is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 16:54
  #3223 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,841
An important part of this wonderful PPRuNe thread is the lack of involvement by key UK aviation figures.
Mike Flynn is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 19:11
  #3224 (permalink)  
B70
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 33
“An important part of this wonderful PPRuNe thread is the lack of involvement by key UK aviation figures.”

A lack of involvement from former associates/crewmembers also….

As far as I know, not one of them has come forward to defend Tracey. That silence is deafening.
B70 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 19:28
  #3225 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,841
Her lawyers threatened me last October but never replied once I pointed out I was a retired Journo.
My Client: Tracey Curtis-Taylor

Introduction
1. I am a barrister at Matrix Chambers specialising in media and information law, including the
law of internet-related harassment and data protection. I write to you on behalf of Tracey
Curtis-Taylor, who has instructed me direct through the Bar Council Public Access
Scheme. Details of the Scheme are available via the Bar Council website at
http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/instruc...public-access/.
2. As you are aware, Ms Curtis-Taylor is an aviator and adventurer. In 2013 she flew nearly
10,000 miles in a 1942 open cockpit Boeing Stearman, the Spirit of Artemis, from Cape
Town to Goodwood. The flight was inspired by and in tribute to Lady Mary Heath, the first
person to fly solo from the Cape to the UK in 1928. In late 2015/early 2016 she flew from
the UK to Australia, inspired by Amy Johnson’s epic solo flight in 1930. Further information
is available on her website at Tracey Curtis Taylor - Aviatrix, Adventurer, Inspirational Speaker.
3. As a result of her flying endeavours, Ms Curtis-Taylor has received the Light Aircraft
Association’s Woodhams Trophy in November 2014, the Air League Framed Address in
May 2014 and 2016, and is to receive to the Honourable Company of Air Pilots Master’s
Medal later this year.
4. The purpose of this letter is:
a. to put you on notice of my client’s claims for misuse of private information,
harassment and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 against you arising
principally from postings made by you under the pseudonym “Jay Sata” from about
April 2016 and continuing to date on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network
(“PPRuNe”) at PPRuNe Forums - Professional Pilots Rumour Network (although she also understands that you have made
similar statements elsewhere, including via email and to the media); and
b. to request that you take such steps as are necessary to remove the posts
complained of, to desist from harassing my client and to cease processing her
personal data with immediate effect.
In the event that you do not comply with the requests made in this letter, you will leave
my client no option but to consider legal proceedings against you in order to vindicate
her rights, including but not limited to seeking interim injunctive relief against you.
Matters complained of
5. As noted above, my client’s complaints arise principally from posts made by you under the
pseudonym Jay Sata on the PPRuNe forum, specifically at www.pprune.org/privateflying/
579030-tracey-curtis-taylor-merged-threads.html, being a public forum thread you
started on 14 April 2016.
6. It appears that since creating the thread you have made in excess of 378 posts to it. I also
note that on 31 May 2016, in a post timed at 20.22, you claimed that the thread had had
over 22,000 views. It is therefore apparent that your posts have reached a very substantial
number of people.
7. The general theme of your posts is to allege that Ms Curtis-Taylor has deliberately and
dishonestly sought to mislead sponsors, the flying community, the media and the public as
to the manner in which the flights referred to above, specifically, that she has repeatedly
misrepresented that all legs of these flights were undertaken alone and without support.
You also accuse her deliberately concealing the true state of affairs, by way of example, in
the way that the documentary about her Africa flight was presented. You also accuse her of
having obtained the awards referred to above on a false basis, namely, as a result of her
dishonest representations that she undertook the flights alone.
8. These allegations are untrue. Ms Curtis-Taylor has never sought to mislead anyone about
the way that her flights were undertaken. By way of example, this is immediately apparent,
from watching the documentary made about her 2013 flight. Whenever she is interviewed
in it, she repeatedly refers to “we”, “we’re”, “everyone” and “everybody”. In a number of
shots, it is obvious that there is someone sitting in the cockpit in front of her. Finally, the
DVD extras feature short films in which others are flying with her. When it has come to her
attention that certain statements made on her behalf, eg on her website, may be
misinterpreted, she has taken prompt steps to correct them. Further, none of the awards
referred to above were given to Ms Curtis-Taylor on the basis that her flights were
undertaken alone.
9. Ms Curtis-Taylor’s immediate concern is not, however, to put the record straight, but to take
such steps as are necessary to ensure her personal safety and security in the light of your
sustained and escalating campaign against her, which is causing her increasing alarm and
distress. You appear intent on whipping up anger and resentment against her, to the point
where you are inciting people to attend events at which she is due to be present to
challenge her with her alleged deceptions. In this context, she is also deeply concerned by
the fact that you have published a personal letter, addressed to her and showing her home
address on the same thread. Indeed, Ms Curtis-Taylor became so concerned that she
reported matters to the police on 8 August 2016.
10. As noted above, Ms Curtis-Taylor’s principal complaint arises from the posts referred to
above. However, Ms Curtis-Taylor has also been made aware of a number of other
communications made by you about her to third parties in which you make the same or
similar allegations. In particular, she understands that:
a. In June or July 2015 you made such communications to Ms Curtis-Taylor’s sponsor,
Artemis Investments.
b. You have made a number of communications to the Guild of Air Pilots protesting
against their decision to award Ms Curtis-Taylor the Master’s Medal.
c. You were a source for the Daily Mail article published on 2 July 2016 which
repeated many of the claims made by you in the forum.
d. At 09.95 on 19 September 2016 you emailed Mr Robson the Royal Navy Royal
Marines Charity raising an objection to her involvement with the charity (and making
specific reference to the fat that she was a guest speaker at a dinner two months
earlier) on the basis of her alleged deceptions and citing the content of the PPRuNe
forum, and the Daily Mail article, as evidence in support. In doing so, you omitted to
inform Mr Robson of the facts that you are Jay Sata, the source of the majority of
the material on the forum, and that you were a source of the Daily Mail article.
e. You are responsible for repeatedly editing Ms Curtis-Taylor’s Wikipedia entry to
make reference to the false accusations referred to above.
11. In the event that it becomes necessary to do so, Ms Curtis-Taylor will rely on these and any
other communications that come to her attention in support of her claims against you.
12. Ms Curtis-Taylor is aware that, in pursuing the course of conduct outlined above, you have
been acting in pursuance of a joint enterprise with Mr Sam Rutherford. Accordingly I have
today written to Mr Rutherford to put him on notice of Ms Curtis-Taylor’s claims against him.
Legal Claims Arising
13. Your activities give rise to a number of legal claims against you as follows:
(a) For harassment, contrary to section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997;
(b) For the tort of misuse of private information; and
(c) For breach of statutory duty, contrary to section 4(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998.
I set out in more detail the basis of each of these claims in turn below.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
14. Under s.1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the PHA”) a person must not
pursue a course of conduct:
(a) which amounts to harassment of another; and
(b) which he or she knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.
15. A person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to
harassment if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the
course of conduct amounted to harassment of another.
16. References to harassment include alarming the person or causing the person distress
s.7(2), and “conduct” includes speech s.7(4).
17. A claim for harassment may be defended if the course of conduct is pursued for the
purpose of preventing or detecting crime or if, in the particular circumstances the pursuit of
the course of conduct is reasonable. However, the test of a person’s purpose is not wholly
subjective. He or she must have thought rationally about the material suggesting the
possibility of criminality and formed the view that the conduct said to constitute harassment
was appropriate for the purpose of preventing or detecting it. The test of rationality imports
a requirement of good faith and an absence of capriciousness – see Hayes v Willoughby
[2013] 1 WLR 935 (at [13] to [17]). The test as to whether or not pursuit of a course of
conduct is reasonable is therefore an objective one.
18. Accordingly, the relevant questions are:
(a) Did the course of conduct amount to harassment within the objective test set by
s.1(2)? Would a reasonable person think that the course of conduct amounted
to harassment of the other?
(b) If so, was the Defendant in possession of the information which would lead a
reasonable person to think that his course of conduct amounted to harassment?
19. Your activities in repeatedly making the allegations outlined above in hundreds of posts
clearly amount to a course of conduct within the meaning of the 1997 Act. A reasonable
person would think that your conduct amounted to harassment of Ms Curtis-Taylor. In that
regard, I draw your attention to the following:
(a) On 5 June 2016, another member of the forum Alan ak7274 expressed his
discomfort at the “character assassination” that was taking place;
(b) In a post timed at 09.40 on 8 June 2016, forum member “abgd” expressed
concern at the sustained campaign that you were waging, anonymously, against
Ms Curtis-Taylor and encouraged you to identify yourself.
(c) At 13.01 that day “bose-x” described your conduct towards Ms Curtis-Taylor as
a “vigilante campaign”. At 16.16 bose-x also stated that “whatever we think of
the woman we do not have the right to invade her privacy or stir up internet hate
campaigns”.
(d) Also on 8 June at 21.30, DaveW pointed out that you were making the same
points, over and over again in a short period of time, and described your conduct
as “a repetitive scattergun witch-hunt”.
20. Further, in light of the above, you were, from at least early June 2016, in possession of
information which would lead a reasonable person to think that his course of conduct
amounted to harassment. You were being told this in plain terms by other forum members.
Further, and in any event, you were aware that many of the claims you were making
against Ms Curtis-Taylor were based on an extremely selective analysis of the “evidence”
that you presented against her, not least because another member of the forum, “Flying
Lawyer”, kept pointing this out to you.
21. In light of the above, you would have no defence to a claim for harassment against you. In
this regard, I draw your attention to Brand v Berki [2014] EWHC 2979. In that case, the
defendant alleged that the claimants had assaulted her and complained to the police.
Thereafter, she emailed journalists, politicians and others alleging the claimants had
committed a number of very serious criminal offences. She also made allegations on a
website, publicised via her Twitter account. The defendant claimed that she was not
harassing the claimants at all but exercising her right to reveal serious matters, and that her
rights were being thwarted by police inaction and failure. In 2015, Mr Justice Jay granted
summary judgment against her: [2015] EWHC 3373.
22. In QRS v Beach, [2014] EWHC 3057 the claimant, a partner and chairman of a law firm,
brought the action on behalf of himself and in a representative capacity for others in the
firm to prevent the Defendants from posting defamatory statements on websites which
alleged corruption, failure to act in their client’s interests and untruthfulness. The claimant
relied upon the case of Law Society v Kordowski where it was found that the publications
on a website had been made in the knowledge that they would inevitably (and did) come to
the attention of those named on more than one occasion and on each occasion cause them
distress and harm. The Court agreed and, on the material before it, found there were no
available defences. Accordingly, on the basis that Mrs Justice Slade determined the
Claimants were more likely than not to succeed at trial, the injunction was granted.
Misuse of private information
23. On 7 June 2016 you posted a screenshot of a personal letter from The Honourable
Company of Air Pilots to Ms Curtis-Taylor dated 13 January 2016 stating that it had
awarded her the Master’s Medal for 2016 in respect of her flight from the UK to Australia.
The letter was addressed to my client at her home address, part of which had been crossed
out in biro but was still legible.
24. The publication of such a letter, including in particular her home address, amounted to a
misuse of Ms Curtis-Taylor’s private information, and particularly so in the context of your
campaign of vilification and abuse.
25. You did not remove the post despite the fact that, on 8 June 2016, “Cows getting bigger”
pointed out to you that the redaction was ineffective. At 13.01 that day “bose-x” stated that
s/he was “stunned” that the forum operators had permitted you to post the contents of a
private letter showing a private address in a public forum.
26. Instead, your response was to state that the address was the registered address of Ms
Curtis-Taylor’s company. This is irrelevant. It is not apparent, from the fact of registration of
the company at this address at Companies House that it is Ms Curtis-Taylor’s private
residential address. It is however apparent from your post.
Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”)
27. In making the posts about Ms Curtis-Taylor you processed her personal data within the
meaning of section 1(1) of the DPA. Since you decided the purposes for which you would
use that data, you are also a data controller in respect of that data for the purposes of
section 1(1). As a result, you were (and are) obliged to comply with section 4(4) of the DPA
in processing Ms Curtis-Taylor’s personal data.
28. By section 4(4) you are required to comply with the eight data protection principles, set out
in Schedule 1 Part I of the DPA, when processing Ms Curtis-Taylor’s personal data.
However, you processed that data in breach of those principles. By way of example:
(a) Contrary to the first principle, you did not process the data fairly, for the reasons
already set out above.
(b) Also contrary to the first principle, you did not process the data lawfully, because
your processing of it amounted to harassment and a misuse of private information
for the reasons already rehearsed above.
(c) Also contrary to the first principle, none of the conditions in Schedule 2 was met.
(d) The data was processed contrary to the second principle, which requires it to be
obtained only for specified purposes, and not to be further processed in a manner
incompatible with them.
(e) Contrary to the third principle, the data was excessive in relation to the purpose for
which it was processed.
(f) Contrary to the fourth principle, the data was inaccurate.
29. Whilst the DPA contains certain protections for the processing of personal data in certain
circumstances, none of these will protect you from liability. The protection for “domestic
purposes” in section 36 applies only to data processed for personal, family or household
affairs. Nor does the section 32 protection apply, because the posts were not made for
journalistic purposes; alternatively if they were, you could not in the circumstances have
held a “reasonable” belief that publication was in the public interest. In that regard, I remind
you that the posts were made to a public forum. And there are hundreds of them.
30. As already noted above in the context of the harassment claim, the processing of Ms
Curtis-Taylor’s data has caused her great distress. Accordingly she is entitled, pursuant to
section 13(2) of the DPA, to be compensated for the distress caused. In relation to the
construction of section 13, we draw your attention to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in
Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311 at [95] to [105].
Remedies
31. In light of the above, Ms Curtis-Taylor is entitled to the following remedies:
(a) Damages for harassment and misuse of private information.
(b) Compensation pursuant to section 13 of the DPA for breach of her data rights.
(c) An injunction against you to prevent further misuse of her private information,
harassment and breaches of her data protection rights.
(d) Pursuant to section 10 of the DPA, the prevention of any further processing likely to
cause her distress. Accordingly, this letter therefore constitutes notice pursuant to
section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to you to cease processing her personal data
with immediate effect.
32. As already noted above, however, Ms Curtis-Taylor’s main concern is to put a stop to the
campaign of harassment as it is causing her alarm and distress and to fear for her personal
safety. Accordingly, she will not pursue her claims for damages against you or require
payment of her legal costs provided that you:
(a) Provide written confirmation that you are Jay Sata, together with a postal
address for service in the event that it becomes necessary to serve any legal
documents upon you.
(b) The removal/deletion of all posts made by you on the PPRuNe forum about,
concerning or relating to Ms Curtis-Taylor.
(c) The removal/deletion of any other material posted by you about, concerning or
relating to Ms Curtis-Taylor in any other forum, website or social media including
but not limited to Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia.
(d) Immediately desist from making any further communications about, concerning
or relating to Ms Curtis-Taylor save for the purposes of taking legal advice and
responding to this letter.
33. If you deny that you are Jay Sata, or fail to provide the written confirmation sought, it will be
necessary for Ms Curtis-Taylor to apply to the Court for an order that the operators of the
PPRuNe forum reveal your identity. She will seek the costs incurred in doing so from you.
34. Similarly, if you fail to provide an address for service, and it becomes necessary to seek an
order from the Court that you do so, Ms Curtis-Taylor will again seek to recover the costs of
that exercise from you.
35. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as reasonably possible and in any event by no
later than 4pm on 25 October 2016.
36. Ms Curtis-Taylor’s sincere hope is that this letter will be taken in the spirit in which it is
intended - as a reasonable warning to you in the circumstances to desist forthwith in your
actions, and that it will put an end to this matter. It is not in anybody’s interests for this
campaign to continue.
37. Given the seriousness of the position, you are urged to take independent legal advice on
the content of this letter, and in particular before you take any further action. If you cannot
afford legal representation your local Citizen’s Advice Bureau may be able to assist you.
Please note that this letter has not been emailed from my email address as the terms of
Public Access do not permit me to conduct litigation on behalf of Ms Curtis-Taylor. Please
direct any response to the email from which this letter is sent, copying me in via my practice
team at: [email protected].
38. In the meantime Ms Curtis-Taylor’s rights are reserved and this letter does not restrict
those rights in any way.

Yours sincerely,
Lorna Skinner
.

Last edited by Mike Flynn; 15th Jan 2017 at 05:35.
Mike Flynn is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 19:46
  #3226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 66
Posts: 250
To save looking back at my comments, this is what I said in my post on June the 5th.

Perhaps the letter may provoke a legal reaction until Jay can get confirmation of the contents. I am on neither side here, but it's about time some people either grow up or grow a pair. I am sure there has been contact with the media and aviation people over this and maybe a nudge for a look into it may be in order.
I am uncomfortable with character assassination as, as often as not it is undeserved, but equally am unhappy with people receiving accolades for which they haven't fully earned.
This has now been done to death on the forums.
Just my point of view.

A simple stretch of my words that character assassination WAS TAKING PLACE in para19 (a) is simply wrong
ak7274 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 20:01
  #3227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 899
@Jaysata

That letter is worth every penny of the annual subscription to PPRuNe.......
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 20:31
  #3228 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,841
Lorna Skinner stated in that 'back off' letter " At 09.95 on 19 September 2016 you emailed Mr Robson. (Head of the Royal Matines Charity) raising an objection to her involvement with the charity (and making
specific reference to the fat (sic) that she was a guest speaker at a dinner two months
earlier) on the basis of her alleged deceptions and citing the content of the PPRuNe
forum, and the Daily Mail article, as evidence in support. "

Which raises the question how did Lorna Skinner obtain part of a private email from 'Jay Sata' to the head of the Royal Navy And Royal Marines Charity?

Meanwhile I quake in my feet with threat...
If you deny that you are Jay Sata, or fail to provide the written confirmation sought, it will be
necessary for Ms Curtis-Taylor to apply to the Court for an order that the operators of the
PPRuNe forum reveal your identity. She will seek the costs incurred in doing so from you.
34. Similarly, if you fail to provide an address for service, and it becomes necessary to seek an
order from the Court that you do so, Ms Curtis-Taylor will again seek to recover the costs of
that exercise from you.
35. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as reasonably possible and in any event by no
later than 4pm on 25 October 2016.
36. Ms Curtis-Taylor’s sincere hope is that this letter will be taken in the spirit in which it is
intended - as a reasonable warning to you in the circumstances to desist forthwith in your
actions, and that it will put an end to this matter. It is not in anybody’s interests for this
campaign to continue.
37. Given the seriousness of the position, you are urged to take independent legal advice on
the content of this letter, and in particular before you take any further action. If you cannot
afford legal representation your local Citizen’s Advice Bureau may be able to assist you.
Please note that this letter has not been emailed from my email address as the terms of
Public Access do not permit me to conduct litigation on behalf of Ms Curtis-Taylor. Please
direct any response to the email from which this letter is sent, copying me in via my practice
team at: [email protected].

Last edited by Mike Flynn; 14th Jan 2017 at 20:58.
Mike Flynn is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 20:34
  #3229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 59
Posts: 1,974
The Herne Bay vid was the proverbial shit in the jacuzzi for any intentions she had of having the ambulance chasers go after you.
piperboy84 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 20:40
  #3230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 899
Which raises the question how did Lorna Skinner obtain part of a private email from 'Jay Sata' to the head of the Royal Navy And Royal Marines Charity?
I'm not an expert on the FOI act, but isn't this the sort of question that those involved - especially an official charity - might be compelled to answer?
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 22:13
  #3231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 1,040
Freedom of Information is complex and I do not understand all the details of how it works, however I did realise that Portsmouth University would be bound by the Act and so I made my enquiry. It is unclear, to me at least, if the Royal Navy Royal Marine Charity would be defined as a "public body". That said, it does not feature in this link which states that

"The vast majority of charities are not subject to the FOI, irrespective of the amount of public funding they receive".

https://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.ph...on_Act_2000%3F

Charities
The vast majority of charities are not subject to the FOI, irrespective of the amount of public funding they receive.
The main way for a charity to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act is for it to be listed in Schedule I
The Charity Commission, which regulates charities, is subject to FOI. The Charity Commission holds a reasonable amount of information about all registered charities, mostly in relation to their annual returns (financial accounts, so information about donations and spending), lists of charity trustees, and complaints about charities.
Some public authorities are seperately registered as charities, as they meet the relevant legal criteria for FOI in their own right. Some examples of charities that are subject to FOI are shown here.
Jay
Although this is important...Which raises the question how did Lorna Skinner obtain part of a private email from 'Jay Sata' to the head of the Royal Navy And Royal Marines Charity? How did Lorna Skinner know that you had e-mailed Mr Robson? Did you tell her, or was it just a lucky guess?


Moving on...
This little snippet has come my way, it outlines what looks like early plans for Bird in a Biplane. It makes for interesting reading. I cannot take credit for finding this, it came from another member on here.

Bird in a Biplane | Development and Graphic Design - Soraya Gilanni Art Direction | this-ness

Discuss
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 23:53
  #3232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: in front of comptator :-)
Age: 64
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by Jay Sata View Post
Lorna Skinner never replied to that letter above once I pointed out I am a retired ex Reuters/BBC journalist.

.......
Any chance you will retire from your anti TCT role at anytime in the near future?

blueandwhite is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2017, 00:52
  #3233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,637
Any chance you will retire from your anti TCT role at anytime in the near future?
Why? No one is anti, merely people exploring the history and facts lying behind events. Are you going to be the spoil sport who denies TCT the fame, notoriety, celebrity status and place in history that she so desperately seeks?
megan is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2017, 07:48
  #3234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Surrey
Posts: 16
A new Terry?

....that would be good. Some of us are still living in hope of the questions posed by Jonzarno and SWB are answered. Any chance of another being added to the list in the light of recent discoveries?

What was the reason that Ewald did not simply get into the S of A at Farnborough rather than travelling separately to France and climbing on board there?

TCT's repeated defence (one which has allowed the great and the good to defend their accolades to her) is that she never sought to mislead. This begs the question: if you never mention your co-pilot, if you make sure he isn't there for any of the interviews, if none of your publicity material mentions him, if you constantly allude to recreating solo flights, how could you possibly expect people to realise that you weren't actually flying solo?

Most of the critics on this thread began as admirers, thinking that the flights were solo. So this isn't jealousy or bullying. It is disappointment turned to justifiable outrage.

Last edited by newsjunkie; 15th Jan 2017 at 13:25. Reason: typo
newsjunkie is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2017, 08:01
  #3235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 488
Thought the hand was in proportion to the person in the back but would be a pretty massive hand if it belonged to the person in the front.
It did look big but I wondered if it was a large glove. As soon as the left hand disappears into a cockpit the person in the front cockpit leans over to the left, as though it's a single gesture.
Dr Jekyll is online now  
Old 15th Jan 2017, 08:21
  #3236 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 761
"The vast majority of charities are not subject to the FOI, irrespective of the amount of public funding they receive".

Having played a small part in overturning the board of a charity that were idiots at best and corrupt at worst, they were duty bound to release documents under the FOI act. That charity is now thriving under new management and the ex trustees are facing some hefty personal claims for damages. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not for a moment suggesting that there is any foul play in this case.


Looking at the letter, I would hazard a guess that it cost close to 4 figures. Even if these pages were read by the minions at Matrix, it must have taken a considerable amount of time and hence, money.


The link in Mr Satco's post is quite amusing. The silhouette in the logo is a single seater, a German WW1 Albatross possibly ? The good lady is described as "a stunt pilot and artist" which has AFAIK, no bearing on reality. The blurb talks about fighting for the right to fly, I know of no legislation that prevents women flying in the modern western world. It goes on to say she moved to Canada from the age of 9 to 19 where the family lived off the land. It then continues to record that TCT was a stunt pilot and aerial surveyor.


I'll stop there as to be honest, you couldn't make it up. It is so wildly inaccurate that I even doubt TCT was asked to proof read it.
B Fraser is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2017, 08:56
  #3237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: with the wife
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by B Fraser View Post
..................
The link in Mr Satco's post is quite amusing. ..............It goes on to say she moved to Canada from the age of 9 to 19 where the family lived off the land. ........
This was taken from her Wiki page just a couple of minutes ago. (my bold)
Curtis-Taylor was born in Stamford, Lincolnshire in 1962 [2] and grew up in Cumbria.[3] She has a twin sister.[4] From 1964 to 1972 the family lived in Canada.[4]
Even by my standard of basic maths, that's from age 2 to 10, not 9 to 19.
4mastacker is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2017, 09:49
  #3238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Regarding TCT lawyer, Lorna Skinner, on point 9, she obviously doesn't realise her clients home address, date of birth, etc. is already published online through the Companies House Register.

As for the rest of the letter from TCT's lawyer, it's the standard lawyers threatening letter, written in the knowledge that the claim would be unlikely to succeed.

As for point 33, TCT's lawyer claiming she will force PPRuNe to reveal Jay Sata's identity, what garbage.
Homsap is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2017, 10:22
  #3239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Homsap View Post
Regarding TCT lawyer, Lorna Skinner, on point 9, she obviously doesn't realise her clients home address, date of birth, etc. is already published online through the Companies House Register.

As for the rest of the letter from TCT's lawyer, it's the standard lawyers threatening letter, written in the knowledge that the claim would be unlikely to succeed.

As for point 33, TCT's lawyer claiming she will force PPRuNe to reveal Jay Sata's identity, what garbage.
I don't think Jaysata is in any danger, but nonetheless you might want to read this post from the site owner
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2017, 10:42
  #3240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 608
This is actually an interesting study in modern media manipulation, ordinary people doing the job of the official media, using the relatively new multi media communication to 'out' a fibber.
Happily, and to the media's occasional benefit, at least some of the people who frequent PPRuNe are far from ordinary in the context of light 'plane piloting - they are highly experienced pilots, who are easily able to understand and dissect aviation statements and claims.

These ordinary PPRuNer's are to varying extents also insulted that their honourable pastime would be so casually abused in public image and wrongly hyped up, by a pilot of dubious standing.

TCT could have accomplished much of what she had done with honour, and small accolades from the PPRuNe group, if she was simply humble and truthful about it. It's not the concept of the adventure which is offensive, but the immense volume of misrepresentation, and thereafter weasling, instead of coming clean about it.

TCT has had ample opportunity, both here, and behind the scenes, to make this right, and has not. 'Probably not going to happen. But, this immense volume of comment will serve as a case study for future people and organizations who could choose to be drawn in to such an effort, and for media who may choose to report it.
9 lives is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.