Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads)
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ms. T C-T was asked via her own website contact facility about her unauthorised wearing of an RAF flying badge last October and because an answer wasn't forthcoming, she was asked again some weeks later. Both questions were acknowledged as received.
Obviously, she has far better things to do than answer awkward questions. She still hasn't answered, some four months later.
Obviously, she has far better things to do than answer awkward questions. She still hasn't answered, some four months later.
So you claim simply isn't true - it's fake news, an alternative fact. If you want your extensive campaign against TCT to have any credibility may I suggest that you stick to allegations that are actually true, lest you become tarred with your own brush?
€0.03 supplied,
PDR
Last edited by PDR1; 14th Feb 2017 at 11:29.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There certainly weren't when I bought them - neither was there in the ETPS badge I bought from the gift shop at Boscombe many years ago. I'm sure about it because in both cases the badhes had no packaging - they were just in "bins" on a shelf in the shop. WHen taken to the till and paid for all I got was a till receipt; no "end-user license agreement" or "terms and conditions of sale".
It may well be a violation of RAF regulations for a serving person to add wings to their uniform without being authorised to do so, but those regulations do not apply to civilians and if the RAF don't want civilians to wear them they should stop selling them as gifts.
PDR
It may well be a violation of RAF regulations for a serving person to add wings to their uniform without being authorised to do so, but those regulations do not apply to civilians and if the RAF don't want civilians to wear them they should stop selling them as gifts.
PDR
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: cambridge
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I actually said was:
Oh dear! Some people get too wound up!
Best wishes
Terry
Avoid imitations
PDR, however much you might like it to be, I think you will find that it isn't libel (or slander) to ask a question of an individual.
In any case, you certainly haven't seen the wording of the question asked. Unless you are T C-T herself you won't have - it was addressed to her in person, no-one else.
Nor is it libel or slander to say that the question asked hasn't been answered.
P.s. my blood pressure is OK, thanks. Despite your potentially libellous statement about it being raised.
In any case, you certainly haven't seen the wording of the question asked. Unless you are T C-T herself you won't have - it was addressed to her in person, no-one else.
Nor is it libel or slander to say that the question asked hasn't been answered.
P.s. my blood pressure is OK, thanks. Despite your potentially libellous statement about it being raised.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg to differ. You posted a statement here that said you had asked her about her "unauthorised wearing of an RAF flying badge last October" (post #3487). I would suggest that is potentially libellous because the wording used clearly states that she needed some authorisation to wear that badge which she seemed (in your view) not to have. I am suggesting to you that as (as far as I am aware) a civillian does not require any special authorisation to wear the badge your accusation that her wearing of it was "unauthorised" is potentially libellous.
It doesn;t matter what you said in your actual question to her - indeed as long as that email was shown only to TCT it is my understanding that it *cannot* be libellous because it has not been shown to a third party (to be libelous/defamatory it has to be something that alters someone else's opinion of you) - I and concerned solely withthe statement you made here.
I hope that clarifies the point.
PDR
It doesn;t matter what you said in your actual question to her - indeed as long as that email was shown only to TCT it is my understanding that it *cannot* be libellous because it has not been shown to a third party (to be libelous/defamatory it has to be something that alters someone else's opinion of you) - I and concerned solely withthe statement you made here.
I hope that clarifies the point.
PDR
This has come up before so for the avoidance of doubt...
While it is not an offence to own medals which have not been awarded to you, it is illegal under section 197 of the Army Act 1955 to use these to pretend to be a member of the armed forces. (This act will be superseded by the Armed Forces Act 2006 in November.)
The act makes wearing any military decoration, badge, wound stripe or emblem without authority a criminal offence. It is also illegal to wear a replica "as to be calculated to deceive", and to falsely represent yourself as someone entitled to wear any such award.
While it is not an offence to own medals which have not been awarded to you, it is illegal under section 197 of the Army Act 1955 to use these to pretend to be a member of the armed forces. (This act will be superseded by the Armed Forces Act 2006 in November.)
The act makes wearing any military decoration, badge, wound stripe or emblem without authority a criminal offence. It is also illegal to wear a replica "as to be calculated to deceive", and to falsely represent yourself as someone entitled to wear any such award.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The important points here are:
"to use these to pretend to be a member of the armed forces"
"as to be calculated to deceive"
"to falsely represent yourself as someone entitled to wear any such award"
Your red text appears to have come from a BBC news report, but whoever originally extracted the text has done so rather selectively - they omitted the next paragraph, which clearly says
"Intention is all. Those, such as pop stars Cheryl Cole, Chris Martin and Sgt Pepper-era Beatles, who don military regalia for fashion would not be culpable."
Has TCT ever suggested that she was or had ever been in the RAF, or been trained/qualified by the RAF? I'm not aware of any such claim - quite the reverse since she has many published "CVs" which include no such claims. So there is clearly no Intent to deceive, and as such no offence.
PDR
"to use these to pretend to be a member of the armed forces"
"as to be calculated to deceive"
"to falsely represent yourself as someone entitled to wear any such award"
Your red text appears to have come from a BBC news report, but whoever originally extracted the text has done so rather selectively - they omitted the next paragraph, which clearly says
"Intention is all. Those, such as pop stars Cheryl Cole, Chris Martin and Sgt Pepper-era Beatles, who don military regalia for fashion would not be culpable."
Has TCT ever suggested that she was or had ever been in the RAF, or been trained/qualified by the RAF? I'm not aware of any such claim - quite the reverse since she has many published "CVs" which include no such claims. So there is clearly no Intent to deceive, and as such no offence.
PDR
Has TCT ever suggested that she was or had ever been in the RAF, or been trained/qualified by the RAF? I'm not aware of any such claim - quite the reverse since she has many published "CVs" which include no such claims. So there is clearly no Intent to deceive, and as such no offence.
...Has TCT ever suggested that she was or had ever been in the RAF, or been trained/qualified by the RAF?
PDR
Not exactly but in her own weasily way she often mentions that she was "trained by military pilots" etc.
I left the part out about Cheryl Cole/Fernandez/Versini or whatever moniker she goes by as in her case there is clearly no intent to deceive. In TCT's case looking at the whole picture I, and many others, believe that the following points apply:
"as to be calculated to deceive"
"to falsely represent yourself as someone entitled to wear any such award"
She is not at a re-enactment event, she is not in a west-end stage show, she is not singing at the O2 arena; she is in an environment where it can be taken that she has earned those wings. Like it or not, the pattern fits her self promotional nature.
In earlier pictures of her with them she had them on her right collar and I have no qualms with that, it was when they appeared in the RAF-awarded location that it began to matter and became offensive to those who have earned the right to wear a brevet.
That's cool with me, I wasn't offended by his post but realise that some might be.
I can still answer his question though:
Anyone who has read this thread and seen the level of detail that has been investigated, substantiated and published on here should (if they have any intelligence) draw just one conclusion; and that is to take anything published or said by TCT and the BiaB PR machine as dubious.
Every claim that has been made that has raised doubt has eventually been shown to be false. There is no misogyny, there is no bullying, there is just a strong desire to get some questions answered and for her stalwart supporters to actually see they have been duped.
I can still answer his question though:
Anyone who has read this thread and seen the level of detail that has been investigated, substantiated and published on here should (if they have any intelligence) draw just one conclusion; and that is to take anything published or said by TCT and the BiaB PR machine as dubious.
Every claim that has been made that has raised doubt has eventually been shown to be false. There is no misogyny, there is no bullying, there is just a strong desire to get some questions answered and for her stalwart supporters to actually see they have been duped.
PDR1
Your arguments, like some others here, ignore the facts that T-CT and her advisors have cultivated glory and admiration for the flights she has carried out. This is because she has implied, or actually claimed on video and deleted website pages, they were undertaken solo. These are proven untruths, lies, fibs, falsehoods, fabrications, fiction..or, if you wish, plainly dishonest.
If you or any other person on this thread thinks it is acceptable to 'brush over' such fraudulence as being a 'witch hunt' or 'unfair', then continue to state your case. It is however, a steep hill you have to climb.
For as long as T-CT ignores the facts and tries to make a career out of her prevarication, I feel this thread will publish the truth.
Your arguments, like some others here, ignore the facts that T-CT and her advisors have cultivated glory and admiration for the flights she has carried out. This is because she has implied, or actually claimed on video and deleted website pages, they were undertaken solo. These are proven untruths, lies, fibs, falsehoods, fabrications, fiction..or, if you wish, plainly dishonest.
If you or any other person on this thread thinks it is acceptable to 'brush over' such fraudulence as being a 'witch hunt' or 'unfair', then continue to state your case. It is however, a steep hill you have to climb.
For as long as T-CT ignores the facts and tries to make a career out of her prevarication, I feel this thread will publish the truth.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: cambridge
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all been said before, but then perhaps it's much needed ammo for her very able lawyers?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for her very able lawyers
Terry, do I detect a veiled threat of legal action...again?
If her lawyers are indeed very able then they will be wise enough to see that they are firing blanks. All we want is for the valid questions to be answered in a direct and non-circuitous manner. I am certainly prepared to answer any questions they may have.
If someone strenuously denies something and then it can be shown very clearly that they have lied it kind of reduces their credibility.
The questions are not difficult to answer and are repeated below just in case they have been missed. The first three are from Jonzarno...
I have many other questions too and far more information than I have ever published but that can wait; it will help validate any of the above answers if they are ever forthcoming.
If her lawyers are indeed very able then they will be wise enough to see that they are firing blanks. All we want is for the valid questions to be answered in a direct and non-circuitous manner. I am certainly prepared to answer any questions they may have.
If someone strenuously denies something and then it can be shown very clearly that they have lied it kind of reduces their credibility.
The questions are not difficult to answer and are repeated below just in case they have been missed. The first three are from Jonzarno...
-What is the reconciliation between Ms Curtis-Taylor's well documented claim to have flown her African flight "solo" (Please see the video clip published earlier in this thread in which she personally makes that claim) and her subsequent public statement that the flight was not solo?
-Given the above, what was she doing in the picture of her published earlier in this thread standing in front of a huge picture claiming she had been "Alone in an open cock-pit [sic] plane"?
-By what authority, and with what qualification, does she wear RAF wings?
*******
In addition I would like answers to the following
- When exactly did the sponsorship requests begin?
- What did the investors THINK they were getting?
- When was it decided that these would not be a solo flights?
- Why was the solo aspect dropped?
- Were the sponsors informed of this material change?
- If so, when?
- Why was it felt necessary that the front seat would be occupied for the vast majority of the journey by Ewald?
- What steps did TCT take to correct the many SOLO headlines?
- Where is the evidence to show this even happened?
- Why, many months after the return to the UK, was TCT perpetuating the SOLO claim?
-Given the above, what was she doing in the picture of her published earlier in this thread standing in front of a huge picture claiming she had been "Alone in an open cock-pit [sic] plane"?
-By what authority, and with what qualification, does she wear RAF wings?
*******
In addition I would like answers to the following
- When exactly did the sponsorship requests begin?
- What did the investors THINK they were getting?
- When was it decided that these would not be a solo flights?
- Why was the solo aspect dropped?
- Were the sponsors informed of this material change?
- If so, when?
- Why was it felt necessary that the front seat would be occupied for the vast majority of the journey by Ewald?
- What steps did TCT take to correct the many SOLO headlines?
- Where is the evidence to show this even happened?
- Why, many months after the return to the UK, was TCT perpetuating the SOLO claim?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not exactly but in her own weasily way she often mentions that she was "trained by military pilots" etc.
I left the part out about Cheryl Cole/Fernandez/Versini or whatever moniker she goes by as in her case there is clearly no intent to deceive. In TCT's case looking at the whole picture I, and many others, believe that the following points apply:
"as to be calculated to deceive"
"to falsely represent yourself as someone entitled to wear any such award"
She is not at a re-enactment event, she is not in a west-end stage show, she is not singing at the O2 arena; she is in an environment where it can be taken that she has earned those wings. Like it or not, the pattern fits her self promotional nature.
"as to be calculated to deceive"
"to falsely represent yourself as someone entitled to wear any such award"
She is not at a re-enactment event, she is not in a west-end stage show, she is not singing at the O2 arena; she is in an environment where it can be taken that she has earned those wings. Like it or not, the pattern fits her self promotional nature.
In earlier pictures of her with them she had them on her right collar and I have no qualms with that, it was when they appeared in the RAF-awarded location that it began to matter and became offensive to those who have earned the right to wear a brevet.
I'm an Engineer - a real engineer (professionally registered as a Chartered Engineer). It offends me that so many people call themselves Engineers when they hold no CEng or IEng registration and wouldn't qualify for one if they tried. Anyone from photocopier repair men to shop-floor turners and fitters and flight-line mechanics call themselves engineers, people who sell engineering products will often call themselves "sales engineers". This always offends me, but it's not illegal and it doesn't mean I can have a go at a lift repair man for his "unauthorised" use of the title "engineer" on his business cards and website.
I have no particular brief for or against TCT, but for those who feel they want to continue this "witch-hunt" or "whistle-blowing" <delete as prefered> can I please suggest that you stick to those things which are actually wrong/illegal/fraudulent/WHY?
Having a go at her for things which just offend you actually reduces the credibility of the complaint IMHO.
€0.03 supplied,
PDR
