hobbit1983

Prehaps blueandwhite merely finds the obsessional behaviour displayed on this thread somewhat disturbing and distasteful.

Jonzarno

Then I would suggest that he/she has three simple options:

1. Argue logically against it (my preferred choice! )
2. Put up with it
3. Stop reading the thread.

Come to it, those choices apply equally to all of us.

9 lives

Perhaps.

A society or group within a segment of society can display what could be seen as obsessional behaviour by others. It could be asking shoppers to move their cars from the fire lane, or insisting that condominium owners pay their share to have the communal grass cut.

An identifiable group, particularly one in a pastime which is heavily regulated, such as aviation, will probably tend toward insisting that participants conduct themselves in a compliant way, and with honour. The group as a whole makes an effort to self regulate, and be viewed by society with honour and pride.

General Aviation already suffers a less than ideal image as being elitist, and populated with risk takers, I for one would rather that image, and the people advancing it, are discouraged from doing so.

hobbit1983

Indeed, which makes me wonder exactly what the perennial posters on this thread hope to accomplish.

MacLaren1

AK7274 wrote, reiterating his earlier post (referred to in the legal letter):

...stating:

Not only is it wrong, but would TCT's wonderful barristers really want the second half of that sentence...

....quoted back at them, so a court could see the full context?

I think not.

Ex journo also.

Jonzarno

Simple: to continue to shine an unwavering light on the questions that Ms Curtis-Taylor and her team continue to refuse to answer.

Isn't it strange that they seem happy to flex their impressive PR muscles any time there is a chance of picking up a nice award; yet seem incapable of answering three simple, clear and specific questions regarding the well-documented facts surrounding their claims?

The fact that they continue to hide in the hope that this will go away if they do so is no reason to let them off the hook.

MacLaren1

Spot on - their PR tactics entirely. Hoping the thread and Wiki changes will disappear.

(ex journo, but now PR.... don't shoot the messenger)

RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike

It is unlikely that the Royal Marines Charity is subject to the FoIA -- being a charitable Company Limited by Guarantee, registered with Companies House, according to their website. However, there are other options available.

SWB, you have a PM.

The Old Fat One

I would suggest the combined effort to somehow marry up the fantasy with the reality has already helped to accomplish one massively significant goal.

The end of the enterprise as a financial going concern.

I strongly suspect that would have happened anyway, without a single posting on this thread, but that does not make the efforts of a lot people any less worthwhile and I suspect this will continue for some time.

Savanna Dry

Do we know if 'she' is a member of The Royal Air Force Club. If so under what membership scheme. If not who is the member inviting her? I would love to meet her there. With or without her wings.

LeicesterH

Wasn't sure whether to ask this here or elsewhere ? Sorry, if in wrong place - please move/delete whatever.
Who owns "Spirit of Artemis" ? In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA6EBVunxnM at 8:30 & 10:02 T C-T seems to says its her aeroplane ? ("my own aeroplane") - or have I misunderstood - or is she talking about a different plane. Thanks.

Jonzarno

Here are the latest published accounts for Bird in a Biplane

There is no reason at all why she needs to publish her personal tax return. Frankly, I wouldn't publish mine here either.

brakedwell

Try this: https://www.endole.co.uk/company/077...iplane-limited

Jonzarno

Sorry, but it works for me when I click the link in my last post and I don't have any other way of posting it.

The accounts are available from Companies house, are for 2015 (the 2016 accounts are due by September 2017) and show a very small company with one director (TCT). I don't think it would be appropriate for me to post an image of them here so won't do so.

Jonzarno

Not really. As I say, it's a very small company that, as the accounts look at any rate, does not seem to be a source of great wealth to it's shareholder(s).

If the link I posted doesn't work, the accounts are easily obtainable from the Companies House web site.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

Two interesting audio interviews. One just before the Stearman was shipped out of Hungary for Capetown and the second one at Yeovilton Air Day.

I have only listened to them once but there are some interesting comments in there.

1. She says she flew the Stearman from Goodwood to Hungary and stresses that the plan was to fly it solo up Africa, this is after the main sponsors were on board so there is absolutely no doubt that funding was raised on the idea of her doing the trip solo.
Starts at about 24mins in:
http://aviation-xtended.co.uk/wp-con...o-goodwood.mp3

The second audio is the interview at Yeovilton after the Africa flight but before the UK to Oz one. Boasts of flying at 25feet up the beaches and as low as 15feet across the soda lakes in the Rift Valley. She also references that the next flight would be more of an outreach programme, completely different to the Africa flight - implying what we believe in that the Africa flight was just a self-satisfying jolly. The article I linked to earlier (Bird in a Biplane | Development and Graphic Design - Soraya Gilanni Art Direction | this-ness) did say she was going to reward gifted students at CAMFED schools with a flight; did any student on the flight get this reward? I can't find evidence of it.
Starts at about 5mins.
http://aviation-xtended.co.uk/wp-con...-AD14-Live.mp3

Apologies but I forget who asked for it but here is an image of the cockpit and engine plate pre-Winslow crash. Hope they help.

megan

Perhaps it's because the standard you walk past, is the standard you accept.

blueandwhite

Hobbit and Megan have got my drift. I do find this thread unacceptable to my standards and it falls so far below conduct I find acceptable that I wish to make my thoughts known. There will be another post from me in a moment to explain further.

blueandwhite

Well Jonzarno thanks for your suggestions. I feel there are more than three options but just to explain to you why I wont be following your suggestions as you put them.

1) I don't think there is much chance of a logical argument on the internet.
2) This thread goes beyond what I feel comfortable knowing about and not commenting on.
3) I don't read much of it anyway as many of the bits I do read seem to me to be an unpleasant waste of time.

What I will do is let you know what I think of this thread and its contents. I will also mention the conduct of Tracy and Jay.

Firstly this thread seems to come about because Tracy mislead quite a few people and nothing I say should be taken to mean that I think that is OK. You will no doubt be aware that it was was quickly alleged that I was some how sympathetic to her following my post. (this lack of logic in the reply to my comment is the sort of thing that makes me think your option 1 is not a realistic option.)

Then she got some awards that seemed, at best, very generous when viewed in context of others achievements. Some would say they were not deserved at all, and I would agree with that.

This thread was started and there was a campaign to get the awards reviewed. The LAA award was removed. And that shed no glory on anyone although I think it was the right thing to do. If it was the best thing to do is another matter.

I'm not sure what the state of play with the other awards is and I do not intend to read this thread in detail to find out.

So why did I comment. Well Jay is coming over, to me at least, as a man obsessed with persecuting Tracy. The continued attacks look very much like bullying and a personal vendetta to me. To start the thread was justified in putting right a wrong, IMHO. But it has gone so far as to become very distasteful again as it appears to me. I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for Tracy.

I think I picked up somewhere that Jay was an ex journalist. I think I see in his words standards that have brought the journalist into disrepute over the last few decades.

So that's why I commented on Jay's conduct.

What about Tracy? I think she has misjudged her conduct and as a result has not promoted either GA or female aviators nearly as well as she could have. Yes she has achieved some good publicity its just such a shame it was built on deceit. Does she deserve the comments in this thread, well some yes but all of them, not by any means.

So to end. I will be reading bits of this thread if it goes on. But I won't be reading every comment and I will be replying to few, if any.

Jay if you read this I urge you to drop this harassment of Tracy. You are doing no credit to yourself, aviation or your old profession. This is of course just my opinion offered to you to do with as you wish. I have no expectation that you will take any notice, but you know how I feel.

Happy Flying everyone.

B Fraser

I would warn against the use of the term "harassment" as it is an accusation of an actionable offence AFAIK.