I for one am quite happy that people on here are now defending TCT - while I thoroughly think she has completely misrepresented aviators in general and done those of us who actually make a living from aviation a huge dis-service- it certainly makes for a more interesting read!

Because it is perfectly legitimate to OWN such a badge as a collector, but it is not legitimate to WEAR it in a way that makes it look as if you have earned that right.

To illustrate this: Michael Ashcroft has a large collection of gallantry medals including several genuine VCs, but he doesn't go around wearing them.

I am not sure this guy is a real astronaut, what do think, should he really be wearing these wings and badge

http://www.7thavenuecostumes.com/pic...P_A3_ASO18.jpg

Sorry couldn't resist.

It is all well and good posting images of people wearing wings and kids in astronaut suits - funny in fact, but it is missing the point - I am sure she wears those wings to make people believe she is something she isn't. It is not just the emblem but the manner in which it is worn that is wrong.

Jay, I have to disagree with your Artemis/Boeing statement earlier. I don't think they are complicit by design, I think they were suckered into this great SOLO adventure, mislead into believing it was more than it seemed. I wouldn't expect them to make a song and dance about being hoodwinked but I would expect them to have had a word on the QT - my guess is that these words of wisdom will have been ignored.

We must not get sidetracked by the extra info that is surfacing, some of which I too find to be hazardous to putting forward our informed and factual questions.

There are questions that need to be addressed, only TCT can do that. The longer she takes in doing so, the more minor dirt will be dug out of web archives, videos, and photographs; all raising more questions about her integrity.

There is no hatred, and I don't believe for one second that asking genuine and relevant questions is harassment, especially when the answers received by "official statements" avoids them, deflects blame and some insult our intelligence. We know the story portrayed is false and can show it to be so.
The questions are within this thread.

TCT please address them.

If a non-pilot was to obtain a captains uniform and go to a fancy dress party, that's one thing, amusing and harmless fun ... if he/she was to wear the same uniform and hang around the local airport, some may interpret that as an attempt to deceive, and most normal people out of an abundance of caution would probably not elect to wear that particular garb in those circumstances. Nothing illegal, but I would question the persons intentions.

If I owned a set of RAF wings given to me by a friend and I was wandering around an airfield in green overalls, I would not wear them, as i would not want people to get the wrong impression ...

It's one thing which is not acceptable, it demeans the uniform. I don't care who or when, if you're not entitled, don't wear emblems of someone who has earned the privilege. It's not hard to figure out. Very certainly a pilot, who states being trained by military pilots would understand this, and respect them at least that much.

My tuppenceworth:

Upon reflection I agree that we should not be concentrating on the minutia. Wings or no wings is not the issue, and neither is whether she overflew mating whales, giraffes or hedgehogs, or whether she busted the 500 foot rule. Arguments along those lines are merely window dressing. If we want someone to look into the shop front surely we should be concentrating on what is likely to concern our buyers (the press and the general public at large) most?

I'm more concerned with deceit, outright lies, misdirection, exaggeration and how TCT effectively stole awards that might otherwise have been granted to those who were more deserving?

There is a story here and I believe it should be told. Concentrating on the minutia though is not going to get the story out there - it only muddies the waters, hides the central allegations and makes the whole tale more difficult to tell. Instead perhaps we should stick to central elements of fact that readers will find easy to digest, prioritise and verify. What colour grow bag she wore, and what she patched onto it is something they won't give a toss about, even if we do.

Deefer Dog :D :ok:

I couldn't agree more. It is easy ( and I am sure I am unintentionally guilty of this) to get drawn away from the core argument(s).

Sorry, but utter drivel.

If you want to keep the emblems as "special" then don't sell them in gift shops. As soon as you do you have surrendered any right of exclusivity - there is no "by opening this package you are agreeing to abide by rules that have not been written down anywhere by anyone" sticker on the packet when they are sold.

The only place where the wings insignia have any of the meanings you describe is when put in a specific place on a military uniform. In TCT's case the wings in question were sewn onto flying overalls which were not military issue, which bore no rank/unit/service insignia and could not be mistaken by anyone with a functioning brain for a military uniform. Ergo your point is just sanctimonious blather.

You have grounds for complaint about TCT's conduct - stick to those. If you stray into these paroxysms of faux offense it just makes you look like a small-minded bully homing in for the kill. It is behaviour incompatible with the uniform of and officer.

PDR

Air police: Yes!
 

Yes, good idea!

We shouldn't let the small stuff cloud the main issues; although I personally believe that the, allegedly unjustified, wearing of the RAF brevet is important as, quite apart from being offensive to many, it contributes directly to the overall image being projected.

If those questions are being swamped by the mass of trivia and insults, can I suggest this as a way of keeping the focus on the main issues?

The Mods could create a locked sticky thread containing your timeline, together with the appropriate dates and references, and the three questions I suggested some time ago (or some amended version of them).

That might help to keep a clear and sharp focus on the central questions.

Ms Curtis-Taylor or members of her team should be offered the opportunity to respond, either by posting here or by asking the mods for access to the locked sticky to post a reasoned response which should, of course, be freely given.

This would also provide a simple point of reference for any media interest, unclouded by other trivia.

Just a thought...

If I saw somebody wearing a non-green flying suit with a set of RAF wings over the left breast, I'd probably assume it was a serving display pilot in the absence of commercial logos, or an ex-RAF private display pilot otherwise. Although the shape of the wings might have confused me in this instance.

I don't understand what you lot are getting so worked up about. Nothing is going to happen from within the TC-T camp. No statements, no reply, no sticky, forget it!

TC-T & Co, award bodies included will not have a clue as to why you are all so outraged. This type of decitful activity is usual daily business. Who cares about solo or one or two people in the cockpit. It brought worldwide publicity to a brand-name and him and her had a ball flying the Stearman.

The truth be-known, they have their index fingers in their ears going blah blah blah deliberating the next outreach programme. :)

CF

You may well be right; but I think there's more chance of the media picking up on the sticky I suggested than getting them to plough through the over 2600 posts in this thread. If that happens, then putting index fingers in ears may not turn out to be the most effective response. :)

Reply from University of Portsmouth
 

Hello Everyone,

I have just received a response from the University of Portsmouth plus their oration recommending TCT for the honorary doctorate. I have attached said documents.

Honesty is irrelevant. It is a sad state of affairs when someone has plainly fibbed and can still be given a honorary doctorate. The university is ignoring the LAA decision and refusing to admit they have made a mistake. What an awful example to set. What value a doctorate? What value a Master's Medal? Many parts of the citation are very familiar in wording.

Words fail me.

Just let me get this straight then. To quote part of image 1, "However, we did not make the award to her on the basis that she had completed solo flights or explicitly because of her activities within aviation."

Remove references to flying and aviation and not a lot of substance is left.
:hmm:

Except for the final paragraph the entire text of the oration is a copy and paste of the bio sent by TCT to the university. We've read it time and time again, word for word.

University of idiots and those easily taken in! What a joke!

I think we're part of an experiment by the Pompey Poly Psychology Department... :p

Oh dear.
'If Tracey said so .. then it must be true!'
Well done, Pompey Poly - that's done absolute wonders for your credibility. :D
GREAT Britain, indeed.

So, there's another element to be added to the flow chart that WeeJeem took the trouble to draw up some pages back.
This game of join-the-dots is intriguing, is it not?

As Monty Python's Graham Chapman once observed in a skit ... "Silly!.. Too silly for words.

Pilotdar:

I agree strongly!!

PLEASE lets have a thread that pushes for a clear response to the simple and basic criticisms that have been made against TC-T and keeps her, and her team's, feet to the fire.

Once again, can I please urge the simple creation of a a locked sticky thread with an invitation for TC-T or her team to comment on the main allegations against her as set out in my earlier post?