PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)
-   -   Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads) (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/579030-tracey-curtis-taylor-merged-threads.html)

S205-18F 24th Oct 2018 11:31

Is ct-c part of 3G classic aviation inc. ?

Jonzarno 24th Oct 2018 11:45

As I wrote about this above: there is no reason why Ms Curtis-Taylor should not be the owner of the US company that holds the registration of the Stearman.

I am not saying that this is definitely the case but, if Herr Gritsch sold her an N Reg plane that is officially held by that company, there is no reason whatever why she would need to change the company name, nor make it a subsidiary of her UK company.


hoodie 24th Oct 2018 12:00

Where is this thread going? What do people want to happen now?

I'm pretty uncomfortable with it. It now appears simply a vehicle to rehash previous info and continue to put the boot in following the LAA vote.

ak7274 24th Oct 2018 13:19

I agree with hoodie. No point in kicking someone when they are down.
The only thing I don't understand is why Ewald didn't publish his statement when needed by TCT.
Not only should Tracey let it go, so should we, unless it rears It's ugly head once again.

Pilot DAR 24th Oct 2018 13:52

So we're done with investigation into the ownership of the Stearman. If Ms. Curtis-Taylor makes a public statement worthy of discussion here, we'll consider that, otherwise, let's see what other aviation topics are out there for discussion......

runway30 24th Oct 2018 14:38

This is part of Ewald’s statement

“Yes, Tracey Curtis Taylor was the sole pilot on all her expedition flights. She has more than enough flight-experience as well as piloting and navigational skills to perform all of these flights on her own.”

Yet on the Wilmslow incident report Ewald is listed as “Other flight crew” and seems to be logging the flight time, indeed he had 410 hours on type where he wasn’t PIC.

I also notice that TCT gave her occupation as ‘Pilot’. I can’t think of another occasion I’ve seen someone who isn’t employed as a pilot describe it as their occupation.

Ebbie 2003 24th Oct 2018 14:46

For clarity on the trust thing for those who have likely not used one.

The beneficial owner of the airplane - what we would consider the person who owns it (paid for it) is separate from the trust company which is so far as the FAA is concerned is the "owner".

So the trust company is the one that gets it in the neck if there is something wrong.

Likewise, the trust company can raise a mortgage against the beneficial owner's airplane.

So, yup you have to trust them (do like a nice pun!

What this means is that there is no beastie hiding in the corner simply because Tracey does not have shares or ownership of 3G, the trust company - I have my airplane with Southern Aircraft Consultancy - I do not own that company nor do I have shares in it, I am (or more accurately my firm is) simply their client.

There are lots of red herrings around this frankly if she had flown someone else's airplane on the trips it would not have diminished the achievement the whole thing was about was she in the airplane and navigating a la 1930 stylie - seems to have rolled to a close unless/until someone comes up with the money to fund the lawyers - I would think there is little benefit to anyone in doing that.

Long distance trips are nothing special - I've done some myself (some 2,000+ miles) and it is a lot easier following the magenta line than older nav especiall over water - the most important things is a reliable airplane and lots and lots of money - so if you can raise the money you can go, if you can't then you can't - if you go on the cheap now that is impressive - building a career on the back of it is not intrinsically "evil" we live in a media driven world and so the moderately photogenic are always going to get publicity etc. Now us fat hypertensive diabetic fat blokes we gets nuffink! I would be happy to do Barbados to UK solo if someone can get BurgerKing to pay for it (no MacDonalds or KFC - we do have to keep up standards).

runway30 24th Oct 2018 15:26

The problem is when you can’t tell the difference between spin and deception. Spin is just putting your own interpretation on the facts, when you start changing the facts it is deception. Some people think that embellishments to your cv. is ok. It isn’t, even if you are a perfect employee, you have obtained money by deception. Some of the statements on TCT’s website, if they were used to solicit money to fund her expeditions, would in my view cause her problems if someone wanted to complain. They aren’t complaining so I guess that is where it ends.

airpolice 24th Oct 2018 15:49


Originally Posted by runway30 (Post 10291306)
They arenít complaining so I guess that is where it ends.

No, that is just where it stops, for now.

Where it ends, is when she has been through the court process and the public see the lies being exposed.

Sam Rutherford 24th Oct 2018 16:01

Blimey, calm down!

She claimed to have done something that she hadn't done. She's not claiming it any more (even if a full admission is still absent).

It's time to move on.

Pilot DAR 24th Oct 2018 16:22

Sam is right. New information only. I'd rather not have to close the thread, but I'm getting close....

funfly 24th Oct 2018 16:44

Close the thread, you've got what you wanted.
This lady flew a lot, as did many other ladies (I used to be an Associate member of the British Women's Pilots Association, there were plenty of worthy ladies there) Tracy is obviously a bit of a boaster and claimed she went solo when she seems not to have done. Dug herself in a bit of a hole actually.
Time to let it go now folks, doesn't do you any credit to kick the dog when she is down.

airpolice 24th Oct 2018 17:05

This topic was supposed to be about her claims and Sam's contrary position, given his inside knowledge of the facts. I agree that we should only be scratching at new itchy bits, but each week seems to bring evidence of the continuing talks and pre-launch book & movie press appearances. Far from being down, she's riding a wave of public appearances with nobody allowed to question the validity, or reasonableness of her claims.

I'm not the one who keeps getting Lawyers to threaten court action. Tracey is behind the drive to go to court, or to at least suggest going there.

Given her stubborn refusal to answer simple questions, I see court as the only place that anyone can get the truth. She's got to avoid that because of the difficult questions which will centre not on the Solo aspect, but the standard of airmanship that she has spoken about and demonstrated. Imagine her having to answer the questions in court, instead of just calling everyone a women hating old man. Did she actually fly just a few feet from a cliff face, or just say that she did? Was she authorised to fly th eAN2, or did she just say that she was? Did she buzz the Whales or just say that she did? Has she got as much experience in flying the Stearman as anyone else in the world, or is that just something that she says? Did the aircraft need the entire runway at Winslow to get to 50 feet agl, or did she just say that it did? Was the fuel contaminated or is that just something that she said? Is she allowed to wear RAF Wings or...

I'm sure you can see her dilemma with the questions. This has long passed the solo point, and once Ewald had admitted to being in that seat for most of the time, the point was surely accepted by anyone with half a clue. She can't deny saying it, after the trip, because we have all seen the Herne Bay video. So she explained that as slip of the tongue.

The other stuff is harder to wriggle out of. Did she buzz the Whales? She can't deny it, unless she wants to open the door to all the rest of her story being a lie. She can't admit it and still expect to be considered a role model for aspiring Pilots.

Unless a victim comes forward, there is no real prospect of a criminal charge. I'm not sure why you think that there needs to be.

clareprop 24th Oct 2018 17:28

She's a liar. We know it she knows it.
To take her to civil court, you would need to be an aggrieved party, damaged by her claims.
In the absence of anyone else, only Sam and Mike seem to come close. If they feel they can live with it then maybe members of pprune should do as well. If the LAA are content to accept her description of them as misogynistic old men , that is also their choice.
I suggest we keep our powder dry for future films and books.....

airpolice 24th Oct 2018 17:30

Clare, nobody is going to court.

She's the only one in a position to start that, and it would be a disaster so she can't.

It's a pity the LAA didn't see that and just ignore her lawyers.

First_Principal 13th Oct 2022 20:35

With regard to this whole thing, and depending upon your point of view, it's perhaps worth considering the Streisand effect ...

Mike Flynn 27th Oct 2022 19:12

In answer to your post First Principal I once again post this email from her lawyers back in 2016.

This was a threat journalists often receive but tends to be counterproductive. Note the warning in capital letters.I should say that if this ever went to court it would result in a highly amusing case where I would call a number of senior people at both the HCAP an indeed subpoena Prince Michael and Ewald Gritch. I have never met Sam Rutherford but he may well have grey hair like mine.

I frankly do not see the purpose of publishing this book which in my opinion is a work of fiction and will open old wounds and cause Tracey embarrassment.

(I changed my Pprune tag to my real name after suggestions I was hiding my identity.)

I have no personal agenda with Tracey Curtis Taylor other that to highlight her misleading claims.

Amy Johnson and Lady Margaret Heath undertook their long distance flights alone and without a highly experienced airline pilot and flight instructor sitting in the front seat of the aeroplane he restored.

This letter was written before the LAA rescinded her award.



My ref: 102881

Mr Mike Flynn

STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

11 October 2016



Dear Mr Flynn,



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 www.birdinabiplane.com.

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 www.pprune.org (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:

38. In the meantime Ms Curtis-Taylor’s rights are reserved and this letter does not restrict

those rights in any way.



Yours sincerely,


Mike Flynn 28th Oct 2022 18:23

Journalists love legal letters insisting NOT FOR PUBLICATION .
I never heard from Matrix Chambers after posting that on Pprune.
Hence Private Eye and Arkell v Pressdram.


There is a great discussion to be had if this ever reaches the BBC books programme or more importantly the Media Show. My first question regarding the Africa trip ,that eventually lead to substantial coverage over the LAA award, would be were Boeing lying about it being a solo effort. The press release clearly stated it was a solo effort and the LAA navigation award was given in the understanding that was what happened. Lady Mary Heath never had the easy trip with a restored aircraft and a 20,000 hour airline pilot and instructor sitting in the front seat.
As always source here. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-...Biplane#Closed

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8b155db34.jpeg

Mike Flynn 28th Oct 2022 18:57

Regarding some of the allegations in the legal warning from Matrix Chambers it was suggested that a letter from the Honourable Company Of Air Pilots included Curtis Taylors home address and this was later used by a journalist colleague working for the Daily Mail to ‘doorstep’ her. That’s a term we use for knocking on the door to get a quote or interview.

The address was in fact her business address in London as per entries on the Company’s House website. (see below) Most people are wise enough to use their accountants address.

Dave Jarvis at Scoop News was lucky enough to turn up at the gated site and she came down and was interviewed by him. She thought she was being tracked but by a quirk of coincidence she had just arrived back from the USA and he got lucky as he lives nearby.

There is probably a better book to be written on how she managed cleverly to deceive the media and sponsors for so long.
As usual background details here. https://find-and-update.company-info...filing-history

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....51a07fa00.jpeg

Mike Flynn 28th Oct 2022 19:20

This was a message I received in early October 2018 regarding the Light Aircraft Association and Tracey Curtis Taylors legal team. I assume these are some of the grey misogynistic men referred to in the forthcoming book.At this stage in the story I was talking to a number of journalists who were trying to get to the truth.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5874030a4.jpeg
This resulted in the following story from my colleague Dave Jarvis at Scoop news which appeared in the Daily Mail.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....bf8349016.jpeg


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:26.


Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.