|
Several of the clips clearly showed the woman flying other than solo. Including in close formation with what I guess was the support aircraft.
She was 'uncontactable today' according to the BBC... The item included an interview with Phil Croucher of Caledonian Advanced Pilot Training, who explained the meaning of 'solo'! The item concluded by mentioning that the woman is, according to her website, 'considering legal action'. |
The item concluded by mentioning that the woman is, according to her website, 'considering legal action'. In addition, of course, such an action would also just give this sorry saga even more legs. :rolleyes: |
I have to say I was quite surprised at the BBC reports. The website was particularly direct in calling her 'a liar'.
Possibly setting up their stall before the inevitable questions are asked about why they screened a documentary about her flying solo? I think it's all over bar the shouting anyway. Checking this morning, the Times has it on their site now. Every report I've seen has her protesting she was 'always' the 'sole' pilot but then there is a clip or copy report under the article showing her accepting solo status. It comes down to the fact that anyone who read those articles at the time (or indeed, the people who wrote them) wouldn't have even considered that she wasn't flying solo - especially as her website at the time claimed she was doing so. As far as the Wikipedia site is concerned, I don't think a two-line 'Controversy' section is valid anymore. It isn't controversy, it's the fact that she and her team pulled the wool over the eyes of the public and the media and that is fast becoming a bigger issue than her flights. |
clivewatson's excellent piece about Bake Off and the dangers of changing tried and tested recipies (post 1986):
Outreach, my @rse! More like Bake Off. This was never about outreach, it's always been about her and a brilliantly executed sales pitch that secured her a round the world jolly on someone else's dollar! If it had been executed as planned, good for her, if she had announced the change of plan and still done the trip as amended, good for her again, but…. It inspired me to compile a list of things NOT to do when flogging a profitable cake recipe under a highly-hyped and trusted brand: 1) stick to the exact ingredients you advertised 'on the tin' 2) never be tempted to over-egg the mixture 3) avoid adding a pinch of salt - it can become addictive. Next thing you know, it has so much salt added it leaves a foul taste 4) avoid all artificial flavourings. Once detected, they leave a foul taste to those who rightfully expected all natural ingredients as listed on the tin, see 3 above 5) when caught changing the recipe, admit it immediately and apologise. It will probably save your reputation and your brand. Trying instead to redefine that well known four letter 'S' word (salt?) and then blaming others for having defective senses is ridiculous and smacks of the worst arrogance. Definition of defective senses include taste, eg. tasting salt where there was supposed to be none. Also sight, eg. seeing double, for example 2 pilots seen in an aircraft for a flight which was touted as being solo or 'alone'. Breaking any of these fundamental rules could cause embarrassment. Breaking all of them is certain to kill the brand - the golden goose - meaning no more eggs for baking with. Then, the only egg will be highly visible, all over the face. |
The item concluded by mentioning that the woman is, according to her website, 'considering legal action'. |
This featured on local BBC News (South) last night. It seems it was one of her crew dobbed her in over the Capetown-Goodwood flight. He advised her not to accept any solo awards. She ignored the advice.
|
There is an excellent and thought provoking book by Jon Ronson called "So you've been publicly shamed"
I recommend that before everybody gets too excited about her downfall that you read it. |
We must all exercise caution, I hear she is a fully qualified barrister.
. . . . sorry, stand easy, I meant barista, skills picked up whilst working as a waitress. |
SND Re RIAT 2013 and Stearman Flying displays
this link indicate a paucity of solo displays Flight Timetable This links indicates a static display for a Stearman 75 RIAT 2013 Participants This area (2013), doesn't look like a flight line.. https://www.flickr.com/photos/522878...7670778077891/ |
Originally Posted by Haraka
(Post 9552380)
So far " Water off a duck's back" comes to mind regarding that aspect.
Waitress to Waltess? I have a feeling she and her team are just going to try and ride this out on the basis that she has an income stream to protect and of course there is the adage that today's newspaper is tomorrow's chip wrapping. I'd be very pleasantly suprised if HCAP change anything at this late stage, but as has been said, money/saving face and connections probably means they won't ..and I would not be at all surprised if she picks up an OBE..for much the same reasons. |
Hi KelvinD (and anyone else new to this debate who is overawed by the prospect of scanning through 2000-plus posts),
Sam Rutherford's original, whistle-blowing post - on a sister thread which predates this one - should help: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post9012078 |
At the HCAP Trophies and Awards Committee..
I'd love to be a fly on the wall up there, where I'm sure some midnight oil is being burned. "There must be something we can come up with to justify Tracey's Masters Medal this year, chaps." Now, our change to the 'women and aviation technology awareness' theme might need a rethink. After all, Tracey has publicly stated that she hates technology. Further, while it's true that she has created a good deal of 'awareness', do we really want to go down that path at the moment? Put your thinking-caps on, gents - and no, I don't think "Waltess of the Year" is likely to reflect too well on the dignity and honour of this Company. |
I see that the Portsmouth News have picked up on the story too. How embarrassing for the Uni that gave her the Honorary Doctorate, and in a paper that will be read by a lot of Naval personnel.
Bird in a biplane hits back at ?false claims? - The News |
As Pickford's would say...we're on the move!
Media Information For all interview requests or to request access to high resolution images for download, please contact Tim Kelly M: + 44 7773 325 533 E: [email protected] Recent articles about my flights have suggested or implied that I have misrepresented or have sought to mislead people into believing that I undertook my flights alone and without support. My position is clear and unequivocal - for clarification, please see the statements below: Statement released by Tracey Curtis-Taylor on 24 October 2016 Statement released by Tracey Curtis-Taylor on 13 October 2016 Statement released by Ewald Gritsch, 3G Classic Aviation Europe on 13 October 2016 Statement released by Tracey Curtis-Taylor on 11 June 2016 Tracey Curtis Taylor - Aviatrix, Adventurer, Inspirational Speaker |
You lot are pathetic
I'm sorry, this has gone too far
Why don't you all get back to your pipe, slippers and stale ale and let the high achievers get on with their lives! Goodbye!! |
I am deeply disappointed at the comments coming from a particular source making false assertions that my flight expeditions should have been executed as solo flights – and that I have claimed them as such. I have previously stated they were not “solo flights”. |
Exactly Clareprop.
Clearly, there are some big players sponsoring this misrepresentation. How Boeing could argue that they did not understand the concept of 'alone' & 'solo' is actually quite laughable. Perhaps if Tracey does goes through the motion [which has already been suggested here] to which some through they were infallible from, Max Clifford may then have a quiet word in her ear. |
I recall a fairly short interview with TC-T on Australian radio in early January 2016; I think it was after she had landed in Sydney. I was listening very closely because I had noted that everyone seemed to be under the impression that it was a ‘solo’ flight whilst all the photos and videos showed 2 persons in the ‘plane. I hadn’t noticed any ‘passenger’ other than Ewald. I wish that I had a link to a recording or a transcript of that interview.
The interview went something like thus: Presenter (in a preamble): This morning, we have with us the British aviatrix TC-T who has just completed a solo flight of 23, 000(?) miles from England to Sydney in 19(?) days ……. Good morning, Tracey, and congratulations……… TC-T: Ah – I must, first of all, correct you on that ………… [I listened intently] TC-T: The flight took considerably more than 19(?) days, it took just over 3 months. I was stopping off ………….. and then there followed the usual tosh about outreach, inspiration etc. I noted that there was absolutely NO attempt to correct the ‘solo’ statement in the presenter’s preamble. I wonder if it is possible to get that recording – after all, Aussies have a reputation for taking a dim view of BSers! |
Originally Posted by KelvinD
(Post 9552350)
This featured on local BBC News (South) last night. It seems it was one of her crew dobbed her in over the Capetown-Goodwood flight. He advised her not to accept any solo awards. She ignored the advice.
''sorry to have witnessed this Hoo Hah but having seen your first rather lovely BBC documentary about your flight from CPT to the UK I must say I TOO was under the complete and full impression from all the programme and the following media hype that this was infact a SOLO flight undertaken by you, as was the Oz one as well - i can therefore fully understand why the LAA and Pprune campaign has probably occurred - which is most unfortunate but seems to have escalated because of the lack of action by yourself to mediate the claims? just my impression but the press band wagon did not stop... I am sure you did not go out on purpose to mislead - but as a lay man i certainly thought you flew these fights SOLO rather than enter into nasty and costly litigation just fully explain your flights openly to all - even the BBC still says you did the flight solo from cape town on their blurb ....'' |
It seems that even non-pilots have no problems understanding what a "solo" flight actually means. For those who may want to quibble the FAA regulations (for those flying American registered aircraft, which the Stearman is) seem pretty clear;
14 CFR § 61.51 - Pilot logbooks; (d) Logging of solo flight time. Except for a student pilot performing the duties of pilot in command of an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember, a pilot may log as solo flight time only that flight time when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft. The door has now been clarified as being shut by TCT, but it took until the horse had bolted for her to do it. |
Hi all - I just popped a quick "How To..." on the Computer/Internet Issues & Troubleshooting sub-forum, in case anyone has the need/desire to (f'rinstance) capture a web page and archive it, lest it disappear without trace and be lost for ever. How to Archive a Web Page |
Crankyme:
Why don't you all get back to your pipe, slippers and stale ale and let the high achievers get on with their lives! Second world war fighter pilots Test pilots Military pilots Commercial pilots Ferry pilots Engineers High court judges Specialist publication journalists and many others. They have reached their level of experience through hard work, hard to gain qualifications and perseverance. Possibly that's why they don't like to see a chancer fooling the public. |
sorry to say she had me fooled - i really thought she was doing it solo a la Amy Johnson and lady heath :(
|
Originally Posted by crankyme
(Post 9552499)
I'm sorry, this has gone too far
Why don't you all get back to your pipe, slippers and stale ale and let the high achievers get on with their lives! Goodbye!! Kind of misses the point of what a "high achiever" is. It grossly undermines those who are, and have reached their position with their integrity intact. |
Hey Guys, l'm pleased that we are starting to hear from those who want to share another side of the story, and their opinions. We may not agree with what they write, but it may encourage more of the believers to look at and consider the evidence. Welcome them, and who knows, one day Tracey might even put in an appearance and answer a few questions.
|
She has issued a new statement.
1. This statement is made in response to commentary appearing in the media concerning the Light Aircraft Association (“LAA”) and the rescission of the Bill Woodhams Trophy which was made to me in 2014 in respect of the Cape Town to Cairo flight that year for a “feat of navigation, aviation, tenacity and endurance.” 2. The circumstances of the rescission are as follows: a. The AGM of the LAA was held 21 October 2016 at Sywell Aerodrome in Northamptonshire. The first public reference to the agenda which included the motion “for the Review of the Woodhams’ Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor” was on 4 October 2016 and was brought by two members - Barry Tempest and Chris Martyr. Prior to the AGM over 100 proxy votes had been cast in favour of the motion, along with proxy votes on the resolutions at the meeting, following the online media campaign referred to below. b. At the AGM itself there was a broadly-based lack of knowledge among members present about this motion, the fact that I had made any previous public statements, or the fact that proxy votes had already been cast. It was suggested to the Chairman of the meeting (LAA Chairman, Brian Davies) that in the circumstances the motion should be held over to another meeting to allow a full discussion – but this was refused. At the meeting, members expressed their discomfort and that an injustice was being carried out. Of the members actually present at the meeting (about 70), the overwhelming majority voted against the motion or abstained, but the motion was nevertheless carried by the proxy votes previously cast. 3. I have stated publicly previously (11 June 2016) that I am deeply disappointed at the comments coming from a particular source making false assertions that my flight expeditions should have been executed as solo flights – and that I have claimed them as such. I have previously stated they were not “solo flights”. They are all about a collaborative team effort and celebrating the brilliant achievements of women like Amy Johnson and Lady Heath who made history when aviation was in its infancy. 4. The source referred to is Sam Rutherford who was initially a flight planning and logistics sub-contractor to the Africa expedition. By the end of that flight our logistics and flight planning were withdrawn from Mr Rutherford and brought in-house. Mr Rutherford was not engaged further by the BIAB expeditions from UK to Australia, or across USA. 5. Mr Rutherford has engaged in an online media campaign to discredit me and the BIAB team members by making false assertions concerning the expeditions and the roles of team members. I have previously stated publicly that I consider this to be part of a course of conduct designed to cause damage and distress. Mr Rutherford’s campaign is also promoted by his associate, Mike Flynn (who also operates under the pseudonym, Jay Sata) in the press and in online forums, and in particular Pprune. The actions of Mr Rutherford are now the subject of legal proceedings and have been reported to the police. Sam Rutherford is a member of the LAA – he was not present at the AGM but was represented by his proxy, Chris Martyr (see above). 6. I have received many expressions of support at the AGM referred to above (where I was present in person), from supporters of my flying and outreach programmes, and from my sponsors and affiliates, for which I am very grateful. Tracey Curtis-Taylor 24 October 2016" |
4. The source referred to is Sam Rutherford who was initially a flight planning and logistics sub-contractor to the Africa expedition. By the end of that flight our logistics and flight planning were withdrawn from Mr Rutherford and brought in-house. Mr Rutherford was not engaged further by the BIAB expeditions from UK to Australia, or across USA. There is a big difference between these two possibilities. |
l'm pleased that we are starting to hear from those who want to share another side of the story, and their opinions. We may not agree with what they write, but it may encourage more of the believers to look at and consider the evidence. b. At the AGM itself there was a broadly-based lack of knowledge among members present about this motion, the fact that I had made any previous public statements, or the fact that proxy votes had already been cast. It was suggested to the Chairman of the meeting (LAA Chairman, Brian Davies) that in the circumstances the motion should be held over to another meeting to allow a full discussion – but this was refused. At the meeting, members expressed their discomfort and that an injustice was being carried out. Of the members actually present at the meeting (about 70), the overwhelming majority voted against the motion or abstained, but the motion was nevertheless carried by the proxy votes previously cast. I would suggest that had the voting members at the meeting who had a "broadly-based lack of knowledge.......about this motion" been aware of the "case for the motion to rescind", rather than just the, no doubt eloquently expressed but evasive "case against", then the vote would have been even more overwhelmingly for the motion. (And for those supporters who will no doubt say that the proxy voters did not have a chance to hear the defence, it is out there on her media streams, and has failed to convince). |
The Times story is behind a paywall.
It appears the LAA is run by blokes. A British adventurer who won an award for flying solo on an 8,000-mile trip has been stripped of the trophy after it was alleged that she had a co-pilot on some legs of her journey. Tracey Curtis-Taylor, the self-styled “Bird in a Biplane” who is described on her website as an “aviator, adventurer and inspirational speaker”, had the Bill Woodhams Trophy, which was awarded to her after she had flown from Cape Town to Britain in 2013, removed following a vote held by the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) on Saturday. Ms Curtis-Taylor, 54, was stripped of the trophy at the association’s annual meeting at Sywell aerodrome, Northamptonshire, where members claimed that she had misled the public over her exploits. By 123 votes to 65, they voted for her to lose the award. Last night Ms Curtis-Taylor said that she had never claimed to have conducted solo flights and had acknowledged that it was a “collaborative team effort”. “It’s disgusting what has happened,” she said. “There was a palpable unease in the meeting, which was in a room full of men and just three women.” She said that she felt “very let down by the LAA”, adding: “They have allowed themselves to be manipulated.” Ms Curtis-Taylor, a former waitress who grew up in Canada and has lived in New Zealand, had just returned home from a two-week trip to China when she attended the AGM the next day. She was mired in controversy after it was alleged that Ewald Gritsch, her flight instructor, had revealed that he had occupied the forward cockpit of her 1942 Boeing Stearman for most of the legs of her journeys. Mr Gritsch dismissed claims that he had made such allegations and said that Ms Curtis-Taylor was “the sole pilot on all her expedition flights”. Sam Rutherford, her former logistics manager, also allegedly said that Ms Curtis-Taylor had been guilty of embellishing the truth and that she had flown only four of the 36 legs from Cape Town to Goodwood, West Sussex, on her own. Ms Curtis-Taylor previously hit back at the allegations, saying: “It is clear from what I say about the Africa flight and subsequent expeditions that they were not solo flights and that I was accompanied by a support crew. Ewald’s primary role in all these expeditions has been to provide engineering, technical and flight planning support.” Barry Tempest, a member of the LAA, who proposed that her award be withdrawn, said: “I am delighted the award has been rescinded. I have the greatest respect for women pilots but I think Tracey Curtis-Taylor has not done a lot to further their case. “I think that she is a boastful lady who needs bringing down a peg or two.” Steve Slater, head of the LAA, said: “The award was made in good faith but in the light of what has emerged since . . . it is fair to say maybe we would have made a different decision.” Share |
2 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by rog747
(Post 9552600)
sorry to say she had me fooled - i really thought she was doing it solo a la Amy Johnson and lady heath :(
I'll splain you: Attached are two files. Got it, now? :ok:* In the first file, someone apparently made a _"solo open-cockpit biplane flight from Cape Town to Goodwood". * In the second, someone apparently made an "___ open-cockpit biplane flight from Cape Town to Goodwood". * The two files are chronologically separated by less that seven weeks. * The two files apparently represent the same flight. * The two files represent archives of the same page on the same website. * The website is apparently that of the person who apparently made the flight. |
@airpolice
So, can nobody help me with interpreting the Wiki edit from January? Quote: In 2013, Curtis-Taylor flew a 13,000km solo flight from Cape Town, South Africa, to England https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=699034926 I think it looks like MurielMary who defends T C-T wrote that bit. It is incredible that MurielMary - and other apparently expert Wiki editors - were keen to have such snippets such as "She has a twin sister" added to a site which expressly discourages autobiographical content. Another over-zealous editor of the truth erased reference to T C-T colliding with a parked helicopter on the basis that it is "Surely not notable". How can such an avoidable collision not be notable in a Wiki built about an aviator who is about to receive another prestigious award from HCAP on the basis that: ...you displayed ... commendable airmanship.... I am so very pleased that you, as an Upper Freemen[sic] of our Company, have safely achieved this feat which is deservedly worthy of the award. This same one-sided agenda and lax approach to rigorous editing has ensured T C-T's 'Career' section is completely blank for the first 30 working years of her life until the age of 46, when a brief list of attending air displays somehow constitutes her career in its entirety. Others removed this on the basis that it could be interpreted as a thinly veiled CV, but the more persistent proponents of T C-T's 'achievements' repeatedly undid the edit, trying to give the impression that T C-T has made a lifelong career out of display flying. A career is 'a job or profession that someone does for a long time', implying earning a living wage from such endeavour. How can occasionally turning up at an airshow or two have supported her until the big sponsors dug deep to fund her well publicised jollies around the world? How can it then be misconstrued into being a career? Just saying! Edited to add: "AviationHistory', a highly active editor who erases true if embarrassing facts from the same Wiki page at every opportunity, has again changed the status of the R44 that T C-T taxied into (The collision could have been avoided if the pilot of N56200 had ensured that the area into which it taxied was clear of obstructions, either by observation, or the use of wing-walkers or marshallers.) from Written off to merely damaged, in defiance of the CAA register which records it as "De-registered. Destroyed." Is this another severe case of damage limitation? If so, I think she and her supporters are going to have to become true experts at it for them to survive this avalanche of facts coming to light which ruin the wonderful, glossy story that has been sold. |
Going back to the issue over whether or not Ewald was a pilot, instructor or whatever, given his experience and skills it makes the handling of the Stearman a lot easier having him there.
Even chatting over the intercom, some pearls of wisdom passed to her and, where necessary, talking her through the approach and landing, as instructors do all the time, makes it much less stressful and, in this case, less worthy of note than if she were truly solo. I look forward to the court case - can we book tickets? |
A bunch of self righteous hasbeens who've done nothing in your lives in your mummies spare rooms spewing out your invective and abuse Having read absolutely every post in this thread, I observe that the theme of the thread has been reactive, rather than proactive. No one has "gone after" TCT for something she might have done, but rather called up ample evidence of deception and misinformation she had repeatedly done, and allowed to remain, long after doubt was raised. I suspect that moderation has played a role in this thread avoiding being abusive, rather regulating it to be factual only. The evidence of statements and accusations made in this thread, is also easily found in the thread. TCT has had ample opportunity and incentive to clear up misunderstanding, and make retractions, and it appears that there has been some very weak effort at this (so she knows she should). However, for what I have seen as objective, very multi sourced information, TCT has never really said "I did the wrong thing, and I apologize". Instead, there seems to be a smearing of terminology which could be seen as an attempt to allow an altered understanding among the less informed. We pilots know what "solo" means, there is no doubt. We pilots know the honour of proudly wearing wings one has earned - and honouring other achievers by not wearing wings nor a uniform that you have not. A person is included well in a larger group, if they do not attempt to unfairly include themselves in a smaller group undeservingly. Those of us with integrity do not accept awards which are blatantly issued on the basis of untruthful information - we quietly decline and return them for correction. In context, TCT has not murdered anyone, and does not deserve a span of jail time for her misleading. But rather the frequent high energy outreach based on multiple layers of deception sends a horrible message to those impressionable people new to aviation, that deceiving and misleading your way up is okay to do! No, it is not! If TCT were a pilot under my charge, I would have prevented her public presence of "outreach" long ago. A chopped up R44, a wrecked Stearman, both needless waste of aircraft. Thank goodness her engine was okay the first time, but she did it in the second! This kind of cavalier attitude toward piloting is not what we want to appear in outreach for piloting! Low flying, busting airspace, poor planning about fuel and routing are the very things we good pilots try our best to avoid, and certainly do not embellish and publicize! In my opinion as a four decades pilot, TCT does not and should not be representing piloting, and reaching out, with her current display of skill and integrity. If she would take a step back and withdraw her blurred assertions, perhaps we proud pilots could also take a step back. But, society does not allow an offender to continue to offend, while blurring the offense with ongoing shifting, just because of the offender's proposed altruistic objectives, or gender! An offense is an offense, and I am offended that TCT wants the public, and pilots to be, to think that the way she commits aviation is the way to go. It is not! |
Thank you for the thought and effort put in to your post Stepturn.
Honesty and integrity still means a lot to some in this modern world where so called reality tv blurs the lines between fact and fiction. |
b. At the AGM itself there was a broadly-based lack of knowledge among members present about this motion, the fact that I had made any previous public statements, or the fact that proxy votes had already been cast. It was only because of the controversy that was known to all members of the LAA that the matter was brought to a vote. You were given the opportunity to set out your side of the story months ago, but apart from some odd and confusing statements that attempted to redefine the meaning of "solo," neither you or your PR team would comment or respond to questions. You chose not to take part in the debate until the day of the vote where, graciously, you were given the chance to state your case. By all accounts you trotted out the same old message and said your bit. The vote took place and you lost by a very wide margin. It is crass of you to assume that those who voted by proxy were uninformed. There was a democratic process played out according to the rules. You came second. What are you suggesting now....that we vote again, and perhaps again until you win? Get real, wake up and smell the coffee. Stamping your feet is not going to solve the underlying problem here. |
stepturn well written and understood
i cannot fathom why TCT and her PR team would have wanted this to go like it has fame? arrogance? money? |
Strake On this site, I'm sure you will find some stale ale mob but on this thread you'll find, amongst others: When someone books out for a solo flight there's sort of an understanding for ATC that its just one person on board. |
TCT is trying, foolishly, to ride a semantic tightrope here and her claim never to have herself described her flights as solo (there seems precious little, if any evidence that she did) may, just, be technically correct.
What is so unacceptable is her continued behaviour around that denial. She is riding a highly lucrative wave that has been whipped up by her PR team and which is based on a falsehood that they have knowingly and deliberately perpetuated instead of correcting. The falsehood may not have been uttered by her, that is largely irrelevant if she continues not only to ride the wave but to continue promoting herself by egging the media on uncorrected in the full knowledge that it is all built on an untruth. Every time a media report referring to "solo" was published they effectively lied by failing to correct it. And correct it they seem never to have done, not once. That is pure collusion. TCT herself has repeatedly been asked in interviews/talks about her "solo" trip and has replied correcting all sorts of trivial detail, but never the word "solo" as far as we know. Thus she is fully implicated in the multiple, long term perpetration of an outright lie whether she spoke the words or not. Those that published it in good faith are merely innocent victims duped into peddling incorrect info by the conscious and deliberate omission of any correction. The wretched woman continues to protest her innocence re claims of solo despite popping words like "sole" into her publicity, "emulating" someone whose claim was flying solo. Her crime may not be actual false claims to solo but rather running a years long scam based on others being encouraged to say so and instead of correcting their error, encouraging more and more of it. There is a cynicism in such an approach that really grates with most of us, I think, a cynicism that tries to dupe us by an enthusiastically promoted con by proxy while claiming complete and bewildered innocence. Another example of this mindset are the claims to have "displayed" at Farnborough, RIAT and others on multiple occasions. Perhaps, semantically one could argue this is not literaly an untruth, but everyone understands that "displaying" at an airshow means flying in it, not having a stall there selling stickers, interviews and bragging. And when the claim relating to sticker stalls at a list of international events includes just one minor social flyby (Cowes Regatta, hardly an airshow) to enable the sentence to be preceeded by "static and/or flying display" at blah blah blah the words so carefully chosen not to be legalistically untrue just shriek the carefully planned intention to mislead, if not deceive. In a way these continued, years long attempts to rake maximum advantage from widespread misinformation which you had assiduously cultivated in others, or had allowed others to cultivate unchecked that represents a far, far more cynical intent to deceive than someone who merely took advantage from a one-off fib. This extended wilful deception by refusal to correct an untruth while busily promoting it and taking full advantage of it is a very nasty thing to do indeed. TCT should be under no illusions how the public feel about trickery like this and shouldn't be surprised at the results which will continue for some time I suspect. Continuing to assert innocence at this stage is as pointless as it is infantile. |
In clarification, I completed my contract on the Cape Town to Goodwood trip (leaving in Crete with the rest of the crew) as planned.
It seems that Tracey's recollection is inexact on this point. |
She said that she felt “very let down by the LAA”, adding: “They have allowed themselves to be manipulated Steve Slater, head of the LAA, said: “The award was made in good faith but in the light of what has emerged since . . . it is fair to say maybe we would have made a different decision.” |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:17. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.