|
Originally Posted by Discorde
(Post 10272956)
Even if the BW Trophy were restored to TCT it would be virtually meaningless. She has lost the respect of most of the aviation community and looks unlikely to regain it. Most pilots would be devastated if they lost the respect of their colleagues.
If this trophy is restored to TCT then it means that it is meaningless to any future recipient, and will be forever tainted. They will ask themselves "Did I win this on merit or because I am judged to be as underhand as a previous <winner>" |
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
(Post 10281514)
Sorry, I have to post a quick response.
If this trophy is restored to TCT then it means that it is meaningless to any future recipient, and will be forever tainted. They will ask themselves "Did I win this on merit or because I am judged to be as underhand as a previous <winner>" |
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
(Post 10281514)
If this trophy is restored to TCT then it means that it is meaningless "
You are slightly off the mark here mate ..[not like you] The Bill Woodhams trophy will always be the Bill Woodhams trophy . It was around long before TC-T was and has been awarded to many other more worthy recipients . I have spent most of my working life working on B.747's , as well as building my own aeroplane . Am I worthy of the BW award ? No bloody way ! But had I achieved anything like that amazing chap , Colin Hales , then I reckon I would be proud to have that award on my mantelpiece . Another point is this ; People have to remember that she is not re-receiving that award , but merely having it "re-recognised". How pointless is that ! But you are absolutely correct in one way SWB . If the vote goes her way on Oct21st , it will be totally meaningless . |
It is perhaps worth remembering the Bill Woodhams Trophy was donated to the PFA in 1977 by the family of the late Bill Woodhams.
He had died whilst flight testing Pilot/Practavia Sprite G-BDDB in Yorkshire. Bill had been Director of Operations at those wonder PFA rallies held at Sywell in the 70s. |
Fair comment Chris. Maybe I should have said that it will be tainted. Not a reflection on the award or why it exists but any search of the award will always have the associated link to TCT.
The question remains Is someone who lied to achieve their aims, and continues to lie today, worthy of any reward/award/accolade? |
I think it's simpler (and potentially more positive):
1. She remains a recipient, uncool. 2. She remains a non-recipient (or rescindee), the award remains a demonstrably valuable and pride-worthy achievement, not vulnerable to commercial/political interest groups. The voters will decide. |
The latest response on the LAA Forum, with a couple of interesting points made by Miss Curtis-Taylor:
by Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:16 pm Regarding some recent postings, please note: 1. I have not threatened the LAA with any kind of litigation, nor has anyone done so on my behalf. The Chairman is incorrect to assert this in his statement. I have already stated my willingness for all correspondence from my solicitor and myself to be published to make that point. 2. Repeated assertions that I possess a legal team and a PR machine do not make them true. 3. I am in my 14th year of membership of the LAA and can only plead guilty to the serious charge of saying on the radio that I've been a member for 15 years. 4. I also said on the radio that I wasn't given the opportunity to respond to the 2016 motion to strip me of the Woodhams Award because that was true. It is rare, if not unique, for an attack on a named member to be presented at a LAA AGM. The proposer and seconder evidently didn't think courtesy required them to tell me; nor did the Chairman of the Board. I knew nothing of the motion nor of the recruitment of votes for it through social networking until I was warned from outside, as explained in my 2018 statement. A few days before the 2016 AGM three statements were provided from myself, Ewald Gritsch and Barry Latter, who was a docent from the Seattle Museum of Flight. In his statement, Mr Latter explained the caption on the slide - which has been used repeatedly by the anonymous trolls on Pprune as evidence of my seeming fraud - as relating to Mary Heath's flight in 1928. He states that I 'never once claimed to have accomplished the flights, either African or transcontinental to Australia, as a totally solo pilot'. He further adds 'In fact, she was emphatic in praising the contributions of her support team, including the times members of that team flew with her'. None of these statements were circulated to the members. I obtained permission to speak on my own behalf at the AGM, but before the meeting the Chairman tried to prevent me doing so by revealing that the motion had already been carried by proxy votes. I was therefore only able to say anything after the issue had already been stitched up. That is where the failure of due process occurred. |
Originally Posted by heli
(Post 10283356)
The latest response on the LAA Forum, with a couple of interesting points made by Miss Curtis-Taylor:
This 'explanation' of 'the slide' is so full of holes, it's laughable. The dates, route and duration are completely different from Lady Mary Heath's but identical to C-T's. If that wasn't enough, on her website and Facebook page at the time and for many months afterwards, C-T herself claims she flew solo. It's all written down and still there on waybackmachine.com which can never be erased. On top of this, we have the video which she has acknowledged but still uses weasel words to try and get round. Instead of admitting she said she flew solo, she blames the weather at Herne Bay (!) for not thanking her support team. I am also sick and tired of her constantly mentioning the word 'troll' in the same breath as Pprune. I have done a first solo, first solo cross country, first solo IMC, first solo multi etc. I paid for those experiences myself, I wasn't sponsored, Prince Michael wasn't interested and neither was the media but to me, they were a few of the true achievements of my life and I am quietly proud of them. To be feted and accept awards or admiration for something you haven't done is simply contemptible. To then try to deny and cast blame on others is behaviour of the lowest order. It deserves to be called out. |
T C--T on the LAA forum:
“It is evident from recent study of the redacted proxy voting forms- supplied at my request-.......” Is everyone allowed to study voting forms after the event? Who allowed this to happen? Why would anyone want to do so? Is this a sign of paranoia? Desperation? Or both? Or is this evidence of her extraordinary belief that she's been a victim of a very serious fraud perpetuated by the Committee of the LAA - that same organisation that she has publicly slagged off as being a 'group of misogynistic old men'? As nothing further has been heard of any mis-deeds unearthed, this personal "study" of the voting forms must have confirmed to the deluded 'Bird' that the majority of voters voted against her - tough as that reality must be for such a fragile ego. |
I think I see how this is going to play out, now...
|
I 'never once claimed to have accomplished the flights, either African or transcontinental to Australia, as a totally solo pilot'. Weasel words indeed. |
Originally Posted by RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike
(Post 10283466)
I think I see how this is going to play out, now...
1. I have not threatened the LAA with any kind of litigation, nor has anyone done so on my behalf. The Chairman is incorrect to assert this in his statement. I have already stated my willingness for all correspondence from my solicitor and myself to be published to make that point. If there has been no threat of litigation why should such correspondence exist? If there has been no threat of litigation why is there a long letter from Matrix Chambers published on the LAA thread? Off to polish my blazer buttons and brogues ready for Sunday. SND |
That letter from Matrix Chambers is not to the LAA - it is to 'Jay Sata' and is an accusation of harassment. Which was fair enough, tbh.
|
Mr Latter explained the caption on the slide - which has been used repeatedly by the anonymous trolls on PPRuNe 1. I am not an “anonymous troll”. She knows perfectly well who I am (mine is scarcely the most cryptic user name here!) because a senior and well respected member of the GA community has personally given her the Three Questions on my behalf. I also offered, through him well over a year ago, to speak personally to her in a constructive effort to try to help bring some balance and a fair conclusion to the debate. I heard nothing back. 2. Ms Curtis-Taylor has had well over a year in which to answer those simple questions. Instead of a straightforward and open response, what have we seen? In answer to the Hearne Bay video, after well over a year of silence, apparently, it was a slip of the tongue. But not one worthy of immediate correction, nor even correction as soon as it was questioned here, despite the storm of criticism it caused. We also now have an “answer” to the question regarding the presentation slide. Clare Prop has already critiqued it, so I will not do so again; but as explanations go, it does seem a bit thin to say the least! Incidentally: were there any other slides shown at that presentation? Perhaps pointing out the differences between her journey and that of MH; perhaps detailing the complexity and difficulty involved in her planning and support operations? If so, perhaps they support her response? As to the question of how she earned her RAF wings, there is still no answer. I find that strange as, if I had earned the honour of wearing them, I would be happy to tell anyone how I had done so if asked. All that said: one point that Ms Curtis-Taylor makes is a good one. Given that the proxy votes in 2016 had obviously been cast before the meeting, she clearly could not influence them with any argument she made at the meeting and, equally obviously, it is likely that the same situation will apply this time. That is why I find it strange that Ms Curtis-Taylor has not taken the time to engage with the community by addressing these questions properly ahead of the meeting while there is still time to convince proxy voters to support her. Unless, of course, she has no confidence in her ability to do so convincingly based on the facts. If it had been me, and if I had good answers, I would have given those answers, explained openly what had happened and let the members decide if what I had done deserved an award. Perhaps she has been badly advised, but I suggest that the way in which she has refused properly to address the criticisms levelled at her could scarcely have been better designed to ensure that she should lose the award. I think she might well have obtained a better result by facing up to the criticisms. I wish she had done that because the way this has gone is bad for her reputation, that of the LAA and does nothing to advance the cause of GA either. And that is sad! |
It cannot be any clearer that this is not referring to Lady Mary Heath.
However, I apologize to Tracey for MY misunderstanding and not realising it was as she describes in her LAA post. :ugh: https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7808044c35.jpg Given that the proxy votes in 2016 had obviously been cast before the meeting, she clearly could not influence them with any argument she made at the meeting and, equally obviously, it is likely that the same situation will apply this time. |
Originally Posted by Sir Niall Dementia
(Post 10283510)
Off to polish my blazer buttons and brogues ready for Sunday.
SND |
Originally Posted by pilotmike
(Post 10283427)
T C--T on the LAA forum:
“It is evident from recent study of the redacted proxy voting forms- supplied at my request-.......” Is everyone allowed to study voting forms after the event? Who allowed this to happen? Why would anyone want to do so? Is this a sign of paranoia? Desperation? Or both? Or is this evidence of her extraordinary belief that she's been a victim of a very serious fraud perpetuated by the Committee of the LAA - that same organisation that she has publicly slagged off as being a 'group of misogynistic old men'? As nothing further has been heard of any mis-deeds unearthed, this personal "study" of the voting forms must have confirmed to the deluded 'Bird' that the majority of voters voted against her - tough as that reality must be for such a fragile ego. edit spelling. |
Originally Posted by Mariner9
(Post 10283570)
Mrs M9 and I (both LAA members) will be there. Wonder if it would be against the dress code to wear "Troll" suits?
may I suggest one of these as it is what Ewald now wears just to remind TCT that he really ought not to be in the cockpit or seen in the cockpit. ;-) A little light humour as this is all getting me down now. https://www.ties.com/v/a/the-america...SABEgIJ7fD_BwE |
Not strictly true mate, there is a subtle difference between a PROXY vote and a POSTAL vote. The POSTAL vote is decided by the voter and is made at a time when all of the arguments may not have been heard, a PROXY vote on the other hand is a way for the non-attending voter to request that someone casts a vote on their behalf after the discussions have been heard. I stand to be corrected, but was it actually discretionary PROXY votes that brought her down or confirmed POSTAL votes? Despite my mistaken choice of word I thought it was the latter. |
From the LAA forum...
by Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:21 am It is important to note that Brian Davies has stepped down as Chairman of the LAA.
|
That is sad to hear. Begs the question if it is the sort of information a member should be posting publicly if it has not been made public by the Chairman himself. Where has she got that information from?
Unless I have missed it, I don't recall seeing anything about it elsewhere through "official" channels.
Originally Posted by hoodie
(Post 10283521)
That letter from Matrix Chambers is not to the LAA - it is to 'Jay Sata' and is an accusation of harassment. Which was fair enough, tbh.
In her post at point one she says 1. I have not threatened the LAA with any kind of litigation, nor has anyone done so on my behalf. The Chairman is incorrect to assert this in his statement. I have already stated my willingness for all correspondence from my solicitor and myself to be published to make that point. Within weeks of the Motion being passed, the LAA received a letter from Tracey Curtis-Taylor's lawyers, requesting that we reverse the decision of the AGM which, of course, we could not do. This was followed by a further three letters, culminating in a threat of legal action against the LAA and/or its officers |
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
(Post 10283663)
1. I have not threatened the LAA with any kind of litigation, nor has anyone done so on my behalf. The Chairman is incorrect to assert this in his statement. I have already stated my willingness for all correspondence from my solicitor and myself to be published to make that point.
. I have commented to my learned friend that the purpose of a barrister is to separate a fool from their money. She didn't answer but smiled. |
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
(Post 10283663)
There are ones that have been directed at the LAA.
On another note, Ms C-T has now said several times that one of her complaints is that she was not given the opportunity to make her case to Proxy and Postal voters at the 2016 AGM. It occurs to me that she has now had 2 years to compellingly make that case, and in particular has had the last few weeks to address it for this AGM. So that complaint can no longer be made. |
Email in this morning from LAA...
Dear LAA Member Due to an especially high level of interest in voting at the 2018 AGM we are having to ascertain whether the existing meeting room is big enough, or whether we need to move to a larger facility at Sywell. If you are planning to attend, can you mail [email protected] with the word YES in the subject box, so we can better ascertain numbers for this coming Sunday, 21st October. Thank you. G |
My wife and I are both long time members of the LAA. We've sent our vote supporting re-instatement of TC-Ts award. Whether she is right or wrong or, Mrs. Mitty I care not. We did so to offset the tsunami of bile that says as much about the spitefulness of many contributors as gross exaggeration does perhaps with some of TC-Ts alleged claims.
|
Capt Kremmen - obviously your votes are your business. IF however you think this is going to make things 'go away' or 'make them right' I'm afraid you are likely to be disappointed.
From the postings of David Mole and Brian Davies, the whole governance issue of the LAA is likely to be back 'in play'. The idea that meetings must be confidential and the directors are acting in the best interests of the association by ensuring the shareholders are in the dark, but people threatening the association are in the light, simply staggers me. We are heading for the association being split into a technical company - much like deHavilland Support and the free dinner. back slapping nonsense that the current directors have been indulging themselves can come to an end - no sensible people would fund it. |
From the LAA forum... Quote: by Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:21 am It is important to note that Brian Davies has stepped down as Chairman of the LAA. You can't beat a bit of innuendo can you. It's certainly not my place to say why Brian has decided not to stand for the Board again, but rest assured Ms Taylor, it certainly has nothing to do with you. As has been suggested, read Brian's last report (P5) in the latest magazine and you will see some of the progress that has happened under his watch. I would add handling the 2016 AGM with the utmost fairness and integrity to that list. |
Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen
(Post 10283830)
My wife and I are both long time members of the LAA. We've sent our vote supporting re-instatement of TC-Ts award. Whether she is right or wrong or, Mrs. Mitty I care not. We did so to offset the tsunami of bile that says as much about the spitefulness of many contributors as gross exaggeration does perhaps with some of TC-Ts alleged claims.
|
My wife and I are both long time members of the LAA. We've sent our vote supporting re-instatement of TC-Ts award. Whether she is right or wrong or, Mrs. Mitty I care not. We did so to offset the tsunami of bile that says as much about the spitefulness of many contributors as gross exaggeration does perhaps with some of TC-Ts alleged claims. Are things so bad that two bare-faced lies such as these are 'acceptable' just to hope that everything goes away? What is more, she still insists that she never said she flew solo and that people who say she did are, 'making foul accusations', 'are trolls',and 'misogynists'. How can any decent pilot be anything other than embarrassed by someone bringing our sport and hobby into such disrepute? |
Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen
(Post 10283830)
My wife and I are both long time members of the LAA. We've sent our vote supporting re-instatement of TC-Ts award. Whether she is right or wrong or, Mrs. Mitty I care not. We did so to offset the tsunami of bile that says as much about the spitefulness of many contributors as gross exaggeration does perhaps with some of TC-Ts alleged claims.
This is not a game, this is a turning point in the history of the LAA, and deserves the full consideration of every member. |
Another response from Miss Curtis-Taylor, but seemingly there has been nothing to address the questions put to her on the LAA Forum?
by Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:25 pm It is important that the Chairman is standing down because it means that the outcome of the 2018 AGM motions has no bearing on his future standing; it was worth pointing out because this had evidently not registered with some members. I do not know why he is stepping down. The consequences of the 2016 motion have taken up his time and put him under pressure; but this situation would never have arisen had the LAA Board not allowed its AGM to be used as a vehicle for a campaign of personal retribution by Mr Rutherford and friends. I now know what the Chairman had in mind when he referred to my threatening legal action. A letter in December 2017 from my solicitor put several questions from me to which he had previously not responded, preceded with the rider that I reserved my right to legal action: this is customary. Our present Secretary anticipated even before the 2016 motion was presented that I might reasonably seek a judicial review were it to pass, but it has never been my desire to start litigation against the LAA Board even if I had the financial resources to do such a thing. |
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
(Post 10283663)
There are ones that have been directed at the LAA.
In her post at point one she says "1. I have not threatened the LAA with any kind of litigation, nor has anyone done so on my behalf. The Chairman is incorrect to assert this in his statement. I have already stated my willingness for all correspondence from my solicitor and myself to be published to make that point." yet in Brian Davies statement he says (my bold): "Within weeks of the Motion being passed, the LAA received a letter from Tracey Curtis-Taylor's lawyers, requesting that we reverse the decision of the AGM which, of course, we could not do. This was followed by a further three letters, culminating in a threat of legal action against the LAA and/or its officers " Both can't be true and I know who I would believe. "I now know what the Chairman had in mind when he referred to my threatening legal action. A letter in December 2017 from my solicitor put several questions from me to which he had previously not responded, preceded with the rider that I reserved my right to legal action: this is customary. " The Chairman was obviously referring to , uh hum, your threat of legal action, then. Glad that little 'misunderstanding' has been cleared up now that the facts you hoped wouldn't come out have, uh hum, come out. Just look at how many lies have had to be made to cover up for the refusal to admit early on to that very first BIG lie, and now all the little ones are gradually being proven to be lies too. A house of cards. And really quite funny to watch. As has been said before, when will someone take pity on her and forcibly take away her spade? |
I do recall a wise person of past times being quoted as saying something like: "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.". Let's apply the same courtesy to those who may express how they choose to vote at the AGM.
|
Unfortunately it is not just the two lies that clareprop points out, but she continues to tell bare-faced lie after bare-faced lie. Claiming that the slide refers to Ms Heath's flight, claiming that she was not given the chance to defend herself, claiming that legal action was never threatened, slandering the Winslow FBO with water-in-fuel claims, and so on.
These lies are trivial to disprove, and this combined with the absurd claims of misogyny and refusal to answer the very simple and direct questions posed (while simultaneously complaining that she's not been given an opportunity to respond) shows that she really holds the rest of the GA community in contempt. Tracey approached me asking for information about my own very poor experiences with Sam's company in 2013, to support her own claims. Given her behaviour in recent days there's no way I'd be inclined to assist her now. I have not seen any "campaign of bile" directed in Tracey's direction, but I have seen a great deal of frustration in her complete refusal to engage, and constant digging-of-the-hole. I suspect that this will drive a lot of the voting. |
I've met so many people that have saved and sacrificed to fulfil their dream of flying. TCTs entitlement attitude is not what I associate with the majority of the aviation population and I don't want her to be seen as a representative of it. My postal vote is in and against the reinstatement of her award.
|
I'm not a member of the LAA, so I haven't an axe to grind either way... but reading the threads on here, on the LAA forum and on other places leaves me in no doubt that were I to be an LAA member I'd be voting against the reinstatement of this award.
How she can hide behind her ever-changing story of 'I never said it was solo', 'I was sole manipulator of the controls', 'sole pilot' etc. and blame it on the media, her web designers, etc. etc. etc. getting it wrong is beyond me. How she can spout on the LAA forum about not being given the right of reply, whilst spectacularly failing to answer the questions that are repeatedly put to her is just astonishing. And then to go on about it all being due to misogyny? That's the biggest delusion she has going. It has nothing to do with that, it's got everything to do with the way that she's conducted herself. In my opinion this whole thing smacks of her needing the award to further (or even restore?) her brand so she can strike some TV deals. A feat of navigation? I'm only a 100hr PPL, but I'm pretty sure given the budget, support crew and an experienced pilot sat in the plane with me I could do that trip. Not that gender should come in to it, but if we're looking at a role model for female pilots then you don't have to look too much further than Carol Vorderman, in my opinion. Absolute aviation geek and ambassador for the Air Cadets who actually seems to take that honour seriously and is frequently at various ATC parades, events etc. I think she was looking to do a 'round the world' trip the other year before some personal circumstances got in the way - I hope she resurrects that idea as I'd have enjoyed seeing that. I'll be interested to see which way this vote goes, although I suspect I already know. This will possibly end up having the opposite effect that TCT was looking for... |
If only it wasn't too late for a third motion.
The first two say that "The award should not have been taken away." & "The award should be given back." We could do with a motion of "She didn't deserve it, rescinding it was the right thing to do, and she's never getting it back." |
Originally Posted by Nick T
(Post 10284564)
Not that gender should come in to it, but if we're looking at a role model for female pilots then you don't have to look too much further than Carol Vorderman, in my opinion. Absolute aviation geek and ambassador for the Air Cadets who actually seems to take that honour seriously and is frequently at various ATC parades, events etc. I think she was looking to do a 'round the world' trip the other year before some personal circumstances got in the way - I hope she resurrects that idea as I'd have enjoyed seeing that.
Another female pilot who deserves a mention is Polly Vacher.....take a look on Wikipedia. Never a recipient of the Woodhams Trophy, although in my view she would have been an honourable recipient. Don't know if the LAA honoured her in any other way. |
What about this for another motion ?
I've e-mailed a letter to the LAA suggesting that if time and the Articles of Association permit, they should postpone the coming AGM and substitute an Extraordinary General Meeting the purpose of which is to debate the following motion: " No member shall exercise voting rights at an AGM unless they are currently a member and have been so for five consecutive years". It might be possible to run the EGM followed by the AGM - time permitting. If adopted, this will at least get rid of the 'carpetbaggers and mischief makers intent on disrupting and reshaping the Meeting to their own ends. |
Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen
(Post 10284706)
What about this for another motion ?
I've e-mailed a letter to the LAA suggesting that if time and the Articles of Association permit, they should either postpone the coming AGM and substitute an Extraordinary General Meeting the purpose of which is to debate the following motion: " No member shall exercise voting rights at an AGM unless they are currently a member and have been so for five consecutive years". It might be possible to run the EGM followed by the AGM - time permitting. If adopted, this will at least get rid of the 'carpetbaggers and mischief makers intent on disrupting and reshaping the Meeting to their own ends. To me, if you are a paid up member you have a vote......period. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.