Aero Leather Clothing trial update

[nick123]

I removed my comment.

Not calling you or anyone out really, although it sure sounded like it. I suppose it's a weird place for the audience to be in. I certainly want to defend Aero, as they have been wronged, but anything more, I fear, amounts to an onlooker who has no direct involvement with the affair doing direct damage to another business or possibly further alienating the perpetrator of the crime from these comments, which although isn't exactly an out of place thing to do, but I don't see it being an appropriate way, maybe for myself, not everyone, to react to all of this. Again, a hard place to be in, because I think we all want to see them receive their due justice, but I'm not sure if tearing AL down is the most morally sound or smart thing to do, when most of us are just onlookers. I'd let time run its course, and only hope that everyone can move forward.
To me, it's like drinking champagne at a public hanging where you didn't know the guilty man or the victim, and going home afterwards to drink more champagne, instead of watching it and moving forward.

 

[Monitor]

I apologize if my comment offended anyone, it certainly wasn't directed at no one in particular as I don't even know who originally posted the photo, just seen it quoted in Nick's post and felt it's a bit too much, is all...

 

[IXL]

Am I still in for that job as a jacket designer?

 

[Vespizzare]

Two observations:
1) One thing's for sure, 99.9% of companies would kill to have such brand interest and loyalty.
2) Whoever said "Honesty is the best policy" sure knew what they were talking about. Like Obi-Wan told Luke, "Once you go over the the dark side it will forever control your destiny " (or something like that).

 

[Girl on a Motorcycle]

I see your responsibility as impartial journalism. Which always includes carry on questions and reporting regarding those. The trial narrative thread is not journalism to me. It's narrative, which in itself implies one person's take on what went on. Again, to me a "no comment" answer would help. As would a comment.

I'm sure this is not your intention but your comments sound rather rude. Sloan is an experienced court journalist, and court reports must be factual and impartial He can only report what was said by witnesses, the defence and prosecution in court. As we know, the defence chose not to call Alexander Leather bosses to the witness box.
Sloan cannot go and ask Alexander Leather for comment as part of his court reporting - indeed, such "detective work" is strongly discouraged by UK courts
What you are calling for is an investigative report into Alexander Leather. That is not the purpose of the Aero court thread, and you are trying to take this forum into murky water

 

[tonypaj]

I'm sure this is not your intention but your comments sound rather rude. Sloan is an experienced court journalist, and court reports must be factual and impartial He can only report what was said by witnesses, the defence and prosecution in court. As we know, the defence chose not to call Alexander Leather bosses to the witness box.
Sloan cannot go and ask Alexander Leather for comment as part of his court reporting - indeed, such "detective work" is strongly discouraged by UK courts
What you are calling for is an investigative report into Alexander Leather. That is not the purpose of the Aero court thread, and you are trying to take this forum into murky water

Sorry, I disagree. This thread is already in very murky waters, if my contribution brings it into daylight, so be it. I also disagree about the role of a journalist. I'd like to leave it at that.

 

[Fanch]

No comment would be just normal journalism, a carry on question, not answered. It would help (me at least) to clarify the positions. Again, I have no affiliation with any of the parties. I have dealt with all of them. My interest is impartial reporting, which only Sloan seems to able to provide. No comment part is just that, one party does not wish to comment upon request. Then I would know a bit more.

Like Girl on a Motorcycle, I too am somewhat uncomfortable with with what tonypaj just said and appears to be attempting to facilitate. IMO Sloan's Trial Narrative is, in fact, journalism and was done in a very straightforward manner. The commententary has come from this thread, and our individual "takes" on the situation. Some of us will simply have to agree to disagree. [huh]

 

[Bunyip]

I would imagine if Sloan had done an opinion peice or the like he would be open to litigation, or would at least lose credibility. From reading the narrative it would seem to me at least, that it is a simple factual narrative. I can't see his personal opinion or any bias in it. Just facts. It would be too risky, unfair and unprofessional of Sloan to add any of his personal opinions. No comments regarding body language Or demeanour of the accused, or any backyard super sleuth deductions. Just facts. I've very much appreciated the Trial Narrative, it's been a very long time coming. The fact is, WL was found guilty by a court of law. There seems to be a hell of a lot more to this story with corporate espionage and or theft of intellectual property. I think by doing a simple, factual narrative the parties in question got off very lightly indeed.

 

[Superfluous]

I suppose it's a weird place for the audience to be in. I certainly want to defend Aero, as they have been wronged, but anything more, I fear, amounts to an onlooker who has no direct involvement with the affair doing direct damage to another business or possibly further alienating the perpetrator of the crime from these comments, which although isn't exactly an out of place thing to do, but I don't see it being an appropriate way, maybe for myself, not everyone, to react to all of this. Again, a hard place to be in, because I think we all want to see them receive their due justice, but I'm not sure if tearing AL down is the most morally sound or smart thing to do, when most of us are just onlookers. I'd let time run its course, and only hope that everyone can move forward.

Ironically, had AL simply remained silent, it might have avoided the majority of the negative attention and commentary. However, AL instead disseminated a questionable statement (euphemism intended) and actively attempted to erase its prior statements. In so doing, AL thrust itself into the spotlight and opened itself up to scrutiny. This is the classic case of Martha Stewart/Barry Bonds . . . Stewart and Bonds were not convicted of the wrongs that precipitated the investigations into their conduct . . . rather, they were convicted of their subsequent cover-up and lies.

Yes, most of us are merely spectators, with no financial interest in the outcome. On the other hand, when a vendor soliciting our business engages in suspicious and/or outright wrongful conduct, and thereafter lies to us about it (and attempts to cover up its wrongdoing), we are indirect victims of the conduct. The vendor is attempting deceive and/or manipulate us, among others. Therefore, in my humble opinion, as the target consumers, we have every right, and a natural inclination, to be interested in the matter, and to express our thoughts and opinions regarding the subject vendor and its conduct. To be clear, I am not suggesting that AL is such a vendor.

 

[Bunyip]

As usual, very well said.

 

[pak]

Well stated with all the necessary legal qualifications. Even though the entirety of these 119 pages of this thread is focused on AL, the example given does not necessarily apply to AL. When does the verdict come down and will this terminate the production of AL?

 

[Bunyip]

Well stated with all the necessary legal qualifications. Even though the entirety of these 119 pages of this thread is focused on AL, the example given does not necessarily apply to AL. When does the verdict come down and will this terminate the production of AL?

Sentancing today UK time...I don't think AL will stop trading. The action is against WL not AL. Time will tell, will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Sloan1874]

As mentioned earlier, sentencing is 9.30am (BST) - it's 12.20am just now.

 

[Big J]

how would "no comment" be helpful?
In any case, alexander leather have already put out that statement where they say that they want their jackets to speak for them (ie thick-skinned - and nowadays - a hard sell)

lolz!

 

[Big J]

I would imagine if Sloan had done an opinion peice or the like he would be open to litigation, or would at least lose credibility. From reading the narrative it would seem to me at least, that it is a simple factual narrative. I can't see his personal opinion or any bias in it. Just facts. It would be too risky, unfair and unprofessional of Sloan to add any of his personal opinions. No comments regarding body language Or demeanour of the accused, or any backyard super sleuth deductions. Just facts. I've very much appreciated the Trial Narrative, it's been a very long time coming. The fact is, WL was found guilty by a court of law. There seems to be a hell of a lot more to this story with corporate espionage and or theft of intellectual property. I think by doing a simple, factual narrative the parties in question got off very lightly indeed.

+1

 

[Big J]

Ironically, had AL simply remained silent, it might have avoided the majority of the negative attention and commentary. However, AL instead disseminated a questionable statement (euphemism intended) and actively attempted to erase its prior statements. In so doing, AL thrust itself into the spotlight and opened itself up to scrutiny. This is the classic case of Martha Stewart/Barry Bonds . . . Stewart and Bonds were not convicted of the wrongs that precipitated the investigations into their conduct . . . rather, they were convicted of their subsequent cover-up and lies.

Yes, most of us are merely spectators, with no financial interest in the outcome. On the other hand, when a vendor soliciting our business engages in suspicious and/or outright wrongful conduct, and thereafter lies to us about it (and attempts to cover up its wrongdoing), we are indirect victims of the conduct. The vendor is attempting deceive and/or manipulate us, among others. Therefore, in my humble opinion, as the target consumers, we have every right, and a natural inclination, to be interested in the matter, and to express our thoughts and opinions regarding the subject vendor and its conduct. To be clear, I am not suggesting that AL is such a vendor.

+100

 

[Big J]

Like Superfluous said, we're not 'bystanders', we are target market for AL.
Would you buy products from a company that you knew sought to conceal truths?
Also, some members of the Lounge were victims of the Storse fraud, not 'bystanders'.
Personally, I have a long term relationship as a customer with Aero. As a customer, I am highly satisfied. Therefore, as a highly satisfied customer, why shouldn't I also act to protect them if possible?
Alexander Leathers claimed that Aero had been mailing customers to make claims against them, yet I am to meet even one person who has received a copy of this e-mail, which induces me to believe that no such e-mail was ever sent. This would mean that AL is still not being truthful with its target market.
As a potential customer, that doesn't win me over.

 

[Big J]

I think the pinata has been well beaten. I'm kind of cringing at how far this is going. I made a remark earlier about the AL designs so I'm guilty there, but at this point, let the sentencing speak for itself. The mug shot thing is just stooping pretty low IMO. You guys are better than this.

I'm not.

 

[nick123]

I'm not.

Fair enough. I apologize for generalizing you (and everyone else I generalized)

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not.

:eusa_clap