Timelord - I'm afraid I'm not going to comment on your comparison with the Hillsborough match commander, because I believe his case is
sub judice. It is true, however, that he also is charged with gross negligence manslaughter.
Falcon900 - probably the best account of the twelve errors appears in this report by Michael Drummond in the
Shoreham Herald. And you're right - the errors did not figure in this detail in the AAIB report. Michael Drummond's report is another example, if one were needed, of the value of a local paper being able to have a good court reporter attend the majority of a trial.
https://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/new...says-1-8824257
Another well-balanced report - although not detailing all twelve errors - was by Adam Lusher in the
Independent. Sad to say, that's no longer a printed paper, but it does have a good website.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8810671.html
These reports stand in some contrast to much of the rest of the printed press, whose representatives were often noticeable by their absence from court. Several of them seemed to have taken their stories from the 53-page summary of the prosecution case handed out at the start of the trial; they seemed unaware of the detail of the strong - and eventually successful - case mounted by the defence. I except from that criticism the excellent work of PA, the Press Association, who were present throughout. And also, most of the broadcasters took care to be present for much of the time.
It all goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers!
airsound