Mr Purdey and friends
One of the problems in this unfortunate matter is that you use what I would refer to as operating mistakes or possible operating mistakes as being negligence when they are not that in law.
The making of a mistake(s) only become negligence in law if a number of demanding legal tests are met. One of these is beyond all doubt and another, and critical one is that the maker of the mistake should have forseen the consequences of his action and still continued with that course(s) of action. The forseeability test is a critical and demading one based on facts not hypotheses or assumptions, in proving negligence and is mentioned in the House of Lords Select Committee Conclusions.
One of the problems in this discussion is the massive difference in everyday understanding of negligence and the legal definition. As the reputation of the two pilots has been tarnished by the inferences drawn on assumptions and hunches rather than fact it is quickly appreciated why many of us feel that the reputations of the two pilots be restored. We simply do not know for certain what happened. There might well have been human error, there might well have been mechanical or other failure. We do not know and will never know. All the evidence is full of suggestion but precious little fact.
If the approach of the Air Marshall’s and Blair is correct it would lead to legal chaos. Someone would just have to look at the outcome of an event and because there was no factual or logical explanation conclude that there must have been negligence. The law is much more sensitive and equitable. It requires factual evidence of negligence and stringent tests such as forseeability and beyond all doubt before we tarnish reputations, especially reputations of those who are unable speak for and defend themselves.
It is sad to see the Prime Minister perpetuate a clear miscarriage of justice when he had the opportunity to do what is right and just.
Mr Purdey. You will never prove legal negligence. You are entitled with your experience and unquestioned integrity to believe that mistake(s) were made. There might have been mistakes made. But that does not go anywhere near proving the two pilots were legally negligent for the reasons put forward in the House of Lords Select Committee Conclusions.