bjcc
I explained why I thought your reference to the protocol might mislead readers.
"No, it is not in the pilots interest. I have a feeling you are as aware as I am of why is is not, if the report which is quoted as comming from him did in fact do so."
Your feeling is wrong - I don't agree with you.
The difference between us is that your starting-point is that the pilot was (or might have been) guilty and lucky to get away with it, whereas I'm happy to presume he was innocent. He claims (if the report comes from him) that he was fitted up maliciously. Given what people who know him have said about him, I've got no reason to suggest he's a liar.
I don't think there will be an inquiry, and don't think it would achieve anything if there was. If his drink was spiked in readiness for tipping off the police, the chances of proving it are very remote.
"Not a breath test requirement made by a chef."
Make allowance for lay people's descriptions of events. They aren't as familiar with procedures/terminology as you.
If he knows the police turned up as a result of an allegation from the hotel that he'd been seen drinking heavily, and the police breathalise him, then in his mind (and in ordinary language) he was breathalised because of what someone at the hotel said. He knows he had a disagreement with the chef the previous evening, so the chef is obviously his prime suspect. He might even have been told it was the chef who called the police - we don't know.
" .... again, you know as well as I do that does not mean that at the time he was arrested he was below the limit."
Again, there you go.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean he was, but why even mention it except to imply he might have been guilty and lucky to get away with it?
Some comments about the police in these cases are "misguided", but not all are.
eg In the Manchester 'heavy landing' incident I would have had been very interested to know how on earth the police felt justified in breathalising even one of the pilots let alone both.
I'm inclined to think it would be better if the decision whether to breathalise pilots on board public transport aircraft had to be made by a police officer of supervisory rank (sergeants or above), but I doubt if you'd agree with that. It would, I appreciate, mean a supervisory rank attending to deal.
"In the same way, you leap to the defence of pilots, even though you are probably as aware of the score as I am."
I don't. I'm sorry to say so, but you always come across to me as having a chip on your shoulder about pilots and I merely try to encourage you to keep more of an open mind and to persuade you that people suspected of offences may genuinely be totally innocent, not just legally 'not guilty.' I suspect what you and I see as "the score" is very different.
I don't claim to know the detail of rules under which airport security guards work, but I do draw a distinction between someone doing his job, or duty as a responsible citizen, and someone motivated by a personal grudge or prejudice.
(Edit)
This isn't the first time you've suggested you and I 'know the score' and, debating aside, probably agree. I wish you wouldn't. I genuinely rarely agree with your opinions which, in my view, are far too extreme and one-sided.
You claim to be redressing the balance. I can't remember you showing any sign of being able to undertand things from the suspect's side - in this context, the pilots' side.