contract captains are being let off from mistakes (incidants) and refusal to do certain duties, something that at Midland and now as permenant baby crew we would be fired for.
What would you suggest the alternative is to being 'let off' after an 'incidant' [sic]? The sack? The bmi group has an exceptionally progressive attitude to flight safety, a great deal having evolved post-Kegworth, and punishment for genuine errors has never been a feature of it, except where gross neglience or recklessness has been involved.
Is it the fact that contract Captains are involved that upsets you so much? I doubt you are in full possession of the facts of any 'incidant' you refer to here.
On a serious note, if you have genuine concerns about flaws in the safety culture or the airline I take it you have already written to inform the CAA, or at the very least CHIRP about these 'incidants', rather than just making vague anonymous comments on the internet. What was their response?
As for permanent baby (or Midland) being 'fired' for refusing duties - plenty have refused duties in the past, with varying degrees of justification, and plenty have (rightly) had office-based chats about same; but to my knowledge the only chap ever fired for said offence subsequently won a substantial victory in the courts. I do not consider the firing of crews for refusing duties a particularly representative characteristic of any section of the bmi group.
If you have industrial issues with the company, fair enough. But to cast aspersions on the professionalism of your colleagues and misrepresent the company culture is quite disingenuous.