John Purdey and Dalek
Regarding “whistle blowing” and “possibly contributing”.
I have always wondered about this so-called “whistle blowers” Act. Is it whistle blowing to share or publish information, a policy decision, ruling or practice that is available under Freedom of Information, or can be gleaned from various F of I disclosures? I understand a national daily even has a hotline for readers to reveal information like this. I have read some astonishing examples of candour released in this way.
If someone knew of an act or common practice via F of I which “possibly contributed” to the accident but could not be proven to have caused it, then revealing that may not whistle blowing. Does anyone know more about this?
Tandemrotor makes a valid point. The principle of being judge and jury in your own case defies natural justice. But independent inquiries also took place and recommended no blame be attached to the pilots. Did both have exactly the same information and evidence available to them? If not, the difference presumably contains the explanation for the difference of opinion. And if not, why not? A combination of events which would encourage conspiracy theories.