I didnt accuse you of lying ORAC. You said in your PM that the article would upset the relatives and I pointed out in response that if you really believed that was a reason for not writing the article you wouldn’t have posted it on this thread.
I have dealt with the argument on the relatives in my previous post. I'm not going over it again. You now claim I am blaming the aircrew. It is difficult to see how that could be the case given the fact that the article says that aircrew are resigning as a result of their concerns. You also claim that the article makes a number of other implications.
The article doesn’t imply anything it simply states a number of very worrying facts, which include the facts that the preliminary BOI report said there was a leak in the fuel pipe during or immediately after AAR; that the MoD has confirmed that there was a second such incident on 8 November and that AAR has been suspended as a result.
Like your original post, your PM was in fact largely taken up with the completely baseless suggestion that I was somehow misrepresenting the resignations which were at any event an irrelevance.
My response to that was as follows:
"The fact that a number of aircrew have resigned over the issue - and it is a fact - shows how importantly it is taken as an issue among the aircrew.
"MoD was asked about the second leak, the suspension of AAR and the resignations by email. My only reference to the resignations in my email soliciting a comment from the MoD was "I also understand that a number of aircrew at Kinloss have put in their resignations since the crash."
"The response to that should have been one of the following: a) there have been no resignations since the crash; b) there have been resignations since the crash but they had nothing to do with the crash; or even c) there have been resignations since the crash but we are unable for legal reasons to say why the personnel concerned have resigned.
"It was none of the above. The response was: "I cannot stand up your assertion that resignations have gone up. There has been no marked increase in the number of aircrew applying to leave the RAF in the wake of the Nimrod crash."
"This is typical MoD. I had in fact made no such assertion and the response was standard MoD evasion"