Winco,
The reason why the only absolutely safe aircraft are the ones that don't fly is because that transport, aviation, and military aviation are, in that increasing order, risky activities. The risks can never be removed completely - risk of systems failure, structural failure, human error (be it aircrew, air traffic or maintenance) - but can only be reduced ALARP. Whether through reducing risks by designing out hazards, redundancy, or high integrity systems for single points of failure, the possibility will always exist that an accident will occur. If you want to try and contract someone to build you an aircraft that is perfectly safe, good luck - it will cost a mint (that is if anyone is prepared to accept the commercial risk of doing so).
I don't know if the risks are intolerable or tolerable - I don't have access to the safety case or the evidence supporting it. But yes, part of an ALARP consideration is a cost benefit analysis to establish that "simply spending money" is "reasonably practical". Unfortunately, those making such decisions may not be best equipped or informed to do so and while a crown censure may make people "uncomfortable", I think that only a court of law would actually hold people to account.
sw