PD
You see the sad fact is that you have been wearing blinkers and have refused - at least publicly - to recognise that the HoL findings were conducted by emminent legal's. They FOUND doubt without too much effort. Why didn't the MoD? Well, to be more correct they couldn't find cause. If that ain't doubt I don't know what is.
[quote]One should realise that, if the MOD is forced to overturn its verdict on this case, that no armed forces aircrew is ever going to be able to be labled 'negligent' ever again in relation to any future aviation accident. <hr></blockquote>
That's very good isn't it? It means that no other unfair decision can be made by two Air Marshals who refused to accept that doubt existed. They, and they alone, were judge, jury and executioner. Something they were not suited for and in the end have found to be seriously lacking.
Personally, I think that negligence is a very serious charge and it HAS to be very carefully considered. Indeed, where negligence is a possible option, I am of the view that a courts martial, or a BoI, must be conducted by a dominance of the judiciary, and, as in this sad case, NEVER NEVER by two senior officers who have no idea of assessing what is blatantly obvious and is beating them around the head. Their pig-headedness in this will live in the RAF for many many years. I am sure that it will be a subject that is raised at Staff College in years to come as a marker for future senior air officers.
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: InFinRetirement ]</p>