Mike Rotch
What do you believe is 'damaging' and what would an English court see as 'damaging'? Disclosure to those, outside of the MoD, of difficulties with the UK's MPA fleet?
You decide.
I don't think there is any doubt here what a British court would decide was "damaging" and it doesnt have anything to do with national security. Certainly there are technical breaches of the OSA for any RAF personnel involved and these are open and shut under the law I'm afraid.
But since the video capability is well and truly in the public domain through a series of articles by JDW, both before and since the crash, and the Sunday Times since the crash - and more importantly in legal terms the QinetiQ report, which was released under FOI - a British court's only consideration here would be the safety of RAF aircrew put at risk because a known problem with part of the aircraft wasn't fixed, and in that regard there is a clear public interest in disclosure.
Meanwhile, I asked a series of questions in my previous post and we still don't seem to have had any answers. Let's just concentrate on the first two:
Was the Nimrod repair working group [recommended by the QinetiQ team] ever set up?
A positive answer here could not have any possible security implications, indeed would only serve to dampen some of the anger shown on this thread.
Have the APs in the RAMS been updated to the point where they match up to the procedures in use by the NSG?
Again, a positive answer would have no security implications and could only help moderate the anger on this thread. So why hasn't someone just come up to say: "Yep, both were done,"?
I'm afraid in the absence of any such answers people are entitled to draw the obvious conclusions.