Chug,
Have a look at page 2-22 through to Page 2-24. BAe was involved in the hazard analysis. It wasn't a case of self-policing, as you seem to suggest. It would be very difficult to challenge your boss about a risk when the design authority backs him up with an "improbable" assessment.
However, I am very disappointed that someone on the Nimrod IPT didn't challenge the erroneous stated provision, by a hazard analyst, of a fire detection system in Zone 614 (the accepted seat of the fire) and the assumption that the crossfeed pipe is only used to start engines.
This isn't systemic failure or cost cutting.
At least 2 people, involved with hazard analysis, were not doing their jobs properly.
Hence the Review.