Tandemrotor,
"Simply an allegation which must be judged on the standard of proof required"
Well, we have seen the statement from PKPF68-77 (a forecaster with vast experience of the nuances of weather conditions in that part of the UK) having reviewed the TAF's for that evening:--- "I certainly would not have wanted to go VFR with anyone past the Mull that evening."
We have had people on this thread who appeared to be claiming that they were the "other crew" and were concerned about the risk of a FADEC runaway in the forecast conditions and that Tapper and Cook insisted that they would do the task because "they were the SF crew" - even though they had a distinct problem with crew duty limitations in view of their extended operations during the day and the late arrival of the passengers for the fatal flight.
The standard of proof in a UK Court is "beyond all reasonable doubt" decided by a Jury of "12 good men". At least, that is what it used to be - with a codicile that they had to be Ratepayers (ie they were property owners) which gave them a stake in the Country and could be depended on to deliver a conformable verdict. The verdict had to be unanimous.
The required standard of proof has remained although a majority verdict of 10:2 is now acceptable and women are also liable for jury service - so 83.33%certain is now "beyond all reasonable doubt".
The required standard of proof regarding negligence amongst deceased Aircrew is "Absolutely no doubt whatsoever" which is more akin to the 19th C
unanimous verdict than the 21st Century version.
The one thing they all have in common is that it is not you, me or the man in the village Pub who has to make that decision on the evidence available unless and until placed in a such position by Act of Parliament.
The decisions made under The Air Force Act are made by those persons placed in authority by virtue of their Rank and experience as laid down by that Act of Parliament.