To be fair it didnt provoke any headlines, it was a brief line in a piece that was headlined Browne Misled MPs on Nimrod and concentrated on his apparently bogus claim that QQ had said the aircraft's fuel system was safe when the risk was in fact tolerable but not ALARP, which as we have rehearsed endlessly here does not amount to safe. The discussion over the two one-line points which I included and you responded to is interesting but I hope irrelevant to current safety because both relate to AAR.
The article was on Page 2 of the Sunday Times which you could argue is pretty high profile, hence "headline" news. It certainly caught my attention. I think you are making a plea here not to dismiss your article just because two one-line points have been showed to not create a correct impression with respect to Nimrod safety.
There were 30 recommendations that had to be carried out for the risk to the aircraft to be ALARP and only five relate to AAR. The key question I asked the MoD and they were not able to answer was: "Have they been carried out and if so had they been carried out when Browne stood up and cited the QQ report as showing the fuel system was safe?" If people want I can post all 30 recommendations here and let you take the QinetiQ experts apart piece by piece but the MoD and the RAF can't on the one hand rest on the report for showing the system is safe and at the same time say the people writing the report didn't know what they were talking about.
There is therefore some irony surely that in the same post you declare that people can't say on the one hand this is right, and then say this is wrong - its either all correct, or all wrong. Can we therefore conclude that the thrust of your article is either all correct or all wrong? With this logic do the two one-liners that are misleading suggest we should disregard your entire article?
A interesting example of why it is easy to get things wrong is your quotation of QinetiQs comment:
Further consideration should be given to the AAR procedures to ensure that tank 5 does not suffer from over-pressurisation, including reinstatement of the tank 5 over pressurisation warning
Now, it seems apparent that you concluded in the absence of other information that this means "no over pressurisation warning" = "not safe". When you read it again, it is also clear that not only is this NOT what it actually says, but this does not actually contradict what edset has now mentioned either - QinetiQ only say further consideration should be given to the issue - not "thou shall reinstate" - there is the option that they reconsider it and dismiss it. Hence neither Edset nor QinetiQ are incorrect, it is only your interpretation (or spin) on what one of them has stated. In this respect no-one needs to "take apart" the 30 recommendations to undermine your conclusions. I think this is a good example of why, in my opinion, your article, based as it is on incomplete information, is not really helpful and just creates angst and potential misunderstandings.