Squidlord. Well balanced post. Your analysis is very compelling and points out many holes in the some of the conclusions being drawn (or jumped to) here.
I've resisted criticising the QQ report in the way you have, but the weaknesses/inconsistences you point out are spot on. In their defence you could argue they would not have expected particular phrases to have been latched onto in the way they have without consideration of the wider picture you outline.
Mick - does this shed any new perspectives on your April Sunday Times article on how Des misled the house of Nimrod safety and ALARP? Do you perhaps consider it is possible, given Squidlords analysis above, that he didn't?
As usual, you are scaremongering by putting that report on the web. QQ were invited to Kinloss to provide an objective and independant study of the growing fuel leak problems that were giving rise to adverse operational capability. The QQ report did not mention that every one of the unacceptable leaks kept the aircraft on the ground until that leak was cured. This fact was not mentioned simply because it is a fundamental reason for the study: "Some important (role capable) jets are leaking, they cannot fly, they are limiting our capability. QQ do a study that we can act on, so we can get them flying again" Its nothing more than that: a very sensible project sponsored by the IPT.
This is the real irony isn't it. The IPT commissions an independant investigation into fuel leaks well before 230s loss, and you could argue is therefore clearly taking proactive steps to try and find out why this is the case and what it can do to fix it.
In terms of the FOI status of the report - I assume the red text was added after it was released under FOI; this emphasises QQs rights that still therefore apply. So technically you are not allowed to publish on the net without QQs permission.
Nige - I have no connection with Nimrod in any way.