I have a very clear recollection of briefing Ainsworth on the supposed "new evidence" put forward by the Mull group. After a short discussion his view was that there was nothing new and nothing would change his mind or the Government on the findings of the BOI.
Seems I wrote a very clear and cogent destructiuon of the Mull group submission that the Minister clearly supported. So did S of S. So did CAS and ACAS.
So will every future S of S and PM.
As you well know, this completely misses the point that no new evidence is required. It is for MoD to demonstrate Gross Negligence beyond any doubt whatsoever, and they can’t.
Your loyalty to the party line is very clear. I’m sure, like others, you thought it a thrill to brief Ainsworth (however intellectually unchallenging). But ask around your longer serving colleagues and they’ll tell you that it is you who’ll be hung out to dry when the truth emerges, as it surely will. Your only protection is to attain 2 Star level before that day; the lowest protected species. Step back and ask yourself why you are protecting people you almost certainly don’t know, and who wouldn’t give you a second glance. If you are a Civil Servant, are you sure you are adhering to the Civil Service Code? Your lack of objectivity and impartiality is startling.
The danger this places aviators in is equally clear; but then politicians don’t worry about that. The failure to adhere to very simple regulations meant an aircraft flew that day which was manifestly and demonstrably not fit for purpose. If the MoD’s policy of running down the airworthiness system had been exposed in the immediate aftermath, I wonder how many lives would have been saved subsequently. I wonder if you truly agree with the Chinook 2 Star of the day and CDP (as was) that, for example, airworthiness is optional, and can be traded out in order to meet time and cost. Or that withholding vital evidence is fine. That completely abrogating your duty of care is just dandy. Perhaps you should reflect on those past Ministers, including a Prime Minister who, when told the truth, immediately and publicly stated they would have overturned the verdict had they been so briefed. It is a shame they didn’t follow this through and seek action against those who lied to them, but that seems to be accepted in Government.
I well recall a vacancy arising in the MoD’s “Mull Team”, those charged with answering PQs and the like. An engineering post. The outgoing man had 30-odd years under his belt and was considered inexperienced, as per the personnel rules in the preceding years. A very fine engineer indeed. The Vacancy Notice didn’t ask for any normal qualifications, experience or proven competence. Only that applicants could write a good letter. That is, be told the party line and put it on paper. No thought required. Certainly no technical knowledge. A step change in recruitment policy, unique to that one post. In effect, a political post. I wonder why? Could it be that the Team knew that what they were told to write was spin and nonsense, that true context was missing and vital evidence was being withheld? Were they uncomfortable at how vulnerable their position was? I believe so.
I do hope Ainsworth made good coffee. One should always know ones limitations.