bast0n:
Chuggaz
OOO ERR!
I was only answering Brians question - not starting WW3!
We are allowed opinions you know.
and nobody is denying you that bast0n, but when you express them you should expect a reaction, good bad or indifferent. Your opinion seemed outrageous to me, in that on essentially circumstantial evidence propped up with some very suspect modelling of some very suspect technical evidence, two senior officers come up with a finding of Gross Negligence against two deceased junior officers. You seem to endorse that by saying they were probably right in their finding as being right in "the balance of probability" if not "beyond all doubt". The first is irrelevant even if it were true. As RAF Officers, of whatever rank, they were required to ensure that their finding was in accordance with RAF regulations. It wasn't. So how can it then stand? If I have misrepresented or misunderstood your opinion then I am sorry. Have I?