Rants and Raves
AC,
Whilst I would agree with your last paragraph - do any of us trust any politician's promises these days, I am afraid that your other comments are way "off beam". The arguments, not "rants and raves" have been put forward at all levels and in the case of the Sherriff's FAI, the HCDC, an independent RAeS Pilot's Inquiry, the HofL etc MoD's response has either not been accepted by very emminent authorities or in some cases has not been provided. The latest "rejected" submission to MoD on behalf of the Mull Group was led by a very respected QC - hardly a "rant and rave"!
Having written an analysis of the Airworthiness and Engineering aspects of the BoI for the Tapper family some 6 years ago now, and which was a very long way from being a "rant and rave", I have offered to meet with the MoD to discuss the arguments, but their only response so far has been to say "there is no new evidence" - not true any more given the documentation etc that we now have from places like Boscombe Down which was not made available to the BoI - and even more importantly taking no account of the failure of the BoI to follow up the evidence it did have available - the original basis of my arguments. Following a personal approach from him which questioned my position I also wrote to the Senior Reviewing Officer with a proposal to have a meeting to discuss my report and my differing views - needless to say my "offer" has not been taken up.
At the end of the day, as most "non ranting and raving" contributors keep pointing out, this thread is not about the "impossible" task of finding the cause of the accident - it is about justice, and hence the injustice of a finding of "Gross Negligence" based on an indequate, and in my view illogical, BoI and, even worse, unsubstantiated speculation. If this was anything but a MoD BoI that the system originally never intended to have see "the light of day" the Courts would, I suggest, long ago have thrown out this finding. Indeed, given that one member of the HofL Select Committee was an Appeal Court judge, one could argue that they have. And then you have to wonder why MoD somehow sees itself as outside the process of ensuring that justice prevails - something which with some 31 years of RAF Service, I would have hoped might be at the very core of their ethos.
JB
Last edited by John Blakeley; 19th Oct 2009 at 13:35.