I can see where you're coming from JFZ90 BUT the nub of the report concerned the 30 issues that had to be sorted to make it ALARP. QQ was originally saying it was "tolerable but not ALARP", so the 30 problems had to be eradicated to make it ALARP, (although I accept that there were a few that were no longer relevant because of the ban on air-to-air refuelling.)
QQ was then persuaded to make it read 'tolerably safe', one suspects because it as easier to play down the importance of a critical report. So on that basis I stick by that quote from my blog.
I'm not playing down QQ's blame here, or imagining some conspiracy theory in which H-C somehow used them as a patsy for the IPTL - which could scarcely be the case! - only saying that the situation was more nuanced than it appears in the black and white of H-C's report, and that the QQ review, since it will focus on the QQ side of things, and question the person responsible for agreeing the change in a more protected atmosphere, is therefore likely to elicit greater detail, and is bound to get to the bottom of what actually happened there.
On the headline, the quotes around the misled means it is someone alleging it, not absoluted hammered down fact. I absolutely concede it is itself misleading but I don't make the rules on headlines - or even write the headlines - and with all its flaws, that usage is an industry standard. I suspect it is pretty much the best that can be done with the space the headline writers get.
I certainly would not accuse a minister of lying over something like this because he just gets the advice from civil servants and service officers and while he may well question it, will be easily reassured that it is correct, whatever the facts. This is actually, incidentally given the thread we are on, even more of the case with ministers' responses on the Sea King issue.
Not that I have much sympathy with the ministers here. It has to be said that they created the situation in which bad news - often arising from their own decisions on budgets - was unwelcome however unavoidable and therefore have some responsibility for the way in which the civil servants and service officers advising them seem increasingly to act more like courtiers reassuring an emperor than professionals making professional decisions and telling the minister the way it is.