This second quote manages to get the situation completely wrong. See my post #46 in this thread. The report was absolutely not erroneous in mentioning ALARP.
I'm not sure you're right - actually for the reasons that you outline in post #46 - i.e. I agree with your point that "tolerably safe" should be defined if it is to be used in any meaningful way. The same of course applies to using the term ALARP.
I think the view on whether my quote is correct depends on what you think the meaning/conclusion of the report should have been. Given this report was post the accident, post the steps taken to remove the ignition source etc., I believe its intention was to report on whether the fuel system within the new context was actually "safe" (or not).
Hence - you either think:
A) the report concludes that it was "not safe enough", in which case this should be reflected in the conclusion. This could make reference to risks remaining are so high that they are e.g. intolerable and require fixing before flight ops continue - this could have resulted in the fleet being grounded. The risk would have to have been quantified to substantiate such a conclusion.
or
B) the report concludes that it was "safe enough", in which case this should also be reflected in the conclusion. This would then require a conclusion that outlines that the remaining risks were defined to be tolerable. The risks would have to have been quantified to substantiate such a conclusion.
I agree the terminology can be confusing - but given that I don't believe that the Nimrod fleet was grounded following this report I can only conclude that the report message was intended to be B). In this context it was therefore misleadingly for the report to mention it was not ALARP - to do so would have ignored the temporal aspect.
Also - it is not necessarily the case that QQ in writing the report have access to the costs involved in mitigating risks - for this reason alone it is unclear on what basis they were making an ALARP assessment - is it quantified in the report? By the same token they don't quantify tolerably safe. I think the intention was to give the B) conclusion - in which case any assertion the it was tolerably safe should have been quantified and hence justified more clearly.
In either case A) or B) the risks are not quantified so it could be argued the report is fundamentally flawed in any case.
On this basis it is also true that you can't actually use the report as the basis to say some minister/RAF officer/civil servant has lied.
Squidlord Risks can be "tolerable" but not ALARP
Willing to be be proved wrong, but I think it is you, not HC, who has this wrong. Give us an example of such a risk? It doesn't make sense.