I find it fascinating (and somewhat unnerving) that both Dalton and Graydon appear from their letters to the Times and Telegraph respectively to have been stirred to write by the charge of 'bureaucratic stubbornness' (Times) / 'institutional resistance' (Telegraph); essentially the same charge.
As eloquently pointed out by Ralph Kohn: Dalton proceeds to draw his argumental revolver but then points it directly at his own left foot before pulling the trigger by writing: "The computer software issues raised in the documents obtained by the BBC [identified as "positively dangerous" in said documents] were well known at the time and had been factored into the operating instructions [already known to be woefully inadequate and even "incomprehensible to operating aircrew" by previous enquiries]."
Graydon draws his argumental revolver and points it directly as his right foot before pulling the trigger by writing: "As for the so-called new evidence reported by the BBC, in comprehensive responses to reports and submissions by a House of Lords committee, the House of Commons Defence Committee and Mull of Kintyre campaigners, the RAF - through the MOD - has explained precisely why the finding of gross negligence was unavoidable." Utterly missing the point that neither the HoL Inquiry, HoC DC, MoK Gp (nor, indeed, the FAI, HoC PAC or the serving SofS at the time, Malcolm Rifkind) have accepted those submissions, however 'comprehensive' or precise'.
Neither letter adds anything new or advances the MoD case one iota. From the MoD's point of view, both letters grievously undermine the MoD case. Both appear moved to write by the charge of bureaucratic stubbornness (however phrased). Both bureaucratically bleat that no 'new' evidence has been presented in a case where there was never enough evidence to support a finding of Gross Negligence in the first place.
One wonders why Day and Wratten haven't entered the fray this time. Day's reliance on stating opinion and flawed Boeing computer models as 'fact' was holed below the waterline by the HoL Cttee, so he is a busted flush. Perhaps Wratten is waiting for the Sunday papers (as is his wont).
The 'new boys' enter the public fray to refute the charge of bureaucratic stubbornness only to display their bureaucratic stubbornness to all and sundry. I used to bore myself by quoting Hamlet 3:2 on PPRuNe in relation to another long fight for right that was eventually won. So will this one because these ladies doth protest too much, methinks. I scent blood.