Pillorying their Lordships over airworthiness is another matter altogether
Two issues here.
1. Airworthiness is not "another matter". It is fundamental. It is what won the day (rather easily) on both C130 and Nimrod. The difference here is that MoD have admitted the failures already on Chinook, but have not yet been challenged on the subject in a court. They denied them on C130 and Nimrod, until such a challenge was made (even then, notoriously, claiming airworthiness regulations were of no consequence).
2. Not quite sure who "Their Lordships" are, but it would indeed be unfair to point a finger at anyone if they had nothing to do with (a) ignoring Boscombe and fabricating the CA Release (b) the mandated two-way correspondence between CA and ACAS prior to CAR being signed and (c) signing the Release to Service knowing of Boscombe's concerns. To this end, we still await the evidence of Spiers, Norriss and Bagnall. (That Wratten and Day knew of the concerns is already known but, to be fair, neither was in post throughout the above process. In this context they are largely irrelevant anyway).