Baston
I have stated all along that the verdict of gross negligence does not hold up. I also am of the opinion, if you bother to read my previous posts, that on the evidence that I have seen the correct verdict would have been "pilot error".
Indeed, this has been your consistent line; a consistency which I respect.
However, given the irrefutable evidence I outline above, which is simply lifted from MoD's own papers, would you not agree that 'Organisational Fault' (O) and 'Unsatisfactory Equipment' (UE) should have been included in any verdict?
Of course that would have meant the BoI, Wratten and Day criticising Spiers, Norriss and Bagnall, much to the dismay of Graydon. Again, the only person to emerge with credit is Captain Brougham, RN who pleaded with the above to meet their Duty of Care obligation by simply following the regulations. (Sometimes the Senior Service are worth listening to, something you will appreciate!). They refused. I will gladly amend that statement if MoD ever produce evidence that, for example, Spiers or his staffs (e.g. Norriss) ever met their obligation to advise Bagnall of Boscombe's concerns BEFORE he signed the RTS, chief among them the assertion of "positively dangerous" and "don't release to Service". Given Spiers signed the CAR, I think this highly unlikely however it
is likely he acted under pressure from the RAF.