I tend to agree with
superdimona. I don't think it's 'part of the plot'
Bloggs, just a potential side-effect.
Someone a bit back hit the nail on the head. If standard E isn't regarded as good enough to mitigate the risk, which was presumably identified in the risk management study (not that I've seen it), then why are we going for non-compliant E+ when compliant C or D is available at no (or vanishingly small
) extra cost?
Why do we have to unnecessarily complicate things when comparatively simple solutions are available?
