I think the criticism being levelled at the safety case cabal (it isn't meant to be derogatory) is only partially justified, and inclined to overlook the real culprits.
I think (think, I doubt anybody 'knows' for sure) that a couple of years ago Nimrod MR2 probably became as safe as any aircraft is likely to be in anyone's armoury - but due to a failure to enforce and maintain the processes (and documentation) required by our own safety rules it was difficult to prove it was now safe. At that point the complaints continued to be made, and I would personally agree that at that point it became counter productive... it is debatable, imo, whether the 'noise' from that point on really did scupper the MRA4's chances, or whether the damage was already done by the RAF, MoD and BAE.
Tucumseh particularly, in my view, has pointed out that the RAF didn't follow it's own procedures, and I'd suggest that if the RAF HAD done so, and BAE hadn't done there creative fudging along the way (let's face it, they really SHOULD have damn well known the effects of bodging the AAR into the kite 30 years ago) then perhaps MR2 would never have ended up where it did.
Yes, the complainers might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but the other 5 million straws were already in place beforehand. I prefer to blame MoD, BAe, and those who allowed the safety of the MR2 to degenerate to such a level, making it a far from attractive option for a politician who probably thinks all aircraft have drinks trolleys.
Tuc etc could have banged on less about it, it bored me *****g rigid long ago and at least the loss of MRA4 will hopefully have the positive effect of stopping the endless churning of the same story, but I don't think you can blame Tuc, Chug, DV etc for the fact that the aircraft's reputation was bad...if it had been up to scratch there'd have been nothing to bang on about, so blame those who are far more guilty perhaps?
Dave