Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[John Blakeley]

Sarcastic - Moi?

JP,

Sarcasm - mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult.

Obfuscate - To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand. To render indistinct or dim; darken. "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth" (Robert Conquest).

Disingenuous - Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating, pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated.


I am sorry that at post 7517 you thought I was being sarcastic – I thought that I was merely pointing out facts that you and other supporters of the guilt based on speculation verdict like Caz continue to ignore since they are not saying what you want them to say. The problem is, as I see it, now in three parts which are highly inter-related, but which it is possible to consider separately.

Firstly what caused the accident - the answer to which is "we will never know", but people like you are convinced that you do know and are prepared to pronounce guilt based purely on speculation - I cannot see any way to persuade you otherwise and, as you say, you are entitled to your opinion.

Secondly there is the legal issue on which neither the Reviewing Officers nor people like you and me are qualified to comment. Here the HofL, which included a Law Lord, has said that at the time they reached this verdict the ROs did not reach a legally sustainable decision based on the facts of the case. This was the summary in my last post that neither you nor others like Caz have ever offered any answer to – so it is, I suggest, reasonable to assume that you do not have one. I am now speculating, but it is difficult to see how Lord Philip will find any difference of opinion on the legal aspects from the HofL unless someone comes forward with factual evidence that backs the "Gross Negligence" verdict - I think this is unlikely, but it would be wrong of me to pre-judge this. (I am, incidentally, personally convinced that those who sought the DLS advice could not have give them the full facts, since DLS are usually spot on with these issues, and I would not have expected them to offer different advice to the conclusions of the HofL Inquiry - MOD did not give them the full facts before the FAI either, and we have written proof of this. I suppose in mitigation one might argue that DLS would never have had the full facts because the Board hadn’t investigated them)

Thirdly, and ironically, of course there is the can of worms on the airworthiness and CAR/RTS issues that the Board's flawed investigation, and even more flawed analysis, together with this unjust verdict by the ROs have caused to be exposed. A just verdict would probably have left these issues buried. Whether these flaws were an indirect or even direct cause of the accident I do not know – unlike others I am not making any claims to know the cause or pronounce on guilt. I also do not know whether Lord Philip will look at this area, but the scandal here is at least as big as Haddon-Cave exposed on the Nimrod accident, and in some ways it is worse since, in my view, the failure to expose these issues at that time meant that the RAF was allowed to continue with its inadequate airworthiness and "fitness for purpose" policies and compromise its duty of care whilst yet more lives were lost to “airworthiness” related accidents over another 14 years.

I know that for the families clearing their sons’ names is the number one priority. I understand this, and I would not wish to see or do anything that prejudiced such an outcome – for that, and not speculation on the cause of the accident, is the prime reason for this thread, and, I assume, Lord Philip’s Review. However, I would also like to see Lord Philip pronounce on point 3 since I believe there are indeed some negligent and guilty parties in this area.

JB