ATG:
there is a real danger in applying standards so strictly that the UK's Mil Aircraft won't be able to take off.
Quite right, Alfred (if I may be so presumptuous), the unairworthy ones most certainly won't, at least I hope so, don't you? The civilians seem to keep their aircraft airworthy and therefore airborne, so why shouldn't the military?
As to the notion of "unlimited liability", a noble sentiment indeed, but dying a needless death on a Scottish hillside makes it rather less so don't you think?
The point of Military Flight Safety is to preserve both aircrew and aircraft from avoidable accidents so that they remain available for unavoidable war. Nobly expending either in unnecessary and avoidable accidents is wasteful and helps no-one, other than our potential enemies. This isn't about wrapping up the little darlings in fluffy cotton wool, but of giving them aircraft that can be seen by others (unless at war), recognised by allies (when at war), able to withstand an AK47 round entering a fuel tank without exploding, able to conduct airborne refuelling without exploding, able to keep flying without a computer arbitrarily winding up the power, winding down the power, or cutting the power altogether, etc, etc. Seems like a good idea to me, though obviously not to the multi starred overlords who waved through such "unlimited liabilities". I guess they thought the same as you, eh?