I don't think grovelling would become you Jacko, but I accept that your mistakenly upset sensibilities were offended in good faith. You can say whatever you like about me as long as you do it with a smiley, and if I do the same I'm sure we'll both make a better contribution to a forum in which, after all is said and done, we are both guests.
True, there is no detailed analysis to explain the stats recorded on airdisasters.com. They are generalised figures to support what was a generalised claim. However, these are the same numbers quoted by the FAA and WAAS, and regardless of whose bedroom they might have been assembled in, they put the conclusions together quite neatly.
As with any other field, the statistics can and will be made to say anything one likes; my impression, built up over the years, was that almost every news report of a plane crash from wherever in the world, included the phrase "the aircraft, an Airbus whatever...", hence my admitted feelings of bias.
However, I wasn't aware that Airbus wings were made in the UK, so perhaps I am a little out of date.
I would hazard a guess that a good many Britons don't wish to think of themselves as "Europeans" any more than a sizeable proportion of New Zealanders don't regard ourselves as either "Pacific Islanders" or "South-East Asians". Maybe they do; in which case, my updated CV would list me as owing both halves of my lineage to two of Europe's most liberal countries.
I have, over the years, worked on and with a great range of different types of machinery from a wide range of source countries. In my experience much which has originated in continental Europe is characterised by design features which are incomprehensibly weird, making for maintenance difficulties and functional inefficiencies. I suspect that at least a part of this impression is due to cultural differences, and perhaps European engineers don't have the same problems with them.
Putting any complex machine together from parts sourced from separate manufacturers is always more difficult than doing the whole job under one roof. Aircraft are no exception. When the disparate manufacturers are also from different countries, certain of those difficulties must, almost by definition, be compounded, and perhaps this has an effect on the ultimate integrity of the machine in question.
I realise that aircraft manufacturers are really airframe builders, and that no-one makes their own engines, electronics, hydraulics, bearings, electrics, tyres, seat covers or window glass, and a host of other components; but the one roof philosophy I maintain has to be better in the long run.
That being the case, perhaps if there is to be a single strategic/tactical military airlift aircraft to do most if not quite all jobs on the list, Britain should just get on and build it. I know for a fact that UK industry is more than capable of the job without outside help.