Mr Purdey - you say "Please now be kind enough to answer or accept the eight facts I offered in an earlier contribution: I maintain that those facts do indeed stand without any doubt whatsoever"
Your "facts" have already been examined by Brian Dixon, and I (along with other) have previously made the same points to you. Each time you have failed to respond. Let's go through your list of "facts" from your posting of 3rd Nov one more time, remembering that you are trying to PROVE negligence with no doubt:
1. As it approached waypoint change, a/c was under control (no-one has challenged this)
This is an ASSUMPTION. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
2. It was at low level (Yachtsman)
This is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence. Incidentally, I note that you accept the yachtsman's testimony of the height of the aircraft (which suits your case) but not the speed (which does not).
3. Speed was around 150 kts ( Aldergrove radar fix and time of impact data)
This is an ASSUMPTION based on instantaneous fixes which do not indicate the speed at any other point. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence.
4. Weather at Mull was IMC (lighthouse keeper said 15-20 yds, ten local witnesses said weather generally foggy and very bad)
This is an ASSUMPTION based on the weather on the Mull and not where the aircraft was. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
5. A/c was more than 500 yds right of intended track (positions of lighthouse and impact point) .
This assumes that the crew deliberately went off track. Thus it is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
6. Ht of lighthouse about 320 ft.
This is a fact. It is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
7. Ht of terrain at impact 810 ft.
This is a fact. It is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
8. Thus, in v poor vis the crew were suddenly confronted by terrain more than 500 ft higher than anticipated.
This is an ASSUMPTION. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
9. They raised the nose 30 deg and started turn port (AIB), but far too late.
This is an ASSUMPTION - the AAIB report indicates what happened, not how. You assume that "they" were in control. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
Your definition of negligence (from an earlier post) is this: "The omission to do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable would person do; or the doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently"
This seems like a reasonable definition (and not disimilar to the Select Committee definition). However, I say again - where are your FACTS (not the assumptions beloved of the two Air Marshals) which prove this?
You also say "I'm sure the yachtsman did his best, but he certainly contradicted himself on several points." If Mr Holbrook's request that the RAF provide photos of a Chinook from different heights to allow him to indicate what he saw had been met at the time perhaps he would have been able to more clear. The fact is that the last man to see the aircraft maintains that the speed was substantially less than the 150kts you contend - without evidence to the contrary you cannot discount this.
You finish thus "there is none so blind as he who will not see"
Indeed so Mr Purdey. I (and many others) await your response to these points in the hope that you have something to contribute to the debate rather than ignoring others and restating your case yet again.
Remember - you have to PROVE gross negligence, we do not have to DISPROVE it! To prove it you need facts, and in my view you have none which support your case.