Mr Purdey in reply to Uncle peter you say :
"Uncle Peter: Many thanks for your eurudite exposition, but I draw your attention again to their Lordships' opinion which (para 147 of their Report, and in the key paragraph) said that '"The question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have forseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event" In other words, they knew that what they were doing would cause them to crash. Do you really accept that? Come off it!
I say again that this is a definition of recklessness, or even of suicidal intent rather than one of negligence."
Whilst you have obvious understanding of aviation matters you don't have a similar level of understanding of legal matters. Negligence cases are notoriously difficult to prove. Whether you accept the definition is neither here no there. That is it.
However, your reading of para 147 and your comments put your views on this matter into perpsective.
It is a little arrogant even to assume that the Select Commoitee would have the definition of negligence wrong.
One final comment. if the Select Committee ot the definition wrong wouldn't one of the government spokespersons have picked this up?