@Lonewolf. No need to apologise for what you write, you write well. It's just that you can't read.
[Ornis #900] "The crew made a judgement and they were right." I suggested that competing interests (passengers V inhabitants) explained the divergence of opinions on this.
[Ornis#941] "Speaking as an airline passenger, I don't expect pilots to check engineers have locked latches. I expect engineers to do that." The comment that put the cat amongst the pigeons: "On the other hand, I do not accept pilots may demand to fly a damaged aircraft over large populations. Whatever some claim, it is a compromise and the people on the ground have a say."
The opposing view is that any pilot in any circumstance can demand to fly into Heathrow. That is absurd. It is not I guilty of strawmen arguments and psychological splitting.
The fact is there might be other suitable aerodromes. Luton certainly presents a shorter trip than an orbit around the M25. I wouldn't presume to opine on suitability.
I guess the point I struggled to make is, can we be assured someone has thought about what is best should this happen again?
[Lonewolf #943] "Secondly, they have to fly over a populated area any time they want to get to that airport, damaged or not." Tautology.
[Beazlebub #961] "No. It is because there are so rarely severely damaged aircraft." Exactly my point. [Ornis #949] "Happily severely damaged aircraft don't request or demand to overfly London or other conurbations regularly. Because, I suggest, it would not be acceptable." We get away with it because it is rare. Getting away with it does not make it best practice.