TOFO
Perhaps you'd care to address the point in another way.
Take Chinook ZD576, Nimrod XV230, Hercules XV179, Tornado ZD576 and Sea King ASaC XV650 & XV704.
In each case, while seeking to implement the regulations, MoD staffs identified risks and/or hazards which, ultimately, the respective Boards of Inquiry cited as direct or contributory causes. In each case, the BoI came to these conclusions independently, thinking they were revelations, because they were misled by senior staffs. Similarly, Coroners/Sheriff.
Additionally, there were many generic warnings of systemic failure to maintain airworthiness.
It is this FACT, that senior staffs had prior warning and then withheld that information, in some cases for many years, that makes this whole case so appalling. By covering this up, they denied the "system" the opportunity to prevent the accident, and then prevent recurrence. This is not a "**** happens" scenario. It involved quite deliberate acts.
And yet, pprune contributors who only seek to prevent recurrence are denigrated, while those who committed serious offences are appeased. pprune is indeed MoD in microcosm.
Another question if I may. Anyone with airworthiness delegation is required by law to inform his/her superiors of any failure whatsoever. (Read your letters of delegation). How many met this obligation? In the first instance, I aim this at the MAA. It should be a pre-requisite to being posted there, because otherwise your main qualification is the ability to ignore wrongdoing. And given, on MoD's own admission, the answer is "one" (which I disagree with, I know of at least three), is that not perfect reason for an independent MAA?