So if it offends, appears biased or doesn’t interest you then that is fine, you are welcome to go elsewhere.
It doesn't offend me, but it does interest me and statements like
. I will hold back from making statement about the chief investigator, ANZ management, the then Prime Minister and the CAA. They don’t deserve any further mention.
leave no doubt as to your bias. I know I'm welcome to go elsewhere but as the wife is busy cooking tea and nightly news is boring me I will stay and join you in posting personal opinions for the indescriminate masses to read and make comment on.
I think the family of the chief investigator is wronged by folk who hold your opinion. I also think that assassinating his character a year or so after his death was low and said more about Paul Holmes than it did about anything else. I wouldn't have minded if it was factual, but it was 99% emotional rant.
As Chief Investigator he had clear guidelines as to what his duties were and he fulfilled them in my opinion. The Industry is different now, a modern day Investigator in the same position would have much more scope to delve into causal factors other than the primary. Personally I think he was hard done by.
Here comes dinner, hopefully some other random Internet surfer will also comment so we can continue the conversation you started and go over it again and again and again, and then meet back here next year and continue blowing on the coals.
Cheers,
Framer
Edited to say I think your post would have been nice if you had resisted having a dig.