JTO
Agreed, and no-one is saying otherwise. But that was over two years ago and the inquest was only last month. And the SI report is dated 15th May 2013, 18 months after the SIL and accident. So why does it not mention it and compare it with previous instructions? The SI report goes into this aspect in great detail, so the SIL is a startling omission. It would answer many questions, in addition to demonstrating a process exists for MoD receiving information from MB. But, of course, admitting that would call into question the notion that previous instructions were not received, opening Pandora's Box.
Not disagreeing with you, just looking at it from an angle I am familiar with.