Roland
You are of course entitled to your opinion, which I respect.
Why not get together, build a case, formally complain to the police, or the serious crime agency, or to Defence Internal Audit. Write a book, go to the press, make a film, but stop criticizing others who are doing their best, within their terms of reference, to investigate the circumstances surrounding an incident and most certainly have not been "nobbled" (hamstrung maybe).
Build a Case - Done. Fully accepted by, for example, Lord Philip and Haddon-Cave (although the latter changed the start date from 1988 to 1998, an act that actively protected certain VSOs). This act is a repetitive feature of most reports.
Formally complain to Police - Done. Thames Valley Constabulary (2 Asst Chief Constables and Chief Constable) confirmed MoD were permitted to judge their own case, and they had no authority. Although one Asst CC was more than ambiguous, offering 3 very different and contradictory reasons, that amounted to "We've been told we don't want to know". The Independent Police Complaints Commission has demonstrated its independence by inviting the same Asst CC to judge her own case. She has confirmed her independent inquiry has ruled in her favour. Civil Service Commissioners and Parliamentary Ombudsman said the same.
Defence Internal Audit - Done. DIA ruled in my favour. MoD took no action and scrapped the report. (Source - FoI reply. The person who took no action was the 2 Star with management oversight responsibility for Chinook, Nimrod......., supported by his 4 Star). There were 19 recommendations. Implementing #13, for example, would have mitigated most of the problems I air here.
Write a Book - Well, the main submission to Lord Philip, which he read and fully accepted, was about 270 pages. It subsumed the main submission to Haddon-Cave. Various supplementary submissions were made, as his original deadline was extended for 6 months after CHART and its implications were revealed.
Go to the press - Done. They tend to listen to MoD when they say it is an isolated case and can never happen again; and when it does they conveniently ignore it because they are seen to be complicit. However, the media (BBC) were excellent during the Philip Inquiry, being instrumental in exposing the lies retired VSOs and civilians told about, for example, CHART. For example, Alcock claimed it had nothing to do with Chinook Mk2, when Mk2 was mentioned over 370 times. He claimed Mk2 was not mentioned in the Team's TORs, but it was. He claimed the recommendations were implemented, but they weren't - they were repeated ad nauseum in later ARTs. None of this is opinion - Lord Philip was most impressed by the fact they were easily disproved by simply submitting the evidence Alcock claimed didn't exist. A recurring theme.
Make a film - Ah, got me there. I don't have the wherewithall. However, I (along with another ppruner) have taken part in a 2 hour programme about MoK when all the above was discussed in greater detail than the usual 10 second soundbite permits. MoD declined to take part.
Yes, you are right, "hamstrung" is a better word in most cases. That is the point I make. Their ToRs are too restrictive. I said that. Dervish also makes the valid point about obligations and duty of care. Yes, I believe they take precedence at all times over SI/BoI ToRs. If the members are discouraged from speaking, or they do speak and a report is amended (e.g. MoK) or destroyed and a statement made it doesn't exist (ASaC), then that is definitely "nobbling".
Hope this clarifies my position.