A few more paragraph breaks would make that good post easier to read. (editor's hat now removed).
I'd like to address this part.
In allowing an airport to operate at Shoreham, the local authority accepted the risk that there could be crashes, not just at the airfield, but inevitably in the surrounding area.
In allowing there to be an air show, the local authority and the airport operators clearly accepted a higher degree of risk, and so on.
Please note, I am not suggesting those killed and injured had accepted th risk, but trying to highlight that the responsibility for this accident could not solely rest with the pilot, even if it is eventually determined that his actions in some way contributed.
Whatever a pilots experience, skill and judgment, displaying fast jets is a high stress, high workload activity. Humans sometimes make mistakes in such situations.
If you would roll in the issue of the chance for mechanical malfunction, you'd have an even better post than the good one already presented.
As well as being entirely foreseeable, and sadly not without precedent, no risk assessment could overlook the possibility of pilot error. Should it turn out to be the case here that a mistake was made, it is very important that it is widely understood that the pilot would not be solely responsible.
If the debate on PPRuNe can help to bring about a wider understanding of
this shared responsibility, it will have served a very valuable purpose.
While I agree in my heart, the amount of effort spent ducking liability is pretty common currency.