I did not say your view was accurate.
when before you said
A lot of what you say is well founded
Accurate / A lot of what you say is well founded... Isn't that the same thing?
If not then that is my poor understanding / usage of the English language.
I have never discussed any other aspects of the reports such as the actions and performance of the CAA; that is because it is an area that I am neither particularly familiar with nor interested in.
Other than being interested in comments made by the CAA as reflected by me in a post which you tried to call me out over...
I have expressed no opinion on the accident itself because I am sensible enough not to make defamatory statements about a pilot involved in a high profile case until factors other than pilot error are ruled out.
I have a very firm opinion of what happened. But it is not confirmed not disproved due to lacking evidence and I shall not be discussing it until that evidence becomes available to me. Your desire to jump to conclusions would not be a very professional attitude for a pilot.
There is a mixture of things here. So you can have a "very firm opinion of what happened" and yet my opinions are classed as "a desire to jump to conclusions". So what evidence do you have that allows your strong opinion to be formed - because you've formed it regardless of its communication.
So now its the voicing of an opinion that is an issue, but of course that might not apply to people you see as your peers in a bar perhaps and so its now just here, which you seem to caveat as defamatory... although you'd have to clarify which bits they are and then take a view on fair comment.