Originally Posted by
Angle of Attack
I would have to agree that that was a fairly poorly written report, seemed like they were waffling on to get the word count up.
Certainly not being an apologist here but, as is the way these days, the report is effectively anonymised as it issued by an organisation. However it will have most likely been written by an individual and (hopefully) reviewed by another...
Individuals are not born with the ability to write concise, accurate, and informative reports - these things take time and experience. Additionally in a world such as we have today where everyone's sensibilities need to be taken into account, writing public reports is not made any easier than it was, to my mind the converse is true.
Perhaps then this could have been a 'first report' by someone? Certainly if I were allocating lead investigatory and reporting roles to someone who had not had such a role before then this would be the type of accident I'd choose - non-fatal, and to a certain extent not that uncommon.
Regardless I think it still told sufficient a story to get the points out of it I earlier elucidated. Yes you could shorten it and make it more succinct, but then I'm sure you'd all complain there wasn't enough background or something
FP.