Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2
Forgive me for being slow in understanding this, but:. .'Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram said the Lords inquiry had covered the same ground as previous inquiries with the same information.
He said: "There is no new evidence and no new facts. What I would say is this: the report comes to a different conclusion than those senior RAF officers who had the onerous duty of examining the circumstances when they first arose." '
So - no new evidence, yet the Lords reached a different conclusion. Thus, evidence gives room for doubt. Lords, who may not have the practical experience of air or technical matters, but who have immense knowledge of the law (and thus meaning of regulations) decided that this doubt was sufficient (or more than sufficient, I suspect), under the wording of the regulations to mean that gross negligence could not be attributed.
Am I right so far?
If so,'twould appear that the MoD, if it is intent on upholding the original verdict, is asking us to believe that:
a) There is no room for doubt, even though there was no new evidence and a different conclusion was reached (which suggests that the matter was not as open and shut as they wish us to believe)
b) Their Lordships, who have a considerable amount of legal knowledge behind them are less well-qualified to interpret the wording than the two senior officers who, presumably, have not spent a lifetime engaged in legal practice.
c) That the average person on the Clapham omnibus (with military knowledge limited to the fact that the MoD buys rifles that don't work) is going to believe that, despite three (or is it four now?) rather learned bodies telling the MoD that it's wrong, the MoD is right? I think not...
Time to demand the Crichel Down precedent, I think: the minister must resign, since although he had no knowledge of the mishandling of the situation, the buck most definitely stops with him. Wonder if that would get Mr Hoon thinking about over-ruling his minions?
He said: "There is no new evidence and no new facts. What I would say is this: the report comes to a different conclusion than those senior RAF officers who had the onerous duty of examining the circumstances when they first arose." '
So - no new evidence, yet the Lords reached a different conclusion. Thus, evidence gives room for doubt. Lords, who may not have the practical experience of air or technical matters, but who have immense knowledge of the law (and thus meaning of regulations) decided that this doubt was sufficient (or more than sufficient, I suspect), under the wording of the regulations to mean that gross negligence could not be attributed.
Am I right so far?
If so,'twould appear that the MoD, if it is intent on upholding the original verdict, is asking us to believe that:
a) There is no room for doubt, even though there was no new evidence and a different conclusion was reached (which suggests that the matter was not as open and shut as they wish us to believe)
b) Their Lordships, who have a considerable amount of legal knowledge behind them are less well-qualified to interpret the wording than the two senior officers who, presumably, have not spent a lifetime engaged in legal practice.
c) That the average person on the Clapham omnibus (with military knowledge limited to the fact that the MoD buys rifles that don't work) is going to believe that, despite three (or is it four now?) rather learned bodies telling the MoD that it's wrong, the MoD is right? I think not...
Time to demand the Crichel Down precedent, I think: the minister must resign, since although he had no knowledge of the mishandling of the situation, the buck most definitely stops with him. Wonder if that would get Mr Hoon thinking about over-ruling his minions?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warmest congratulations to Brian, John and all others who have campaigned with such resolution.
Funny thing, but immediately the BOI findings were published my wife shouted "Gross injustice!" I said "Oh come on, when a pilot flies an aircraft into a stuffed fog-bank, there has to be a strong presumption that his finger was in". That was before I discovered that the standard of proof in the case of a dead pilot had been raised from balance-of-probability, in my day, to absolute certainty. Without a surviving witness to events on the flight deck, or CVR/ADR, the current standard cannot be achieved. So negligence cannot be found.. .The way ahead raises interesting constitutional questions. CAS, or the AFB, or indeed Buff Hoon cannot "instruct" C-in-C Strike to do anything specific; they only issue broad directives. The C-in-C is responsible to HM the Queen (remember the chain of command for redresses?). Our dear Tone, with his famously sensitive antenna for the public mood, has only to write to the Palace suggesting to Queenie that she ought to convey her uneasiness over the BOI findings to AOC-in-C Strike and instruct him to delete the comments of the Reviewing Officers from the Proceedings. And then she might write letters of sympathy and regret to the next-of-kin of the pilots. Endex! Would this be too sensible an outcome with faces saved all round?
Funny thing, but immediately the BOI findings were published my wife shouted "Gross injustice!" I said "Oh come on, when a pilot flies an aircraft into a stuffed fog-bank, there has to be a strong presumption that his finger was in". That was before I discovered that the standard of proof in the case of a dead pilot had been raised from balance-of-probability, in my day, to absolute certainty. Without a surviving witness to events on the flight deck, or CVR/ADR, the current standard cannot be achieved. So negligence cannot be found.. .The way ahead raises interesting constitutional questions. CAS, or the AFB, or indeed Buff Hoon cannot "instruct" C-in-C Strike to do anything specific; they only issue broad directives. The C-in-C is responsible to HM the Queen (remember the chain of command for redresses?). Our dear Tone, with his famously sensitive antenna for the public mood, has only to write to the Palace suggesting to Queenie that she ought to convey her uneasiness over the BOI findings to AOC-in-C Strike and instruct him to delete the comments of the Reviewing Officers from the Proceedings. And then she might write letters of sympathy and regret to the next-of-kin of the pilots. Endex! Would this be too sensible an outcome with faces saved all round?
To Brian, John and everyone else who has worked so tirelessly and selflessly for so long, congratulations and a heartfelt thank you for what you have achieved.
To the families, may you sleep peacefully tonight for the first time in many years.
To Day and Wratten, you now have one final opportunity to do something honourable - seize it!
To the families, may you sleep peacefully tonight for the first time in many years.
To Day and Wratten, you now have one final opportunity to do something honourable - seize it!
I regret to state that I consider the discovery of porcine aviation to be more likely than the chance of MoD rolling over on this! But clear and unequivocable statements have been made by learned Lords; a minister in The Other Place has no qualification to challenge their Lordships conclusions.
Is there any precedent for stripping knighthoods..........
Is there any precedent for stripping knighthoods..........
Well, what a day!
I'm not ashamed to say that I came over all emotional when I stood in the HofL and read the Lord's conclusions. I know that Mike Tapper and John Cook are more than grateful for all of the support that they have received over the last 7 3/4 (yup, that long!) years.
I managed to get into the MOD's unofficial (and very "off the record") briefing this afternoon and I can tell you that their position remains unchanged. They gave the same brief to the journos as they gave at the HofL saying that the "facts" proved that the pilots were to blame.
When I asked for clarification on a number of these "facts" it all got a bit tense and the MOD press briefing was called to an ignominious end - they simply were not prepared to be challenged on the facts.
Worst of all, I'm sad to report that the RAF is being shown in a very bad light with some MOD "sources" now casting aspertions on the character and skills of both pilots.
Though we have finally won the battle, I suspect the war is far from over. Never underestimate the arrogance of Senior Officers.
I'm not ashamed to say that I came over all emotional when I stood in the HofL and read the Lord's conclusions. I know that Mike Tapper and John Cook are more than grateful for all of the support that they have received over the last 7 3/4 (yup, that long!) years.
I managed to get into the MOD's unofficial (and very "off the record") briefing this afternoon and I can tell you that their position remains unchanged. They gave the same brief to the journos as they gave at the HofL saying that the "facts" proved that the pilots were to blame.
When I asked for clarification on a number of these "facts" it all got a bit tense and the MOD press briefing was called to an ignominious end - they simply were not prepared to be challenged on the facts.
Worst of all, I'm sad to report that the RAF is being shown in a very bad light with some MOD "sources" now casting aspertions on the character and skills of both pilots.
Though we have finally won the battle, I suspect the war is far from over. Never underestimate the arrogance of Senior Officers.
I'm profoundly suspicious about all this. Where are Blair's famous political instincts? Why is the Government sticking to the 'No new evidence therefore no need to change our minds' line? Surely this can't just be the usual New Labour arrogance and refusal to accept criticism or dissent?
Why doesn't he sell Day and Wratten down the river? What has he to gain by this kind of response?
How can Ingram seriously go on camera to defend the expertise of the 'Air Marshals' and their conclusion above the conclusions reached by every other inquest or inquiry so far?
Is this HofL finding really such a victory? Will it make any difference to what the MoD eventually concludes?
Could it be that they will say "We're looking at it again" and then formally announce that 'everything stands' on a day when some major NHS story ensures that this will be buried and will attract no press attention?
Why doesn't he sell Day and Wratten down the river? What has he to gain by this kind of response?
How can Ingram seriously go on camera to defend the expertise of the 'Air Marshals' and their conclusion above the conclusions reached by every other inquest or inquiry so far?
Is this HofL finding really such a victory? Will it make any difference to what the MoD eventually concludes?
Could it be that they will say "We're looking at it again" and then formally announce that 'everything stands' on a day when some major NHS story ensures that this will be buried and will attract no press attention?
A really irritating PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey, a few of us swan off to London for the day and the thread goes mad!!
Seriously, thank you to everyone for their comments and support. I'm going to raise a glass or two tonight and get back on the campaign tomorrow. Hope nobody minds!
The only comment I really want to say today is this:. ."Rest in peace my friends".
See you all tomorrow!. .Best wishes and many, many thanks.. .Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Seriously, thank you to everyone for their comments and support. I'm going to raise a glass or two tonight and get back on the campaign tomorrow. Hope nobody minds!
The only comment I really want to say today is this:. ."Rest in peace my friends".
See you all tomorrow!. .Best wishes and many, many thanks.. .Regards. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flatus, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The C-in-C is not answerable to HM but to the CAS. The CAS can (and I hope, will) call for a review into the findings. He can dismiss the findings of the 2 AMs - there is nothing in the regs that says the C-in-C has the final word. Although unprecedented, the CAS (or,indeed the AFB) can put the Board to rest. However, I suspect that there is more to this affair than meets the eye - a number of very senior Civil Servants and Military men must be getting a tadge worried right now about the possibility of deep questions being asked about the introduction of this aircraft into service...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First-rate!
Whilst pleased at the outcome I’m not at all surprised by the apparent arrogance being displayed by the MOD.
The simple fact that two Air Ranks have sold the whole of the senior staff of the MOD and, more importantly, successive ministers a kipper of large proportions is the umbrella these two Gentlemen always knew they could stand under. There is just one ray of hope on this and that is if the whole affair is now seen for what it is; two politicians in uniform thinking they are so senior that they are above all in the UK. Maybe that will be the final outcome of today, some form of REAL accountability for our senior officers. Maybe as much effort will be put into checking their performance and failings as is put, rightly, into ours.
Oh I nearly forgot. Just to underline the size of the fish caught on this hook:
From CW:
"Handwritten notes by the prime minister, Tony Blair, denying that there is new evidence about the 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, are in direct conflict with the House of Lords select committee report.
Blair's note to the relative of one of those who died in the crash rejects the need for a new inquiry into the accident and says, "I have looked into this personally. I know my conclusion will disappoint you but I wanted to set out the reasons in detail.""
[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: cheapseat ]</p>
Whilst pleased at the outcome I’m not at all surprised by the apparent arrogance being displayed by the MOD.
The simple fact that two Air Ranks have sold the whole of the senior staff of the MOD and, more importantly, successive ministers a kipper of large proportions is the umbrella these two Gentlemen always knew they could stand under. There is just one ray of hope on this and that is if the whole affair is now seen for what it is; two politicians in uniform thinking they are so senior that they are above all in the UK. Maybe that will be the final outcome of today, some form of REAL accountability for our senior officers. Maybe as much effort will be put into checking their performance and failings as is put, rightly, into ours.
Oh I nearly forgot. Just to underline the size of the fish caught on this hook:
From CW:
"Handwritten notes by the prime minister, Tony Blair, denying that there is new evidence about the 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, are in direct conflict with the House of Lords select committee report.
Blair's note to the relative of one of those who died in the crash rejects the need for a new inquiry into the accident and says, "I have looked into this personally. I know my conclusion will disappoint you but I wanted to set out the reasons in detail.""
[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: cheapseat ]</p>
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The official response from he who would not recognise a principle if it bit him on the @rse:
"We're waiting to see if the **** hits the fan. If the media forget about this in a couple of days we'll just ignore the Jauncey Committee report."
Or, to be fair to the man, the official version from the No 10 Lobby Brief <a href="http://www.number10.gov.uk" target="_blank">http://www.number10.gov.uk</a> , see if you think it's any different from the succinct precis above!
. .LOBBY BRIEFING: 11AM TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2002
CHINOOK REPORT
Asked if the Government would issue an official response to the House of Lords Committee report on the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre, the PMOS said that the MoD had only received the report within the last hour or so. They would make a more substantial response later this afternoon. We recognised that this was an issue which had attracted a huge amount of scrutiny and a significant number of inquiries in the past.
However, we were not aware that today's report provided any new evidence as to what might have happened. The Committee had reach their conclusions based on the evidence in front of them. Everyone understood that the detailed, technical, legal airmanship issues were very complex.
Obviously we would want to study the report in detail and give a full response to it. He drew journalists' attention to the MoD's original conclusions regarding the accident. The 'no doubt whatsoever', which was the standard of proof that the reviewing officers - namely Air Chief Marshal Sir John Day and Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratton - had reached, was obviously of a very high standard. In their professional judgement, that standard had been met.
The Board of Inquiry rules at the time had required, in the case of an accident attributed to negligence, a decision to be reached as to whether it had been the result of minor negligence, gross negligence or recklessness. An assessment had been made that this case was the result of gross negligence. It had been their duty to reach an honest verdict based on the evidence, which they had done. The Lords Committee report had been published today and we would look carefully at its conclusions.
Put to him that our agreement to look at this new report sounded as though it was just a formality and that we had already made up our minds about it, the PMOS disagreed. We had said we would study the report in detail and give a full response. Equally, it was important to set out exactly how the MoD had reached their own conclusions and on what basis, citing the high standard of proof reached by the two Air Chief Marshals.
Questioned about the 'no doubt whatsoever' conclusion that had been reached in the MoD's report, the PMOS said we accepted that the Lords report was a detailed piece of work which required scrutiny. We would consider the conclusions very carefully. However, he was simply making the point that in reaching the conclusions which the two reviewing officers had reached, they would obviously have had to make an assessment in their professional judgement as to whether the necessary standard of proof existed. In order to make that decision they would have had to be pretty confident that the proof was there.
Questioned as to whether we were taking the position we were taking because one of the Air Chief Marshals was now the head of Strike Command and that having his judgement questioned would obviously be very embarrassing for him, the PMOS said no. In reaching the decision the two had reached, it was clear they had made judgements according to their professional expertise, which was considerable. However, the fact that one of the Air Chief Marshals was head of Strike Command did not materially alter the judgement that had been reached. Asked whether more compensation would be payable to the families of the victims as a result of the report, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware."
"We're waiting to see if the **** hits the fan. If the media forget about this in a couple of days we'll just ignore the Jauncey Committee report."
Or, to be fair to the man, the official version from the No 10 Lobby Brief <a href="http://www.number10.gov.uk" target="_blank">http://www.number10.gov.uk</a> , see if you think it's any different from the succinct precis above!
. .LOBBY BRIEFING: 11AM TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2002
CHINOOK REPORT
Asked if the Government would issue an official response to the House of Lords Committee report on the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre, the PMOS said that the MoD had only received the report within the last hour or so. They would make a more substantial response later this afternoon. We recognised that this was an issue which had attracted a huge amount of scrutiny and a significant number of inquiries in the past.
However, we were not aware that today's report provided any new evidence as to what might have happened. The Committee had reach their conclusions based on the evidence in front of them. Everyone understood that the detailed, technical, legal airmanship issues were very complex.
Obviously we would want to study the report in detail and give a full response to it. He drew journalists' attention to the MoD's original conclusions regarding the accident. The 'no doubt whatsoever', which was the standard of proof that the reviewing officers - namely Air Chief Marshal Sir John Day and Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratton - had reached, was obviously of a very high standard. In their professional judgement, that standard had been met.
The Board of Inquiry rules at the time had required, in the case of an accident attributed to negligence, a decision to be reached as to whether it had been the result of minor negligence, gross negligence or recklessness. An assessment had been made that this case was the result of gross negligence. It had been their duty to reach an honest verdict based on the evidence, which they had done. The Lords Committee report had been published today and we would look carefully at its conclusions.
Put to him that our agreement to look at this new report sounded as though it was just a formality and that we had already made up our minds about it, the PMOS disagreed. We had said we would study the report in detail and give a full response. Equally, it was important to set out exactly how the MoD had reached their own conclusions and on what basis, citing the high standard of proof reached by the two Air Chief Marshals.
Questioned about the 'no doubt whatsoever' conclusion that had been reached in the MoD's report, the PMOS said we accepted that the Lords report was a detailed piece of work which required scrutiny. We would consider the conclusions very carefully. However, he was simply making the point that in reaching the conclusions which the two reviewing officers had reached, they would obviously have had to make an assessment in their professional judgement as to whether the necessary standard of proof existed. In order to make that decision they would have had to be pretty confident that the proof was there.
Questioned as to whether we were taking the position we were taking because one of the Air Chief Marshals was now the head of Strike Command and that having his judgement questioned would obviously be very embarrassing for him, the PMOS said no. In reaching the decision the two had reached, it was clear they had made judgements according to their professional expertise, which was considerable. However, the fact that one of the Air Chief Marshals was head of Strike Command did not materially alter the judgement that had been reached. Asked whether more compensation would be payable to the families of the victims as a result of the report, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware."
The persistence of some very dedicated people has paid off! Hats off and 3 cheers!
I can't help feeling that the position of certain 'others' is now untenable. Will they resign? They bloody well should!
I can't help feeling that the position of certain 'others' is now untenable. Will they resign? They bloody well should!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A truly memorable victory for the underdog, and for truth over arrogance, duplicity and obfuscation.. .There really must now be some serious re-thinking about the fitness for command of some of those who were originally responsible for the tasking and operation of the Chinook Mk2, and a total condemnation of the two accusing "Air Blimps". .Well done Brian and his team.. ."Never before in the field...........". .HectorusRex
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratuations to one and all, finally the day we have been waiting for has arrived.
As JN mentioned, the important battle has been won. I just pray the war will not take another 8 years to end.
I also hope the RAF has learnt a valuable lesson on the introduction of frontline aircraft and will never have to re-invent this particular wheel. One can but hope...
RTFI
As JN mentioned, the important battle has been won. I just pray the war will not take another 8 years to end.
I also hope the RAF has learnt a valuable lesson on the introduction of frontline aircraft and will never have to re-invent this particular wheel. One can but hope...
RTFI
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heartfelt thanks to Brian, John and all those who have been so resolute in ensuring that Justice was done.
It may not all be over, time will tell. Day, you should seriously consider gardening for a career now, you may still be offered the job of CAS, but just think of all of your 52000 men , and women, Smiling at you when you talk to them, and calling you a t****r the minute you have turned your back! Leadership needs credibility, and you will never have any of that as long as you wear a blue uniform.
It may not all be over, time will tell. Day, you should seriously consider gardening for a career now, you may still be offered the job of CAS, but just think of all of your 52000 men , and women, Smiling at you when you talk to them, and calling you a t****r the minute you have turned your back! Leadership needs credibility, and you will never have any of that as long as you wear a blue uniform.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone who might wonder why Bill Wratten is the subject of such negative comment, you may like to see this statement which was published in June 2000. I had not read it before yesterday. The word "blinkered" springs to mind. See what you think.
<a href="http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/chinookreport.html" target="_blank">http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/chinookreport.html</A> . . <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0">
<a href="http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/chinookreport.html" target="_blank">http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/chinookreport.html</A> . . <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0">
Listening to the Air Force Minister last night I had this awful feeling of déja vu as he said there was "no new evidence". I was particularly astonished to hear him comparing the "quality of judgement" of the MoD compared to that of the 5 enquiries so far.
To look at quality judgement applied to one piece of new evidence - that of the speed of the Chinook before it entered IMC.
It seems to me that the crux of Wratten's argument is based on the "fact" that it was going too fast for the conditions. How do we compare the quality of that judgement to that of Mr Holbrook who, in new evidence, stated that he thought it was going slower than normal as if it was engaged in SAR. I'm sure Mr Holbrook would not claim to be an expert in assessing aircraft speed but at least he actually saw it. Wratten's "high quality" judgement seems to be based only on the Boeing simulation and there is now new evidence which puts this into question.
In the face of such arrogance it seems to me that those of us who have actively campaigned for justice may still have a lot of work to do - letters to MP's again etc. If we need to add names and addresses to the petition in order to get it recognised at No 10, I for one would be happy to do so.
Congratulations to those who have worked so hard to achieve so much in the face of such difficulties. In particular I would like to pay tribute to Brian whose calm, positive and helpful approach has been an inspiration.
To look at quality judgement applied to one piece of new evidence - that of the speed of the Chinook before it entered IMC.
It seems to me that the crux of Wratten's argument is based on the "fact" that it was going too fast for the conditions. How do we compare the quality of that judgement to that of Mr Holbrook who, in new evidence, stated that he thought it was going slower than normal as if it was engaged in SAR. I'm sure Mr Holbrook would not claim to be an expert in assessing aircraft speed but at least he actually saw it. Wratten's "high quality" judgement seems to be based only on the Boeing simulation and there is now new evidence which puts this into question.
In the face of such arrogance it seems to me that those of us who have actively campaigned for justice may still have a lot of work to do - letters to MP's again etc. If we need to add names and addresses to the petition in order to get it recognised at No 10, I for one would be happy to do so.
Congratulations to those who have worked so hard to achieve so much in the face of such difficulties. In particular I would like to pay tribute to Brian whose calm, positive and helpful approach has been an inspiration.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yet another example of Wratten's extreme arrogance.
He may look back at those words and wonder why he uttered them. What he should now do is look at the comments of the inquiry, and that goes for that idiot who made the comments on behalf of the MoD and the Minister of Defence yesterday, and then digest them very very carefully. It's NOT about NEW evidence, though there was some that was previously rejected. It is about DOUBT.
[quote]It is not our role to determine the likely cause of this accident, and indeed on the evidence which we have heard and read it would be impossible to do so. We are nevertheless satisfied, on the evidence before us and against the standard of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", that the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots of ZD 576 caused the crash.<hr></blockquote>
That comment from their Lordships, all legal eagles in their own right, have stated what was blatantly obvious at the time Wratten made his outrageous decision.
"A Commander never shirks his responsibilities" is, in my view, indicative of a man trying to prove why he made his crass decision. Not of a man who should have seen the doubt that existed then, as it does now.
The outstanding feature of Wratten's lack of confidence is the "crawling" he did to those who might back him up before the report was published.
Finally, "the man he doth protest too much" seems to fit him rather well.
And, Day. Take note. You should do the decent thing and resign NOW!! Does that sound like am angry? You betcha!
He may look back at those words and wonder why he uttered them. What he should now do is look at the comments of the inquiry, and that goes for that idiot who made the comments on behalf of the MoD and the Minister of Defence yesterday, and then digest them very very carefully. It's NOT about NEW evidence, though there was some that was previously rejected. It is about DOUBT.
[quote]It is not our role to determine the likely cause of this accident, and indeed on the evidence which we have heard and read it would be impossible to do so. We are nevertheless satisfied, on the evidence before us and against the standard of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", that the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots of ZD 576 caused the crash.<hr></blockquote>
That comment from their Lordships, all legal eagles in their own right, have stated what was blatantly obvious at the time Wratten made his outrageous decision.
"A Commander never shirks his responsibilities" is, in my view, indicative of a man trying to prove why he made his crass decision. Not of a man who should have seen the doubt that existed then, as it does now.
The outstanding feature of Wratten's lack of confidence is the "crawling" he did to those who might back him up before the report was published.
Finally, "the man he doth protest too much" seems to fit him rather well.
And, Day. Take note. You should do the decent thing and resign NOW!! Does that sound like am angry? You betcha!