Well, it is frustrating and rather disappointing that the other lawyers seem to hold back from a clear, open and transparent discussion of what is wrong with what I say (as opposed to saying B is the case, not A). It is up to people to say as much or as little as they want, but while some might find being cryptic impressive, I don't. Clearly I can infer that the poster who says it is all complicated (and who advises airlines) is a barrister (as a solicitor would not refer to taking a brief, that is what barristers do). It has also become apparent that some posters may have a highly relevant but undeclared role which might explain why they are pushing a particular line in discussion. I am not expecting a formal declaration of interests as it is easy enough to see how some participants could have ulterior motives for their comments. They, in particular I am sure, have the strongest reasons for keeping quiet about who they are in "real life" - and I can see why that anonymity should be respected in return for their participation. It is all a very delicate balance. The forum is, I assume, also routinely monitored by BA (I know they have re-established someone to act as an official link to the forum).
I would hate to think that "confessing" to a professional qualification directly relevant to the subject under discussion is a taboo thing to do - repeating it ad nauseam would of course be tedious (and, one would think, should be unnecessary).
Globaliser - I do appreciate your comment which to me has a hint of a conciliatory note. I am used to rigorous debate and have been trained to have the greatest respect for views which are presented with justification (on a serious topic). There is time for fun too and I do like the sense of fun here.
So, I shall try not to needlessly tread on toes or provoke. I much prefer light to heat but can understand how fog is often the end result.