I was paraphrasing, obviously; but you did use that as an explanation, one you clearly believe. More accurate paraphrase: She's a lesbian-accountant-Oxbridge graduate, therefore her progress could not be stalled. That, in a nutshell, is your argument/belief. There is zero evidence for that, yet for you her status as an accountant and an Oxbridge graduate is 'doubtless' the 'most important' factor in there being no negative consequences. That is just an opinion, but you present it as being without doubt: it's 'doubtless'. I see no logic there, but plenty of possibility for doubt. It's appears far more elegant, and does away with the need to mind read unknown parties, to say that the operation was a success, hence no negative consequences but the opposite, promotion(s). As far as any 'precautionary principle' goes, which you invoke, I still say it's a weak argument that bears no relation to the facts of the case. I prefer to look at the evidence rather than make assumptions that claim to infer the motives of others for her career to progress no matter what.
Your experience still bears no relation to events, but by your own admission, you say your equipment could (and indeed did) have reason to cause alarm - as I said before, it was impossible to mistake Jean Charles as a suicide bomber: he had no equipment; no bag; no rucksack; no 'puffer jacket'; no evidence whatsoever. You had something that 'could with a little imagination be taken to resemble a missile launcher.' Quite a difference there - another reason why it's not relevant.
Obviously you can believe what you like, just as I can say if I think your logic is faulty (it seems obvious that it is, but I'm pretty certain you won't reconsider). Doubtless? It must be nice to be so certain.