Old 22nd Jan 2019, 19:12
  #12 (permalink)  
tucumseh
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,843
Is there any hard evidence e.g. factual statements to support these assertions, or is it hearsay and rumour?
Current issue arises from this, in Hansard...

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...t/00626w01.htm

Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
  • Whether any papers or documents relating to the crash of Chinook Helicopter ZD 576 have been or are being destroyed; and, if so, whether they will ensure that there is no further such destruction.[HL2738]
  • Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: None of the original Board of Inquiry papers, written evidence or papers held by the branch with lead responsibility for matters concerning the crash has been destroyed. When they are eventually archived, they will be assigned a review date of 25 years, with a recommendation for permanent retention. At the 25-year point they will be examined for the suitability for transfer to the Public Record Office in accordance with the provision of the Public Records Act 1958 and 1967.

    26 Jun 2000 : Column WA52

But the lead branch (the Chinook Integrated Project Team) did not hold the most relevant evidence, because the Directorate of the Air Staff and Air Member Logistics had concealed it from them. The reply does not preclude destruction by the Air Staff or Air Member Logistics’ successors of that evidence - and that is what they did.

By the time of the Mull of Kintyre Review, MoD was denying the very existence of key evidence, such as the Release to Service and the policy statement that the FADEC software was safety critical. It had lied to families about both. Both documents had to be supplied to Lord Philip by campaigners.



tucumseh is offline