Asturias
Fully agree. Asked and answered in previous threads, and latterly in print. There for all to read. It has been suggested before that disbelievers write to MoD, then we can compare notes. If there is a change of heart, and someone does say that it is no longer policy, then I'll be the first to applaud them. But if the resources are still made available to attack those who met legal obligations (and they are), then it must be current policy.
As for current and credible evidence, one only has to ask why DE&S staff failed to come forward during the Cunningham trial 2 years ago to confirm the exculpatory evidence that demonstrated Martin-Baker were entirely innocent. Why was it left to members of the public? Were these staff operating in an environment of fear, or does DE&S really have no-one who understands plain English and has eyesight good enough to watch 13 RAF training films that, if followed, would have saved his life? For those with a short attention span, it was claimed that MoD did not have sufficent information to service the seat properly. The judge named the MoD official who signed for it, making it clear she was dumbfounded by M-B's guilty plea. MoD's duty to correct this by admitting false declarations were made, both in aircraft documentation and to courts, is enduring. So, we're right up to date, on the subject that led to the rulings.
If you're against me, you're for the people responsible.