Typical Ingram.
I have no reason to believe that either of the Reviewing Officers (both of whom have now retired) have changed their opinion since they explained the reasoning behind their finding of neglgigence before the House of Lords Select Committee in 2002.
Stops a little short doesn't it? That'll be the same HoL select committee that rejected the Reviewing officers' findings then.
Why can't these fools see that it requires no new evidence in order to find that the original decision was flawed.