Forgive me for being slow in understanding this, but:. .'Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram said the Lords inquiry had covered the same ground as previous inquiries with the same information.
He said: "There is no new evidence and no new facts. What I would say is this: the report comes to a different conclusion than those senior RAF officers who had the onerous duty of examining the circumstances when they first arose." '
So - no new evidence, yet the Lords reached a different conclusion. Thus, evidence gives room for doubt. Lords, who may not have the practical experience of air or technical matters, but who have immense knowledge of the law (and thus meaning of regulations) decided that this doubt was sufficient (or more than sufficient, I suspect), under the wording of the regulations to mean that gross negligence could not be attributed.
Am I right so far?
If so,'twould appear that the MoD, if it is intent on upholding the original verdict, is asking us to believe that:
a) There is no room for doubt, even though there was no new evidence and a different conclusion was reached (which suggests that the matter was not as open and shut as they wish us to believe)
b) Their Lordships, who have a considerable amount of legal knowledge behind them are less well-qualified to interpret the wording than the two senior officers who, presumably, have not spent a lifetime engaged in legal practice.
c) That the average person on the Clapham omnibus (with military knowledge limited to the fact that the MoD buys rifles that don't work) is going to believe that, despite three (or is it four now?) rather learned bodies telling the MoD that it's wrong, the MoD is right? I think not...
Time to demand the Crichel Down precedent, I think: the minister must resign, since although he had no knowledge of the mishandling of the situation, the buck most definitely stops with him. Wonder if that would get Mr Hoon thinking about over-ruling his minions?