Brian,
I see what you say about the MoD having to do the right thing based on the idiot Spellar's comments, but I think that from that particular passage they still have an 'out' and are left in the state that they
should do the right thing, rather than
having to.
[quote] "You asked whether the Department will consider re-opening the Inquiry. This could only happen would be if new evidence emerged which cast doubt on the integrity of the RAF's original findings. We remain ready to look at any new evidence or new arguments. However, nothing has emerged since the Inquiry that would cause us to doubt the conclusions that were reached at that time.". . <hr></blockquote>
The HoL findings, along with the other non-RAF enquiries, have found against the BOI result based on the criteria required to reach the currently standing result. However, the Spellar quote only claims that the MoD will re-examine the case for new evidence or new arguments. To the best of my knowledge (and I stand to be corrected if wrong) the findings of other enquiries, even the HoL one, are neither new evidence nor new arguments since Spellar's time. In fact, the argument against the BOI findings has been consistant for many years now.
Whilst I believe that the MoD should re-examine the case (and finally make the correct judgement) I also believe that for the sake of CAS-elect (spit) they will point out that they are maintaining Spellar's line if it gets raised in public again. It is also with a heavy heart that I suspect that the case will not be re-opened for 5+ years until CAS-elect is the ex-CAS. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">