Mr Purdey,
The 'self appointed' three man Committee was, in fact a five man Committee. When it initially went to the vote as to whether or not the Committee should even sit, two of the five voted for, two voted against and one abstained. A fairly balanced Committee, I would suggest.
The plain fact is that only very few of the Lords were persuaded that MOD had got it wrong. Can you offer any other explanation?
Not without committing libel, or 'whipping' up a problem!
Meanwhile, the arguments against he MOD verdict seem to me to becoming ever more desparate.
How so? We have not deviated from our original stance - the burden of proof has not been met. I would suggest that the continual movement of the goalposts has been from those wishing to defend an indefensible position.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook