Any news of how the MOD 'review' of evidence is going and when Lord Philip will start?
The initial, and only, announcement was that Lord Philip would sit in private and only consider existing evidence.
As MoD have consistently said all "new" evidence already exists, that means he should consider all evidence, but we know (don't we?) that this is not what MoD intend.
It would seem The Philip Review is not to be conducted in the same way as Mr Haddon-Cave's, in that a public call for evidence has not been made and no address supplied to submit evidence to. However, Lord Philip's address is easily found and, in my opinion, justice would be best served if submissions were made by "interested parties" only. That is, family.
What isn't known is whether Lord Philip is to be "assisted" by an MoD-supplied Filtering Team, whereby irrelevant (i.e. embarrassing) evidence doesn't reach him. It would help to know if his review is being conducted from an MoD office, as was Haddon-Cave's, in which case one should expect MoD to intercept his e-mails as well.
Bottom line - write to him direct, recorded delivery; but don't expect a reply if you are not family. If you are not family, write via your MP.
BTW, I did say previously that all I wished to say had been submitted, but I'll be amending mine because the systemic airworthiness failings baseline has now been pushed back to mid-1987 (11 years before Haddon-Cave's) - the implementation by AMSO of a policy that wasted hundreds of millions and effectively froze all airworthiness work for 5 years. Or, at least, the
letter calling for a re-evaluation of the policy is dated July 1992, but it took another 2 years to re-establish the funding that had been cut, with no retrospective action to fill the gaps (risks) created by AMSO from 87-94. No wonder people in that area at the time don't want this "new" evidence heard!
Sorry, edited to clarify that MoD(PE), Service Users and Sponsors had been calling for re-evaluation since 14th January 1988 (the day after the policy was mentioned in THESBAC, as it was not advertised in-house while being developed the previous year); the letter I refer to is the first internal AMSO admission that the 1989 audit was correct (£Many00Ms knowingly wasted and, consequently, airworthiness compromised).