Hi Mr Purdey,
thanks for your comments. May I apologise for being absent for your first contributions.
I have to say that you are one of the very few people on the other side of the debate who presents your argument in a well reasoned way (K52 being another).
That said, yours is simply just one interpretetion of all the available evidence - just as mine is. Would you agree? Just because we choose to interpret the evidence differently does not lessen the credibility of each choice.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but no-one has said that your interpretation is wrong. Just as I have never said that my interpretation is the only correct one. If you agree nothing more than the possisbility that either one is the correct version, you have an element of doubt. Therefore the verdict is unlawful.
Whilst I accept that I have the easy part of the campaign - I only have to introduce an element of doubt (no matter how small), the Air Marshals, MoD and all who support their interpretation have to
prove with
absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is no other possible explanation.
The burden of proof in place at the time of the accident was there to protect aircrew from this very situation. If the level is now deemed almost impossible to achieve, then I really have to say, with all respect, too bad.
Just because the law makes the life of the Air Marshals and the MoD difficult does not give them the right to simply ignore it.
This whole issue is not about whose interpretation is right and whose is wrong. Its about the burden of proof - nothing else. Well, that's the way I see it anyway.
What should also concern you is the way in which the MoD appears to consider itself above Parliament and the law of the land.
Kind regards
Brian
Chocks - We both know what I'm like so I would take offence if I were you!!
Thanks, as always, to everyone for their support
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook