The icing clearance was +4, safety altitude for the entire route would have been about 6500 feet (at a guess).
While I know what you mean, it has been established beyond any doubt whatsoever that there was no legitimate clearance to fly the aircraft, and that in any case the illegal Release to Service did not have an Icing Section. The +4C you mention was removed at Amendment 1 (March 1994 - there only was one amendment as of 2.4.94). It was reinserted a couple of months after the crash. This was an administrative error, but nonetheless fact.
This is part of the evidence fully accepted by Lord Philip.
We have gone over all this in the past. I think the pertinent point today is this. For 17 years MoD railed against any notion that the pilots were anything but grossly negligent. They consistently called for "new" evidence. Just before the Philip Review was announced, we had the retired VSOs, and indeed current VSOs, writing to the press asserting they and MoD would continue their fight against the pilots.
Then, when Dr Fox made his announcement, NOTHING. Not a murmur. Not a word of dissent, except privately from those who had been caught lying (Alcock, for example, when claiming CHART didn't apply to Mk2. It mentioned Mk2 373 times!). You need to ask WHY. What "new" evidence was presented to suddenly make MoD shut up and retreat? Answer: The aircraft was not cleared for operational use and VSOs had made a series of false declarations that it was. As more than one knew of this, and acted together to present the same argument (i.e. lies), that was a conspiracy. Why are THEY not being pursued with the same vigour?