My point Keira is that just because an MP chooses to hold a debate does not give him any more validity than you or I. I've thoroughly reviewed the case and believe him guilty. You've thoroughly reviewed the case and believe him innocent. As he's an mp he can gain more publicity for his views than you or I, but his opinion is no more valid than you or I.
On the question of itemised billing, for WHF, this particular exchange was actually one of the last in the country to have the particular equipment required to provide itemised billing.
Also, when mike says that business customers had it first and WHF was a business, therefore it had itemised billing is, IMHO, misleading.
Business customers were the first to gain itemised billing but initially only if they had a BT exchange unit installed in their business, not as with WHF, which was a previously domestic line simply designated as a business one for accountancy reasons.
No itemised billing for local calls exists for WHF in 1985. No itemised billing for local calls is being withheld under Pii or any other reason.
Both defence and prosecution went down this route in 1986 and both know this is correct.
For whatever his reasons, mike has said he has local call itemisation for June and July 85, but wouldn't you know it, dodgy coppers have hidden August's. This is not true.
I do not understand why mike feels that he must bolster his arguments for bamber's innocence with fibs.
