I understand this might look like complete b*llocks, but it seems they are not doing that because, despite the good aim in this specific case, would create a ba

I understand this might look like complete b*llocks, but it seems they are not doing that because, despite the good aim in this specific case, would create a bad precedent. The whole case, after so many years, is as ridiculous as it gets for a government scandal - I agree. At the same time, I kind of understand why this needs to be carefully thought as a legal manoeuvre.