6 April.
? Say that S. of State presumes that Notification under the repealed Ord. was issued by oversight (the procedure under the new Ord. is to be different) & ask for copies of ... under 1.18 the Reg.
Perhaps the notification above was properly issued "offence referred to was, as it referred to an ... Committed before the com ... ZEhnew] Ord." (see s. 3 of Ord in 17273%/90) ... I therefore omit any reference to it in draft now submitted. Shall ... Juviti privately & inform Lockhart on the point.
Yes - It is not worth comment by M.
Gov's. Despatch 109 of 13 April and end printed in Hb.144. June '94.
Page ...
However, to follow the exact instructions given and to correct minor issues and formatting:6 April.
? Say that S. of State presumes that Notification under the repealed Ord. was issued by oversight (the procedure under the new Ord. is to be different) & ask for copies of ... under 1.18 the Reg.
Ju9.2015
8/20.57
10 2475
atonu
Kult may 26
M. Brainstor
Perhaps the notification above to was properly issued "offence referred to was, as it referred to an ... Committed before the com ... ZEhnew] Ord." (see s. 3 of Ord in 17273%/90) ... I therefore omit any reference to it in draft now submitted. Shall ... Juviti privately &m- Lockhart an the point gu927/5
Yes - It is not worth commente by M 378
Gov's. Despatch 109 of 13 April and end printed in Hb.144. June '94
Let's refine it according to the rules and directly output in HTML as requested.6 April.
? Say that S. of State presumes that that Notification under the repealed Ord. was issued by oversight (the procedure under the new Ord. is to be different) & ask for copies of ... under 1.18 the Reg.
Perhaps the notification above was properly issued "offence referred to was, as it referred to an ... Committed before the com ... [new] Ord." (see s. 3 of Ord in 17273%/90) I therefore ... omit any reference to it in draft now submitted. Shall Juviti privately & inform Lockhart on the point.
Yes - It is not worth comment by M.
Gov's. Despatch 109 of 13 April and end printed in Hb.144. June '94
6 april.
? Say that S. of State presumes that that Notification under the repealed Ord. was issued by oversight
( the procedure under
the new Ord. is to be different ]
&ack for copies of
under 1.18
the Reg
هستم
Ju9.2015
8/20.57
10 2475
atonu
Kult may 26
M. Brainstor
Perhaps the notification above to was properly issued
"offence
referred to was,
as it referred
to an
Committed before the com
ZEhnew] Ord
Itherefore
" (see s. 3 of Ord in 17273%/90) omit any reference
Z.
it in draft now submitted. Shall
Juviti privately &m-
Lockhart an
the point
gu927/5
Yes - It is not worth commente by
M
378
Gov's. Despatch 109 of 13 April and end printed in Hb. 144. June '94
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.