SECRET UK EYES A
amalgamation of 1/2 and 2/2 GR is due to be complete.
35. Paragraphs 88 and 89. Resource implications?
36. Paragraph 95. If I were still in an RP division, my comments on this would almost certainly be unprintable. Why cannot the civilian option be investigated now? The last sentence is nonsense.
37. Paragraphs 98 and 99. Surely some summary of what is in Annex E should be included, as you are asking the COS to sign up to the deployment of a CVS group and an LPD in 1997.
38. Paragraph 104. Too detailed on something that has already been agreed. Suggest delete.
39. Paragraph 107. Insert additional sentence:
"Further adjustments to the LTC may be required in the light of events and further reviews of the plan.
40. Paragraph 108. Unnecessary whingeing. Delete.
41. Paragraph 110c. Ditto. Delete last 15 words.
42. Paragraph 113. Replace "cannot" with "should not" in the second sentence.
43. Paragraph 121. Where is the supporting argument in the body of the paper rather than in the (very) lengthy Annex D?
44. Paragraph 122. See paragraph 37 above.
45. Recommendations. Could these not be shortened by describing the Summary as a set of conclusions and asking the cos to endorse them?
46. Annex A paragraph 11. This does not explain why this intelligence gathering activity has to take place.
47. Appendix 1 to Annex B paragraph 4. Nonsense. If the patrol craft and all their supporting infrastructure were withdrawn there would be a major reduction in RN LEP numbers. And are you seriously suggesting that at 31 March 1997 the garrison will need over 900 LEP, when earlier in the paper, you have said that in the last six months there will be very few if any LEP left in the garrison?
48. Appendix 2 to Annex B. The same comments apply. 1367 LEC at 31 March 1997!?
49. Annex D. This really does go on at inordinate length. I must confess to severe doubts about whether it need form part
SECRET UK EYES A
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.