Documents / Document
This MoD file, titled UFOs - Persistent Correspondence - Dr David Clarke, holds Dr David Clarke's Freedom of Information requests and emails to the Directorate of Air Staff from 2005 to 2008. Clarke asked for the DI55 report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region and for Rendlesham papers. He also sought records about Nick Pope. Other items include an internal review that released redacted passages on plasmas, the MoD's statement that it had no report of the 2008 South Wales police helicopter sighting, and a 2009 disposal form.
“RAF”42 pages
# D/DI BCR CG/10/4/3/13/59
*** August 2006
## Info Access Pol 2
RELEASE OF DIS REPORT - UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA (UAP) IN THE UK AIR DEFENCE REGION - INTERNAL APPEAL
1. Your email to DAS-FOI of $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ August regarding the UAP report internal appeal asked for clarification on a number of issues. Following discussions with DIS FOI staff and the subject matter expert, our comments in response are as follows:
- While the author can obviously be withheld under s.40 as we can not find him to ask his permission, can it also be withheld under s.24-National Security- as he may be targeted to obtain secret information that we have with held and he may inadvertently release?
We do not consider that s.24 National Security is an appropriate exemption to use in this case. If it is considered that the author of the report maybe targeted, the use of exemption s.38 Health and Safety is considered a more appropriate exemption.
- The name of the company currently withheld under s.43- as DIS still use this company is it withheld so that this is not known? If so, this is not s.43 but s.24 and must be stated as such.
The name of the company was withheld to prevent disclosure of its relationship with the DIS. Release of this information may prejudice the commercial interests of the company. In addition, disclosure of the company's name may inadvertently lead to the name of the author of the report being disclosed. It is considered that in this case s.43 remains the correct exemption to use.
This paragraph was redacted following the advice of CT&UK Ops. Since it concerns the performance of UKADGE radars in reflecting plasmas it is considered that s.26 is the only appropriate exempt to use and can see no reason why s.43 should be cited.
- In Volume 2, working paper no. 5. Page 5-3, paragraph 9. This has been redacted under s.26 Defence, but is this really the case- or is it possibly commercial? This would therefore be s.43. It gives away the key reasoning which we have paid for and should it just be given out to others- it could be argued that others could produce the same information butt should we point them in the right direction?
- In Executive Summary, page 3, paragraph 11 has been redacted under s.27, but this should have been s.26 or possibly s.23, as the information is an assessment and could be from intelligence sources.
Presumably this refers to the Executive Summary in Volume 3 ? The source of the information in this paragraph could not be established. However, it is not s.23 Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. The text was read from the page images by an OCR model; expect the odd misread word. 160 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.