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
Front Section 40 Sent: 02 August 2006 16:24 To: Section 40 Subject: FW: 20060802 R Info-Access advice re Clarke Section and 4(Section 40 requests Attachments: 19-01-2006-123339-012 Response.doc ## Section 40 Please see Section 40 below...not quite what I was expecting re Section 40 Clarke. We can discuss on Friday, unless you decide never to come back and to emigrate to Clacton, in which case can you please give me your forwarding address !!! ## Section 40 From: Section 40 Sent: 02 August 2006 16:13 To: Section 40 Subject: 20060802 R Info-Access advice re Clarke Section4Section40 requests Section 40 - it was good to talk. As I mentioned, I spoke with Section40 glad to report my initial advice wasn't too far off course. Just to recap, we recommend the following course of action for each of the two topics we discussed; ## Dr Clarke Section 40 requests We feel there is a need to assist the applicant, and in doing so consider what the ICO might reasonably consider to be helpful. We can't really ask the requesters to be more specific when we know they don't know what is in the files, and so I would propose that you review the contents of the file and provide a list or short summary of the broad contents. You are then quite within your rights to ask the applicant to be more specific. If he does not, then the case can be closed. I note in some of the paperwork you gave me that Section40 she was trying to establish MOD policy on UFOs between 1970 and 2000 - is there a standard line we could use on this? They are likely to come back, possibly appeal that is their right and out of our hands. Section40 concur with the need here to take a somewhat firmer line in such cases, and the way we would propose doing this here is to be quite specific about the what the fees include, you should be aggregating his requests (to you and to DAS), and that he will be restricted (by the Act) to submitting subsequent requests for the same/similar information at the minimum of 60 day intervals. These points should be reflected in the letter to him, in a firm manner. This approach should stand up to Internal Review and any further appeal. You should consult with DAS on this. I will be happy to review a draft if you would like. Please see attached response where the 60 days were referred to. ## Section 40 I found the original request from Section 40: 07-06-2006-092522-003: I request any and all files, paperwork, documents, photographs, etc, regarding the investigation, operational use of, and discussion of the process known as "remote viewing", and also note a second request from him (I presume it's the same person) on 12-07-2006-110222-005: UFO's. What I'm not sure about is the latter the same as the question he posed in his email to Section 408 July where he acknowledged you had nothing on remote viewing and now wanted info of UFO's. Only significant if someone else is dealing with the 12-07 request and you respond separately to the 8-07 email. I presume it would be Section 40 anyway. The latter part of Section 40 email to Section 40 talks about physic warfare, and it is not clear to me if this is a third request or if it relates to the remote viewing request. First point of clarification here is, is the term "remote viewing" the recognised term that we use, or are we inferring what he means from the phrase remote viewing? In hindsight, I think it would more appropriate to conduct a fuller analysis of what you may have, its direct relevance to the original request, and consideration of any sensitivities BEFORE writing back to the applicant. We agree that we need to come clean with the applicant. [There are a number of good reasons for this - it was a genuine mistake, we may hold relevant info, there may be a future similar request, not doing so would be criticised at appeal etc.] Consultation with NSLG may indeed be wise once this has happened, but let's see. You may wish to conduct your own consultation to establish the wider view. An idea of how much was spent would be useful in this debate, and I would recommend you 18/08/2006
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.