Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!
Posted on 31 Mar 2010 5:39 pm
I voted that Kidney's response was insufficient. Although he tackled the main points of the question, he did so with such unclear English as to make his response unnecessarily difficult to understand. For example, what might a "detailed optioneering process" mean? Does he just mean 'we looked at several options', or is it something more technical? If the latter, he should have clarified it for the lay reader.
The final sentence shows such basic active/passive verb confusion as to suggest that Kidney did not give the response the proper consideration it deserves (how can the tanks do the commissioning?).
Finally, it would clearly have been of interest to both Hughes and the public to know what financial estimates had been made for commissioning the new tanks. It would have been considerate of Kidney to have included that information.
Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.
Making it easy to keep an eye on the UK’s parliaments. Discover who represents you, how they’ve voted and what they’ve said in debates – simply and clearly.
Get insights on TheyWorkForYou and other mySociety sites, in our popular newsletter
Your donations keep this site and others like it running
mySociety is a registered charity in England and Wales (1076346) and a limited company (03277032). We provide commercial services through our wholly owned subsidiary SocietyWorks Ltd (05798215).