Homelover
In fact, of the 5-page Introduction (available to view free in its entirety on Amazon), only the first three short paragraphs paraphrase the SI report. It is essential scene-setting information, which must be factual. None of the following 4 pages remotely resembles anything in the report - it is a narrative on the approach to the book, it's structure and a brief summary of the issues raised.
The Service Inquiry is cited as the ‘main public record’. If one were to deviate from this, it would risk misrepresenting the factual events of 8 November 2011; so it is ‘fair use’. The Panel is described as having done an ‘excellent job’ and having produced a 'notable work'. A link is provided to the report, and the reader encouraged to read it. On the other hand, one theme in the book is MoD misrepresenting the facts to courts, the Prosecution, police, family and media; and refusing to correct itself in the face of written, verbal and video evidence. (This applies more so to the Prosecution; the book is relatively kind to MoD and acknowledges the difficulties faced by the Panel).
Across the trilogy, MoD placed only one caveat. That, to cite/quote an investigation and report arising from the Sea King ASaC Mk7 mid-air of 2003, the report must first be sought and provided under Freedom of Information. (Letter D/Min(AF)/AR MC03390/2013, 4 September 2013). The request was made, and MoD denied all knowledge of both investigation and report. Legal advice was sought, which was that one was free to quote from the report. The legal sources are acknowledged. Presumably, if MoD wanted to object to this it would have done so when the book was submitted; but that would mean having to acknowledge the events and the content of the report, opening itself to the possibility of legal action.
I hope this allays your fears.
Last edited by tucumseh; 22nd Aug 2019 at 02:14.