He is something in the Conservative whips office, and something in the 1922 committee I believe, so probably too busy with politics to keep up the fantastic record of communication he use to have.
Anyway I sent the letter based on an interview I heard and the subsquent BBC World Service 'More or Less' broadcast - that I included in the RadioFreeUK friday show http://www.radiofreeuk.org/show/20151127/38/
More than whether the figures were misleading (see the letter), is that the Prime Minister is currently trying to get authorisation to send UK RAF planes in to battle in Syria -- and it would seem the Prime Minister is either hopelessly ill informed about the state of ISIS, or is deliberately sexing up his claims...
Here is the letter:
Dear Simon Kirby,
I recently heard the Prime Minister in an interview say that air strikes had led to ISIS losing 25-30% of the territory it had gained.
However, BBC Security Correspondent 'Frank Gardner' was surprised by this claim and subsequently the the BBC World Service program 'More or Less' looked into this claim.
The conclusion was that it is not a meaningful figure - if there was such an figure (20-30%) it would only be of unoccupied, unpopulated land, and not at all reflective of a loss of power by ISIS.
If the Prime Minister is basing his strategy for air-strikes on this information he is either misguided himself, or he is deliberately trying to mislead the public.
Can you tell me which it is? and based on that (either way) how David Cameron can be trusted to deploy UK troops while he is either ill informed, or deceitful? Also can you tell me how you plan to vote on authorising Mr Cameron to deploy UK RAF aircraft to attack Syria?