I have read the summary and some of section 8.3; what are the conclusions?
It seemed that a) you don’t want to engage through a national body (can’t blame you for that given BCs interest in MTB advocacy) but the argument isn’t compelling from what I read and b) cycling is good for us and people like it because it’s local.
It seems to me that there are two main issues which need addressing; conflict with troops (and reports of MTBers being dicks to them won’t help) and b) landowner risk of legal action due to injury. I think the arguments and suggestions for solutions for both of these issues should take a prominent place in the summary. The “it’s handy” viewpoint is not likely to sway the defence agency.
Just suggestions, I’m not trying to criticise.