by charles the moderator
I received the following this morning,
Dear Mr Rotter
I am part of the enquiry team who are investigating the theft of data from the UEA in Norwich last year.
As part of the investigation we would like to speak to everyone who has made any requests for information relating to the CRU at the UEA.
Records indicate that you made such a request last year and as a result I would like to discuss this and any other knowledge you may have with you at a convenient time.
Please can you contact me (I would suggest initially by e mail) leaving a contact number so that we can have a chat.
Kind regards
Sean Baker
Sean Baker
Detective Constable
Joint Major Investigation Team
Norfolk Constabulary
Lowestoft Police Station
Old Nelson Street
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 1PE
Tel: xxx
Mobile: xxxx
This e-mail carries a disclaimer [this was a dead link. Put here for reference. ~ ctm]
Go here to view Norfolk Constabulary Disclaimer
I responded within a few hours with this:
I can be reached at xxx. I work nights so please don’t call before noon PST. I’m in San Francisco. Between noon and 1 PM is the best time to contact me.
I have previously posted my entire involvement with the CRU leaked emails and files online here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/climategate%E2%80%94the-ctm-story/
I’m not sure what else you would like to know. I’ll see if I can cover it in advance.
1. I have never received any money for my volunteer services at wattsupwiththat.com
2. I met Steve McIntyre once for dinner two years ago when he was in town for AGU. I paid for the dinner.
3. I read Climate Audit.
4. [personal info]
5. [personal info]
6. [personal info]
7. I am 51, turning 52 next month.
I understand that you are diligently performing your investigation, and I’m not sure how well you understand the perspective from this side of the fence.
The multiple FOI’s were submitted in response to Phil Jones’s obstruction of the scientific process of verification and replication. Had he behaved as any scientist should, no FOI requests would have been required and it would have been ten minutes work to respond to the original request. The CRU began moving the goal posts, making up more and more unbelievable reasons why they should not give data to perceived critics, thus causing the subsequent FOI’s and escalation, in which I participated. It seems likely that soon after Steve McIntyre’s appeal was denied, someone at the University of East Anglia, disgusted by what he or she witnessed, subsequently leaked the files. I have no knowledge or direct evidence that this is the case, but it is the explanation that makes the most sense.
If you would like more information on the escalation of FOI requests and the obstruction by CRU, as confirmed by your own ICO, I can dig up the relevant threads.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Man these guys hit the ground running!
How long have you been public with the facts of the case and they are just contacting you.
They know that these cases require fast investigation…. IFF you want to catch the perp… IF.
You could also add that:
1) The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) have stated that Phil Jones and UEA acted unlawfully by failing to comply with your lawfully submitted FOI request.
2) British Government ministers have refered to this matter as an internal leak.
Happy birthday for next month 🙂
Why would he say he wants you to respond back via email first? That sounds weird. The whole thing sounds weird to me…*shrug*
I get the feeling that this must be the most exciting thing that’s happened to Norfolk Constabulary. Much of the time they investigate animal abuse and speeding on the Broads.
(disclaimer, I’m from Suffolk, if you want any real North/South divides, live in East Anglia. Anything beyond that is marked ‘here be monsters’)
Other than that, it’s interesting to see it’s a major investigation and has roped in resources from outside of Norwich, as it perhaps should given this is a potential fraud larger than Madoff, Worldcom, Enron combined. But I still get the feeling they’re out of their depth, hence the ‘theft’ investigation. In law, that’s clearly defined, and in this case, unproven.
You’ve never received money for services at WUWT? Hey, somebody needs to hit the tip jar! 🙂
You were always high on my suspect list, ctm. Oldest dodge in the book that “somebody posted the link where only I could see it” thing, really.
Be sure to mention your roomie is getting rich and famous off the whole thing too, that’ll help a lot in allaying their suspicions.
😉
I thought they had already white washed their way out of that incident? I did’nt realise the investigation was still open.
Charles,
You are giving the best response. This guy knows if he goes ahead and tries to drive you down a reconciliatory road, he will have his head handed to him.
You remind me of an old Uncle Remis story that being of “Brair Rabbit” and the “Tar Baby”. If this guys got any sense, he’ll run on your side of the story which is the side of truth. If he chooses to do otherwise, he’ll have trouble in ways he never imagined.
Thanks for your “Truth”
Nice reply!
BTW – in case it hasn’t been said lately you mods are doing an absolutely incredible job and, for the record, loved the reply in the Lacis thread!
Good to see that the bobbies are continuing to investigate this. I also submitted an FOIA request to either CRU or Hadley/Met Office last year about the same time we were all filing complaints with the US inspector generals office in regards to Jim Hansen’s politicking and protesting on salary. I got the same runaround excuses as everybody else.
LOL this must be one of the first cases in history were just about everything about it has been written about at length and posted in public. Is it reasonable that the police buy a copy of everybody’s book as evidence? No freebies, obviously.
So does this mean the investigation has turned up so many dead leads that they’re harassing anyone who ever submitted an FOI request now? If submitting an FOI request makes someone a suspect in a crime investigation then it will have a chilling effect on the FOI Act itself. This is truly Orwellian. They’re going after the skeptics for the crimes committed by Jones et al!
Your age is personal info. Can’t be too careful on the internet my friend.
Hacker!
Will be interesting to see if they take the history of the FOI wars into account.
Sounds like the beginning of an Agatha Christy mystery.
I am part of the enquiry team who are investigating the theft of data from the UEA in Norwich last year.
Theft? I find the term interesting.
They are not investigating the nature / method of the release of information?
They ‘assume’ it was a theft?
Are they also investigating the potential that CRE / UEA violated FOI laws?
Your picture makes you look guilty as all hell and gone. Better fess up.
😉
Charles,
If you need a character witness just let me know!
(Or anyone on WUWT)
Rick
They’ve been asking these questions for quite some time now.
Lesson: the FOI act was designed to go after those seeking the information. We will protect the information and seek out those who tried to get it.
I suspect that they may be dissembling a bit when they say they are contacting you because they are contacting all that submitted a FOIA/EIR request.
It is quite possible that they have read the blogs and books about this incident and are interested in you because you were one of the first to download, or archive, or distribute the files.
Then again, maybe I’m just feeling neglected since I submitted 3 FOIA requests to UEA last summer and the constulatory has not contacted me. 🙂
I am intrigued by this phrase “theft” of information. As I understand the law regarding information, one has copyright on information and and as far as I am aware there is no such thing as theft of information only infringement of intellectual property rights.
Indeed, our right to obtain information is explicitly outlined in the UK human rights act:
Article 10: Freedom of Expression
(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
Note it specifically gives us a right to “receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
For the police to act conspire “interfere” with this right would in itself be breaking the law and subject to legal action.
OK, I’m no lawyer, but the right to exchange information seems to be very explicit, and as I understand it the law regarding intellectual property is a civil matter and has nothing to do with the police.
What am I missing here, charles?
They whitewash an FOI investigation on grounds of statute of limitations, but are hot & heavy on ‘alleged hacking’.
Seems to me the statute of limitations would begin AFTER the last correspondence of denial of public info on the private communication excuse tab.
Which means they are looking for an external scapegoat to fry.
Smart move making their inquiry public.
Political agenda, like climate, nevers sits still, but twitches like an overactive child. Eventually, the winds change. They must be on a tight schedule.
I’ve been falsely accused in my life.I fought mine by making suing noises.
Nasty letters from the attourney, etc. No evidence no case.That plus at the
time of the incedent- a hit and run by a guy using my name-I was somewhere
north of Faribanks dropping mud on a tundra/tagia fire.I even had acess to the
CO’s office at Ft. Wainright to confirm this-just in case….
I am not sure if you will appreciate this but: I will say a Rosary for you tonight. You are a brave and good man.