The UK Information Commissioners Office (ICO) has made a letter available (here Summers_UEA_ICO_20100129 PDF) that in British terms could only be described as “gobsmacking”.
UEA is apparently trying to make the mere mention of a crime committed disappear.
This is ICO’s response to UEA’s Brian Summers, who wrote a letter to the ICO asking them to withdraw claims about the ICO’s position on a violation of the FOI law pertaining to CRU’s conduct.
…the ICO has been alerted by the complainant and by information already in the public domain via the media, to a potential offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence…In the event, the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit.
It makes clear that the UEA staff committed an offense by deleting emails subject to an FOI and were only saved from prosecution because the offense was timed out under the legislation, due to it’s built in statute of limitations.
In my email exchange with Jonathan Leake he points out to me that:
It’s fairly self explanatory except that in Point 4, Graham Smith, the commissioner refers to errors in The Times report without specifying them. I actually don’t know what he is referring to because although I initiated and researched this article it was Webster who wrote it as it was eventually appearing in The Times – his title.
Leake also mentions that “Webster does not accept that there were any errors in his article.”
Meanwhile, Bishop Hill reports that:
Some explanation of the rather surprising statements on FoI made by Sir Edward Acton and his colleagues in their submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee has emerged. As noted in the previous post, Sir Edward said that no offence under the FoI had been established and that the evidence was prime facie in nature. Here is the exact quote for reference
On 22 January 2010, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) released a statement to a journalist, which was widely misinterpreted in the media as a finding by the ICO that UEA had breached Section 77 of the FOIA by withholding raw data. A subsequent letter to UEA from the ICO (29 January 2010) indicated that no breach of the law has been established; that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie; and that the FOI request at issue did not concern raw data but private email exchanges.
But there’s a problem, the word “private” has come up missing in Bishop Hill’s search:
And what about the statement that the information related to “private emails”. I’ve read and reread the document. I’ve put it through OCR and searched the text. The word “private” does not appear in the document.
Oh dear.
So the insertion of the word :private” sanitizes the crime.
Try that with bank robbery.
It is not the crime, it is the cover-up. Actually, it is not even the cover up, it is the cover up of the cover up.
You cannot really make this stuff up.
If somebody were to repeat that same FOI request now, it would have to be given a proper answer… won’t anybody do it?
Are we surprised? We all knew there would be a some sort of coverup/whitewash (Insert any such similar word at will).
hmmm.
From the UEA:
that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie;
From Wiki:
prima facie denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
So, the evidence has not been rebutted, and thus, by definition, would be sufficient to prove that FOI had been violated.
One rule for one, one rule for the rest, it’s a peer review!
Henry chance (14:53:01) :
So what if it was at gunpoint, it was a private withdrawal!
How are these emails remotely considered to be private if they were sent via government (taxpayer funded, therefore public) email accounts?
Nothing changes
Bureaucrats will always protect bureaucrats, almost regardless of right or wrong.
We tend to forget that almost no one goes to jail for ‘white collar’ crime, certainly never a bureaucrat. Even in the private sector, Bernie Madoff was a very unusual exception.
Rest assured, no climate alarmist will ever go to jail for fraud for trying to enhance/secure their personal job environment.
There’s bound to be a good Columbo/raincoat joke in it somewhere.
Anyway, aside from deleting e-mails, they also discussed deleting data, which in itself should be a inchoate crime (the crime of preparing to commit a crime) since the e-mails certainly establish mens rea.
I’d like to see the written request from the UEA, to which the ICO has responded. Though it’s possible to deduce much of its content from the ICO’s response, I’d rather be drawing conclusions on material evidence. Perhaps it warrants a FOI request of its own, since (prima facie) we can infer that an attempt has been made by the UEA to manipulate the ICO.
The ICO’s response reads a bit like a smack-down, but I’m a little concerned that there’s also a little bit of a suggestion from the ICO that Leake’s explicit interpretation of the ICO’s response to him had been embellished upon. I’d like to be sure that I understand in what way and to what extent.
Acton’s submission to the Parliamentary Enquiry, however, is misleading to the point of a lie. You could only infer from the UEA’s/Acton’s submission that the ICO had declared no crime had been committed and that all is well. It would be impossible to rationally draw that conclusion from anything we’ve seen out of the ICO. Quite the opposite.
Are you allowed to lie in a submission to a Parliamentary Enquiry?
Oh, dear indeed. One word “Whitewash”.
An absolute disgrace, I am embarrassed to be English.
Sounds like Summers is saying ‘because you can’t prosecute us, we didn’t commit a crime’. ICO disagrees. Summers should be nominated for a brassneck award. The two outstanding inquiries may or may not disagree, but then if Cyclops pulls the trigger on a general election, the media gets distracted and the government investigation gets put on hold.
No MORE that prima facia ?!? Jeepers, I wouldn’t be crowing about that.
Put this as a criminal charge infront of 12 “peers” the most incriminating part is the e-mail asking to destroy data before Steve would get it and orddering e-mails to be deleted. Enron had a lot of trouble for Anderson CPA’s when Andersen spent off hours shredding.
The moment Steve asked for data and e-mails or formulas on, all the devious deeds expressed in writing demonstrate intent to destroy evidence. Martha Stewart lied to an investigator, Her saved messages for insider trading found her guilty of lying. She didn’t actually do time for the trading part but for lying about the insider conversations.
America has a lot of criminal cases tried under aswindling statutes. Mann made the mistake about boasting about funding. That gave the criminal motive.
Simon H (15:29:06) :
“Are you allowed to lie in a submission to a Parliamentary Enquiry?”
————————————————-
Any action taken by either a Member of Parliament or a stranger which obstructs or impedes either Parliament in the performance of its functions, or its Members or staff in the performance of their duties, is a contempt of Parliament. Examples of contempt include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee, threatening a Member of Parliament, forgery of documents and attempting to bribe members. The Commons has the power to order anyone who has committed a contempt of Parliament to appear at the Bar of the House and to punish the offender. If the offence has been committed by an MP he or she may be suspended or expelled.
from http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=95
…. include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee …..
An interesting quote from RC –
“91.Denialists have failed to learn the lessons of history.
What they’re doing to global warming is no different from what they did to tobacco — even some of the cast of characters is the same. It worked for a while, but how do tobacco companies fare today? Joe sixpack is not just willing, but eager to approve record-setting punitive legal settlements against them. Their advocates, like Seitz and Singer, escaped public wrath because of their relative obscurity. No more; Monckton and his cadre will suffer mightily at the hands of a very fickle and very angry public.
When global warming becomes so obvious that Joe sixpack can no longer deny it — which will happen before this decade is out — the backlash will be ugly. I hope it doesn’t reach the heights of abusiveness that struck the nobility class after the French revolution — but I wouldn’t bet on it. Even pacifists like myself will probably be unable to stem the thirst for revenge.
My advice to Monckton: prepare to flee the pitchfork-and-torch-carrying mob.
Comment by tamino — 17 February 2010 @ur momisugly 8:40 AM”
A pacifist? LOL!
I read this as the ICO will investigate over the next few months, find that UEA did not comply with the FOI Act. Then issue their usual enforcement notice and practice recommendations.
Slap on the wrist, must do better. End of story really.
DeNihilist (15:58:43) :
“My advice to Monckton: prepare to flee the pitchfork-and-torch-carrying mob.”
Can you say projection?
When global cooling becomes so obvious that Joe sixpack can no longer deny it – which will happen before this decade is out – the backlash will be ugly.
Actually the more Whitewash they use the better off we are according to the Wikipedia article on Whitewash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash
T’would seem something is rotten in Britian.
Might No.10 be involved in these dastardly tricks?
Only The Shadow knows for sure.
Tune in next week for more of ‘The Shadow’.
Find out if Mr. Brown is forced out of office
By the missing “private”.
Who knows? The Shadow Knows…
Re: Alan S (Feb 25 15:37),
“An absolute disgrace, I am embarrassed to be English.”
No your not, your are just p**s off like the rest of us. Just get of your stool and come out fighting. Vow to vote UKIP and take at least 10 others with you. You will feel an awful lot better for it!
This nonsense has got to stop and the incubent LibLabCon cartel will never, ever do it.
I want to be “The Man on the Clapham Omnibus”. Perhaps my disgust with the flouting of law, demonization of ClimateAudit, the obsession with CO2, the foisting of AGW as the one true faith upon us, could possibly get through to the political class and every person at the CRU.
My grateful thanks to the unknown hero who released that cache of e-mails.
These were not “private” e-mails. All my e-mails at my workplace belong to my employer – no problem; they are written about my employer’s business on my employer’s time. It would be considered very poorly by my employer to write private e-mails on company time.
So, all these highly payed “scientists” can be payed by the people but everything they do is private.