Bishop Hill Writes: A surprise from Norfolk Constabulary
Norfolk Constabulary have previously released details of their spend on the UEA emails investigation – Operation Cabin. This showed that no money had been spent on the investigation since February 2011, something that strongly suggested that the investigation was in fact closed. Despite this, the Constabulary insisted that the investigation was ongoing.
In order to probe this a little further, I requested details of man-hours spent on the investigation by month. If no man hours had been actually been clocked up over the same period then it would amount to pretty much incontrovertible evidence that everything had ground to a halt.
Today I had a response:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maybe they are waiting for a grant application
I guess that means that there is no evidence that the emails were hacked, and that the police are no longer looking for a hacker.
The trail has gone cold…
My best guess is that they know who did it and how it was done. But to save huge institutional embarrassment, UEA have decided not to press charges against their own staff/collaborators
All we need now is for the conspiracy of silence to break down…as it surely must eventually, and we will know the answer.
My next guess is that the names of the perps will be revealed by disgruntled coppers. I doubt that any member of Norfolk Constabulary finds their apparent continued incompetence to be satisfactory. It is their reputation that is suffering, not that of UEA. Which is the wrong way round.
So, what does the response actually mean, that the Norfolk Police Department is no longer keeping records of investigative hours? I see nothing that says that the investigation is closed, just that the Department is now using shoddy accounting practices.
Did I miss something?
“It’s a twap !”
hmm, it’s a 3 pipe puzzle Watson
“we do not record the time spent by officers and police staff on a specific investigation.”
So when we read in the press that ‘such and such enquiry’ cost the police 2 million pounds to investigate (perhaps the phone hacking enquiry, perhaps guarding some celb etc) some one some where is being economical with the truth……..
Doesn’t really matter. Horses are already out of the stable. (Well, except for the giant encrypted horse, who is apparently waiting for just the right carrot….)
Best of all, governments in UK and Germany are actually responding to the horses, starting to pull back on Green nonsense. Their response isn’t going to increase or decrease if the identity of Mr FOIA is known. They know the game’s over in either case.
How can there be nothing spent since Feb 2011 when the Tallbloke raid happened in Dec 2011?
I wonder if any categorical statement saying whether or not a crime was committed will be forthcoming. Could get interesting if not.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Some news, not a lot, from the thin blue line…
Makes me wonder if they found out it was an ‘inside’ job and bringing the perp to the public would be worse than the original data dump. I’ve seen this as an inside job from day one because of how the emails were selected (i.e.vetted). No hacker could have done it I firmly believe but that’s just me 🙂
later and keep up the good work!
Vincent Werber
If the case were closed the email server would be returned to the UEA – which the UEA do not want. Hence the police are left hiding the evidence for the establishment or Rupert Murdoch – this often happens in the UK.
ZT says:
March 26, 2012 at 8:37 am
“…which the UEA do not want. Hence the police are left hiding the evidence for the establishment or George Soros.”
There, fixed it for you!
ZT says:
March 26, 2012 at 8:37 am
If the case were closed the email server would be returned to the UEA – which the UEA do not want. Hence the police are left hiding the evidence for the establishment or Rupert Murdoch – this often happens in the UK.
___________________________________
Your “hiding the evidence on the servers” guess is probably closest to the truth. I’m not sure how Rupert Murdoch fits into the equation, though.
___________________________________
polistra says:
March 26, 2012 at 8:21 am
Doesn’t really matter. Horses are already out of the stable. (Well, except for the giant encrypted horse, who is apparently waiting for just the right carrot….)
Best of all, governments in UK and Germany are actually responding to the horses, starting to pull back on Green nonsense. Their response isn’t going to increase or decrease if the identity of Mr FOIA is known. They know the game’s over in either case.
__________________________________
I’m not so sure that the heavy hitters out there have been slowed down one iota.
Witness:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/24/where-theres-a-need-for-immunity-theres-a-crime-green-climate-fund-looking-to-un-for-diplomatic-immunity-protection-from-lawsuits/
The Police services/Forces in England all keep electronic case diaries. Each case is allocated a number and all actions and enquires made regarding a particular case by any officer or civilian investigator are logged on the relevant case diary. Notes made in an Officer’s PNB (Pocket Note Book) about any such activity are cross-referenced with the electronic case number. The case diary contains a log of how many hours have been spent and by which person on each activity. The times are taken from entries made by the officer in his PNB. It is an official requirement that all worked hours are accounted for by entries in the PNB.
Either the Norfolk Police are being somewhat economical with the truth or their staff are not abiding by the many rules governing the accounting of man-hours (or is that now person-hours?) spent on each case.
As much as I appreciate Mr. Montford’s efforts in many other matters, I feel that this particular pursuit is somewhat misguided, for the followng reasons.
1. Whether the Climategate documents were accessed by an unknown insider or an external hacker is ultimately irrelevant to the content of the documents. (The same is true for the legitimate Heartland documents, and for whatever was recently released from SkS.)
2. While those implicated in the Climategate documents are quick to characterize them as “stolen”, “hacked” or “illegally obtained”, this is nothing more than a distraction from the documents’ content.
3. By pursuing law enforcement for acknowledgment that there is no evidence of an illegal hack, Mr. Montford is allowing himself to be distracted.
4. I would respectfully argue that Mr. Montford is too intelligent and talented to be wasting valuable time and energy on such distractions.
I’m not sure how it is in the UK, but I would think there would be some law protecting whistleblowers. If “climategate” was an inside job, in my mind it would be a whistleblower releasing the information and thus granted some protection.
In any event, the evidence of an illegal hack seems to be about as true as the evidence that the weather today has never occurred in all of earth’s history.
Neurons are popping and fizzing trying to come up with a suitable misrepresentation of the discovery that a whistleblower leaked the emails legitimately. Failing that, the stonewall playing-stupid defense forevah!
Politicians double-down in Scotland…
‘The leaders of Scotland’s political parties have unite to reaffirm their commitment to tackling climate change and cutting emissions’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17498776
Not a single party to vote for to rid us of this blight. I weep for my once-great nation.
Police hanging onto the U£EA server?
‘Hide the DECC line?’
Add to that the fact the “FOIA” holds a Sword of Damocles. Make him mad and the password for all the remaining emails will suddenly emerge.
They can not officially close the case. If they did then the situation would not longer be:
“Part of an ongoing police investigation” or “Before the courts”.
This would mean that (elected, appointed and employed) people would have no longer have an excuse that allowed them to avoid answering questions about the content of the released material or the situation.
It will never be officially closed.
This case can’t be “closed” if FOIA keeps releasing bundled sets of emails. That would like having an unknown bank robber drop bags of big bills on the market on occasion–the authorities would want to know who was doing it, to say the least.