The BBC pits six lawyers against one questioning blogger, Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky, who was making an FOI request for the 28 names. In the process, the judge demonstrates he has partisan views on climate change.
Via Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
As expected, the BBC has won its legal battle against blogger Tony Newbery. Newbery wanted the list of “scientific experts” who attended a BBC seminar at which, according to the BBC Trust, they convinced the broadcaster to abandon impartiality and take a firmly warmist position when reporting climate change.
When the Beeb refused to divulge who these people were and who they worked for, Newbery took the corporation to an information tribunal. Now the names and affiliations of the 28 people who decided the Beeb climate stance – acknowledged by the Corporation to include various non-scientists such as NGO people, activists etc – will remain a secret.
…
The other lay judge, former Haringey councillor Narendra Makanji, appears to have strong views on climate-change skeptics, as he tweeted here this year: “Michael Hintze who dines at no 10 is backer of Global Warming Policy Foundation, climate change deniers fronted by Nigel Lawson.” We asked the Information Commissioner’s Office how a lay judge with such partisan views on climate change came to oversee hearings so closely coupled to the subject of climate. Campaigning lay judges would not normally be appointed to sit on such a case, a spokesman noted, and concerns would be legitimate grounds for appeal.
–Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 9 November 2012
Newbery writes about the affair:
Harmless Sky in court – a fair hearing?
Andrew Orlowski of The Register has written a very accurate and fair account of happenings at the Central London Civil Justice Centre last Monday. This was the first day’s hearing of my appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision that the BBC were correct to refuse a request for the names of the ‘best scientific experts’ who attended their seminar entitled ‘Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting’ in January 2006. This expert advice was cited on page 40 of the BBC Trust’s excellent report ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century’ as the authority for a very important editorial decision.
I’ve written about this very strange seminar here and many other times at Harmless Sky.
==============================================================
Bishop Hill writes:
Tony Newbery has lost his FOI claim for the details of the attendees at the BBC’s climate change seminar. The decision was issued in an extraordinarily short period of ten days (it normally takes four weeks).
Andrew Montford has written a 26-page guide to the seminar saga, and the subsequent Freedom of information battle: you can buy it in ebook format here for ~75 cents.
Footnote: Given that the BBC is publicly funded, and has denied public disclosure of the information which by law should be public, this list of 28 won’t likely stay secret very long. In every organization, there’s usually a few people with a conscience. As we’ve seen in Climategate, it only takes one. – Anthony
Letter to the head of BBC News:
.
Subject: BBC secrecy over Global Warming science
Date: November 10, 2012 7:56:42 PM GMT+01:00
To: Helen Boaden News
Re: BBC secrecy over Global Warming science
Dear BBC,
The BBC has refused a FOI act request for the names of the 28 so-called scientists who decided that the BBC should back and promote the New Age religion of Global Warming (the ‘Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting’ in January 2006).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/the-secret-28-who-made-bbc-green-will-not-be-named
I have to remind you that the BBC is a publicly funded body, and as such this refusal is a smack in the face to every licence-fee payer. As shareholders and stakeholders in the BBC, we demand you release those names. And what are they afraid of, eh? I thought the ‘science was settled’? So why do these so-called scientists cower behind Auntie’s apron?
Perhaps you need to be warned once more, that the BBC has lost all credibility. The ship is soon to flounder, and you will be one of the officers on deck when she goes down. We shall not mourn the BBC’s passing, nor your signing on at the benefit office.
Sincerely,
Ralph
So…
a private organisation, funded by UK taxpayers, holds a secret conclave of ‘best scientific experts’ (including non-scientists) to legitimise its long-standing partiality in respect of AGW, refuses to disclose the names of the said experts and has this refusal backed by a tribunal of three, at least one of whom is an environmental campaigner.
As a novelist, I’d be pleased to have the imagination to conceive such a plot.
‘Bloke down the pub says:
November 10, 2012 at 3:38 am
It is so sad when institutions, once held in such high regard, fall by the wayside. Sorry to say, but the sooner the BBC is put out of it’s misery the better.’
More a question of putting it out of OUR misery!
Was Jimmy Savile one of the 28??
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/jimmy_savile_climate_seminar
credibility problems for more institutiions!
10 Nov: WaPo: Nick Answeaon: Data errors could spell ‘slight change’ for GWU ranking
The flaw in GWU’s method, officials said, was that the university estimated how many of those students were likely to have been in the top 10 percent of their classes. Then, they said, it mistakenly combined those estimates with documented class rank figures…
For its 1997 freshmen, GWU reported the share as 45 percent, a percentage that remained stable for a few years. For 2002 freshmen, the share jumped to 61 percent. For 2006, it was 65 percent. For 2010, it was 74 percent.
University officials said they have not calculated what the actual percentage should have been during those years. But they said that they are strengthening administrative oversight of data collection and reporting and that the information will be routinely audited in coming years…
Critics of the U.S. News rankings say that universities should not give the list credibility — a point they want to reinforce following this year’s disclosures about Claremont McKenna, Emory and GWU…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/data-errors-could-spell-slight-change-for-gwu-ranking/2012/11/09/04acb40c-2aad-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html
It’s good to know that all parts of the BBC stand unified in their fight against BIG OIL and climate change. You won’t see them snuggling up to big oil and using nasty tactics as used by deniers and the tobacco industry /SARC
Say after me: “Don’t do as I do, do as I preach.”
BBC Pension Trust – Top equity investments at 31 March 2012
Investment Holding £m
British American Tobacco 63.65
BP 55.71
Royal Dutch Shell 52.83
Imperial Tobacco 48.09
Oao Gazprom 16.77
Occidental 11.53
Hyundai Motor 9.14
Chevron Corp 8.71
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
The BBC Pension Trust may have made the wrong bet for its members. Even Al Gore is moving away from ‘green’ investments.
Millions upon millions of UK Pounds are at stake here. It’s no laughing matter for journalists and employees who might go hungry one day. Maybe this is why they push this scam so hard.
See all the prominent BBC environmental journalists at the time of seminar? Top BBC heads, editors?
Entwistle’s departure was inevitable really. wonder when NYT will drop their new chief exec, former BBC Director-General, Mark Thompson, who is sure to be caught up in the multiple Savile inquiries:
10 Nov: New Statesman: BBC’s director-general, George Entwistle, resigns over Newsnight mistakes
Investigation which wrongly identified a Tory peer as a child abuser topples the BBC’s boss.
Entwistle made a statement just after 9pm alongside BBC Trust chairman Chris Patten…
http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2012/11/bbcs-director-general-george-entwistle-resigns-over-newsnight-mistakes
10 Nov: Daily Mail: BBC Director-General George Entwistle resigns in wake of Newsnight sex abuse scandal
George Entwistle admits he did not watch last weekend’s BBC2 show
Mr Entwistle knew nothing about it – until a member of staff told him
He didn’t read yesterday’s papers in which the report finally unraveled
The BBC chief described the report on child abuse as ‘unacceptable’
He warns staff involved in the programme could now (face) disciplinary action
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230292/BBC-Director-General-George-Entwistle-resigns-wake-Newsnight-sex-abuse-scandal.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
LOL. the british public would no doubt be delighted if the beeb would pay its own way, and the Licence Fee was scrapped:
9 Nov: Independent: Chris Bryant: Don’t bash the BBC too much. You know you’ll miss it when it’s gone
Even Chris Patten, the chairman of the BBC, sounds deeply downbeat about the future
Chris Patten addressed the trustees’ dinner at the British Museum on Wednesday. Speaking in the Enlightenment Gallery, he gave the most lugubrious, depressed, downbeat speech I have yet heard, either from him or from a BBC chairman. It was as if the whole weight of the world were upon his shoulders.
Sure, the BBC has a lot to answer for over what seems to have been a systemic failure to tackle Jimmy Savile and others. But for God’s sake don’t give up on the BBC. Bear in mind that, day by day, the extremely dedicated people who have always hated the corporation for personal, ideological or commercial reasons are grinding their axes. They got their way immediately after the election when the BBC was slashed by 25 per cent in one of the strangest and most secretive of government negotiations. BBC journalists are now being double-decimated. Production budgets were slashed, and doubtless Rupert Murdoch and his Tory acolytes are happy.
So I want Lord Patten not to lose faith in what remains the greatest British cultural invention of the 20th century. ..
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/dont-bash-the-bbc-too-much-you-know-youll-miss-it-when-its-gone-8301285.html
Wikipedia: John Ashton (diplomat)
John Ashton CBE was the Special Representative for Climate Change at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) from 2006 until June 2012, Director for Strategic Partnerships at LEAD International, and is the founder and CEO of Third Generation Environmentalism…
***From 1993-7, John Ashton was seconded to the Hong Kong Government as Deputy Political Adviser to Governor Chris Patten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashton_(diplomat)
Foreign & Commonwealth Office: John Ashton: Special Representative for Climate Change
John has spent most of his career in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). He founded and led its Environment Policy Department, before moving outside government in 2002, to set up environmental think-tank E3G, from which he is now seconded to the FCO.
John has been continuously active in climate diplomacy in various capacities since 1997. He was involved in negotiating the EU 2020 package on climate change in spring 2007 and the decision in December 2008 on funding for CCS across Europe. He helped negotiate the agreement in 2005 between the EU and China to demonstrate zero emission coal technology in China, and was closely involved in the EU’s engagement with Russia over the Kyoto Protocol. He played a key role in the first UN security debate on climate change in April 2007. He was a senior member of the UK negotiating team in the UN climate negotiations from 1998-2002, and again at Copenhagen…
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/who-we-are/special-representatives/john-ashton
FCO’s CC man, John Ashton, is Director for Strategic Partnerships at LEAD Internation:
LEAD Advisory Board includes Maurice Strong, Rajenda Pachauri, Crispin Tickell, Geoffrey Lean (Daily Telegraph), and more:
LEAD – Leadership for environment & development – Advisory Council
http://www.lead.org/about/our-people/advisory-council
FCO’s CC man, John Ashton, is the founder of E3G:
E3G (Third Generation Environmentalism) – Change Agents for Sustainable Development – Governance
Independently funded by foundations, governments and NGOs.
(INCLUDES SHELL OIL FOUNDATION)
http://www.e3g.org/about/Governance/
8 Sept: BBC: John Ashton: World’s most wanted: climate change
Human-induced climate change must be treated as an immediate threat to national security and prosperity, says John Ashton, the UK’s climate change envoy. He argues that we must secure a stable climate whatever the cost, as failure to do so will cost far more.
Climate change is potentially the most serious threat there has ever been to this most fundamental of social contracts.
On 28 August 2005, New Orleans was a prosperous, stable and relatively harmonious city. By the next evening, most of its population had been driven from their homes and lacked access to electricity, food, fresh water and medical services.
Within a week, gunmen roamed the streets as law and order broke down; simmering racial and political tensions exploded as the buck for dealing with the catastrophe – as well as preventing it – was hurled about. For months, neighbouring cities and states were inundated with refugees as the political and racial stresses spilled across the country. New Orleans is unlikely ever fully to recover…
Katrina and Darfur illustrate how an unstable climate will make it harder to deliver security unless we act more effectively now to neutralise the threat.
Our prosperity is also at stake. Europe’s economic health increasingly depends on a thriving Chinese economy…
Last week, Professor John Holdren, the newly elected president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a distinguished scientist ***not noted for sensational pronouncements***, told the BBC: “We are not talking any more about what climate models say might happen in the future. We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we are going to experience more.”
What this means is that we need to treat climate change not as a long-term threat to our environment but as an immediate threat to our security and prosperity.
We need to see a stable climate as a public good without which it will become increasingly difficult to deliver the other public goods that citizens rightly expect from those who govern them…
You cannot use military force to make everyone else on the planet reduce their carbon emissions. No weapon system can halt the advance of a hurricane bearing down on a city, or stem the rising sea, or stop the glaciers melting.
If we want to achieve climate security, governments will need to invest more resources in the emerging techniques of soft power…
Governments will need, as a matter of security, to build the avenues of trust and opportunity that will divert investment from high carbon to low carbon infrastructure.
They will need to negotiate the agreements that will enable us to do that cost-effectively and without divisive market distortions. They will need to design and mobilise coalitions of mutual interest across sectoral and cultural boundaries to transform the way we supply and consume energy, achieve mobility, and use land.
And they will need to do all of this very fast. It is now becoming increasingly clear that it is what we do in the next 15 years that matters most.
The technologies to avoid an even more unstable climate are already available. Deploying them rapidly is well within what we can afford. What is needed is an investment internationally of political imagination backed up by public resources on the scale that publics routinely expect for the more traditional aspects of national security.
But, as scientists like John Holdren are warning with mounting urgency, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
If we fail to see this threat to security very soon for what it is and make our dispositions accordingly, we will end up paying far more and experiencing more insecurity. John Ashton is the UK foreign secretary’s special representative for climate change and a visiting professor at Imperial College London. This article reflects his personal views.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5323512.stm
22 June 2012: Guardian: Juliette Howit: Climate change envoy warns against cutting investment in green energy
John Ashton warns that failure to deal with climate change would amplify problems such as water and food insecurity
John Ashton, who has just stepped down from his post at the Foreign Office, told MPs that the UK was still considered an influential global player on climate change, but signalled that position was at risk as the country was falling behind on investment in energy efficiency and clean energy…
These issues came to a head in February when more than 100 Conservative MPs signed a letter to the prime minister, David Cameron, calling for an end to onshore windfarms.
Ashton, who left his six-year post two weeks ago, said he sympathised with concerns that UK efforts to combat climate change would be an expensive failure if other countries did not follow suit. However in a thinly-veiled warning about the damage done by draining political support for ‘green’ policies, he said the UK’s diplomatic efforts to persuade other countries to reduce the world’s reliance on oil and other fossil fuels “depends on what we are doing at home” and the “consensus across the political spectrum”…
“Internationally we must resolve the false choice, exacerbated by the current crisis, between economic security and climate security,” said Ashton. “A rapid shift to low carbon growth is essential for security, competitiveness and prosperity, not an intolerable risk to competitiveness, jobs and growth.”
“Politically we must address this not as a distraction from our current problems, but as part of the solution to them,” he added.
Tory committee member Dr Phillip Lee challenged Ashton, however, suggesting that there were still hundreds of millions of people who wanted a better standard of living in developing countries like China, and in the UK during the recession, who would not support policies which pushed up the price of energy and so goods and services they wanted to buy.
“It’s seen that going green is going to slow down the growth that we need,” added Lee.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/22/uk-climate-policy-risk-government
8 June 2006: BBC: Richard Black: UK appoints ‘climate ambassador’
His appointment, as Margaret Beckett’s representative, follows her move from the environment portfolio to become Foreign Secretary.
Friends of the Earth welcomed the move, but warned that Britain’s position was undermined by its rising emissions.
“One of the areas where climate change needs to be prioritised by the British government is in the diplomatic service, and we do need someone who can help Britain maximise its leverage in countries across the world,” Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth (FoE) UK, told the BBC News website.
“We welcome John Ashton in this role – he is a proven advocate with a track record in helping to move the global community forward on climate change, notably in terms of persuading Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.”
A science graduate, Mr Ashton has spent most of his career in the diplomatic service and the Foreign Office (FCO).
He was an advisor to Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten, as Britain prepared to hand the then colony back to China.
More recently Mr Ashton headed the FCO’s Environment, Science and Energy department, before leaving to form a totally new scheme called E3G, a “change agency”, which has brokered deals on climate and energy between developed and developing countries…
“Last year, the UK and the prime minister himself created a new situation on climate change,” he told the BBC News website.
“By using the G8 presidency in the way he did, he opened an international conversation at head of government level on climate change and recognising the scale and severity of challenge.
“The challenge now is to give a sense of direction to that, to create an international framework capable of mobilising the investment decisions which will be necessary to drive the shift from a high-carbon economy to a low-carbon economy,” Mr Ashton outlined…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5057678.stm
8 Sept 2006: BBC: Richard Black: Solve climate ‘whatever it costs’
Climate change is “potentially the most serious threat there has ever been” to security and prosperity, according to Britain’s new climate ambassador. In an article for the BBC News website – his first since taking the post in June – John Ashton says climate change must be tackled “whatever it costs”…
As special representative on climate change for the British foreign secretary, John Ashton’s main role is to build a new international consensus on climate change…
According to Felix Dodds, co-editor of the recent book Human Environmental Security – an Agenda for Change, diplomatic failure on climate change may well lead to conflict.
“John Ashton is right in his analysis, and international discussions are critical to solving this issue,” he said, “because the alternative is you do end up with military solutions.
“There is a time window, and that window is 10 to 15 years – if we don’t deal with it now, the reality is we will have to use military means to secure water, food, and energy security.”…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5325714.stm
1 Feb 2006: BBC: Can the US break its oil addiction?
Although Mr Bush did not mention climate change in his speech, the impact of a warming world must have had some influence, says John Ashton, chief executive of environmental think-tank E3G.
“There must be some climate change thinking behind his references to zero-emissions coal because the only reason for capturing emissions is for climate reasons.
“I would be looking for a sign that the US administration would be willing to invest in the range of technologies on a scale and with an urgency that will make a real impact on the climate problem.”…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4669260.stm
28 June 2007: BBC Profile: John Ashton
Mr Ashton had a long career in the Foreign Office, including founding its environmental policy department, before moving outside government…
In 2004 he founded E3G, an independent not-for-profit organisation that works to make people and companies more environmentally friendly, by getting them to collaborate and by identifying clear goals…
Mr Ashton is a visiting professor at Imperial College, London, and a member of the Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding.
He is a steering committee member of Climate Care and serves on the Advisory Boards of the Climate Institute, Washington DC; the UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research; the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara; and Climate Change Capital.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6769105.stm
the ABC is a clone of the BBC
one of the silliest headlines ever & the day Attenborough put his credibility on the line!
24 May 2006: BBC: Attenborough: Climate is changing
Sir David, 80, added that everyone had a responsibility to change their behaviour, including being less wasteful and more energy efficient.
It is the first time Sir David has voiced his concerns in public about the impacts of global warming.
His comments come ahead of a two-part BBC series in which he examines the impacts of global warming on the Earth.
Sir David has been criticised by environmentalists in the past for not speaking out on the matter.
“If you take one moment in time, you can’t be sure what the trend is,” he told the BBC.
“Now… when we look at the graphs of rising ocean temperatures, rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and so on, we know that they are climbing far more steeply than can be accounted for by the natural oscillation of the weather.”
Sir David, whose distinguished broadcasting career spans more than half a century, says everyone has a responsibility to act: “What people (must) do is to change their behaviour and their attitudes.
“If we do care about our grandchildren then we have to do something, and we have to demand that our governments do something…
This week, former US Vice President Al Gore has been at the Cannes Film Festival to promote a documentary on climate change.
Mr Gore told festival goers that the world was facing a “planetary emergency” due to global warming…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5012266.stm
Wikipedia: Are We Changing Planet Earth?
Are We Changing Planet Earth? and Can We Save Planet Earth? are two programmes that form a documentary about global warming, presented by David Attenborough. They were first broadcast in the United Kingdom on 24 May and 1 June 2006 respectively.
Part of a themed season by the BBC entitled “Climate Chaos”, the programmes were produced in conjunction with the Discovery Channel and the Open University. They were directed by Nicolas Brown and produced by Jeremy Bristow…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_We_Changing_Planet_Earth%3F
Serac Adventure Films: Climate Chaos (BBC) and Global Warming: What You Need to Know with Tom Brokaw (Discovery)
Director: Nicolas Brown
Producer: Jeremy Bristow
Cinematographer and Health and Safety (Glacier Segment, Chile): Michael Brown
Awards:
September 16, 2007: Global Warming: What You Need to Know with Tom Brokaw won the category Excellence in an On-Going News Story – Long Form at the The 59th Annual News Emmy Awards.
Climate Chaos won the grand prize at the International Wildlife Film Festival in Missoula, plus some 6 other categories.
The films hves also been designated the most important science films of 2006 by the European Broadcast Commission (Eurovision)…
The project culminated in the Dicovery Channel two-hour special “Global Warming: What You Need To Know with Tom Brokaw”, which premiered on July 16, 2006, and the BBC special “Climate Chaos,” a two-part series including, “Are We Changing Planet Earth?” and “Can We Save Planet Earth?”
http://www.seracfilms.com/projects/climate_chaos/Climatechange.htm
head of BBC resigns…. now all we need is for the organisation to disband and then balance will be achieved.
It is my observation that when an organisation pursues a cultural pathway that is faulty, eventually the mess hits multiple fans and the organisation pays multiply for its inappropriate behaviour. In the case at hand, the BBC uses multiple lawyers to quash an FOI request. Meanwhile the DG didn’t even know that a defamatory program that incorrectly implicated a former Government Minister in child abuse was being aired. Something systemically wrong methinks. Commonalities: 1) focused on the wrong thing, 2) inadequate research before adopting a position, 3) blatant left wing bias.
Ok, the head of the BBC has taken the honourable course and resigned. He’s been in that position, for what, about two months?
Why has he resigned?
‘Cos of the child-sex abuse issues?
Newsnight’s messed-up but gleeful nomination of an ex-Tory grandee as a paedo-perp?
The semi-marxist positioning of the BBC in matters of political posturing such as Global Warming reporting, Anti-Republican US political support or application of Left-Wing, Political-Correctness to matters of a verdant hue?
I don’t think so but any one of these issues would have been valid for resignation from public office of an organisation that is paid to be impartial.
Yup, all of these things happened before he came on watch and, like a lamb, he’s folded He’s been made the fall guy; he’s accepted that role for whatever reason and, now that ‘honour’ has been satisfied, the dear old Auntie BBC will just carry-on as before.
And with the same old actors …
What an effing travesty!!!!
The BBC should be “just” a voice besides others, but somehow the Brits have a system that makes the BBC their main voice. The basic flaw then is in this system from which the BBC sprouts, and not in the BBC itself. In Holland, in a basic tv channel packet, from England there is only the BBC, but say from Germany there are at least four different channels, ARD, ZDF, NDR and WDR. The Brits may be proud of their BBC, but actually they score poorly here.
I have a theory about the Brits not being conquered for many centuries being very traditional and holding on to their we-feeling opposite the world and therefore holding on to their “dear BBC” as a national symbol. That may serve a national purpose, but on a global scale it reduces the BBC to a political instrument.
Don’t forget the European Union and local authority money:
BBC admits receiving millions in grants from EU and councils
The BBC admitted in a letter to a Tory MP that it has received nearly £3million in grant money from the European Union over the past four years.
Other grants totalling £16million came from local authorities across the UK. The money was spent on “research and development projects”.
The broadcaster also disclosed that its commercial arm BBC Worldwide borrowed over £141million from the European Investment Bank since 2003. Of that figure £30million is still due to be repaid by the end of May this year.
Conservative MP Karl McCartney, who obtained the information through a Parliamentary Question, said he was concerned that receiving the money could affect the way the BBC covers events in the European Union.
He said: “People will quite rightly continue to question what influence the EU exerts over the BBC, particularly in the light of EU loans and grants, and the BBC’s often one-sided coverage of matters relating to Europe.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html
Hide the inclination?
Seems to be some confusion about the law here;
“Footnote: Given that the BBC is publicly funded, and has denied public disclosure of the information which by law should be public, ”
The law is not what you want. The FOAI rejection was according to legal process so it is “by law”.
The belief that the Climategate breakin was acceptable also curious, since that was illegal.
Again approving of something does not make it legal and disapproving of something does not make it illegal.