Bishop Hill East Anglia responds to ICO findings
Jan 28, 2010 Climate: CRU FOI The Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Sir Edward Acton, has issued a statement in response to the annoucement by the ICO that the university was in breach of FoI legislation.
The ICO's opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the university as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the Act. During this case we have sought the advice of the ICO and responded fully to any requests for information.
Given that Sir Edward seems to be implicated in the breach of FoI legislation himself (at least according to one of the emails) "grave concern" is possibly an understatement.
(H/T Martin Rosenbaum via Steve2 in the comments)
Bishop Hill
More here:
- Sir Edward Acton says that the Information Commissioner didn't tell the university of the findings before they went to the press.
- Sir Muir Russell has said that he will announce his panel and work programme shortly.
Bishop Hill
This post was wrong on one fact. The Vice Chancellor referred to in the emails as being in on the breaches of FOI was not Acton, but his predecessor.
Reader Comments (25)
Interesting. I wonder if they will pillory Jones et al. It's been a very long time since heretics were burned at the stake, particularly at Universities, but we can hope.
"Given that Sir Edward seems to be implicated in the breach of FoI legislation himself (at least according to one of the emails)"
It was featured on BBC and Channel 4 news tonight (UK). BBC said the poor little darlings at CRU were swamped with FOI requests, so it's not their fault they didn't respond !!! Channel 4 reported there were 60 FOI requests (don't know if that is true). If that was over a period of (lets say) 5 years (and if my calculator is functioning correctly) then that equates to 1 request per month. On that basis I am "swamped" with paychecks, yet somehow still broke.
Channel 4 did play a good chunk of the "Hide the Decline" video from youtube, so they're not only going as far as reporting it, which is a major step forward, but they are even participation in a bit of p155 taking.
Who knows what tomorrow brings.... I can't wait.
Roger Harrabin on BBC 6.00 pm news, paraphrased, excuses CRU attitude to FOI requests by claiming that they were inundated with frivolous requests for data which diverted them from their research activities. Well if they routinely archived their data on an open FTP site they would not need to be diverted. Also, Prof. Jones in one of the released emails could only claim that such FOI requests "were now in double figures" (10?) hardly an inundation. And how were they to judge if such requests were "frivolous"? Sounds like academic arrogance.
The important point is that most of the sixty requests were in the face of UEA's attempts to evade the FoI requests. If they had have complied in the first place, they wouldn't have had all those requests.
Hear, hear, emckeng! It was SCIENCE paid for with PUBLIC MONEY; why were FOI requests even needed?
Just watched Acton on BBC news at ten. Very unconvincing.
David Holland was allowed a few words. Much more convincing.
John Beddington finally spoke. Unconvincing claim that we know CO2 is causing global warming.
Uphill struggle to convince the public that we must act - or something like that - usual Shukman bias.
From the way he writes/presents I suspect the BBC's Haribo will be one of the very last of the MSM zealots to acknowledge that anything could possibly be wrong with the Mann Made Global Warming position taken by the BBC. He's a fully paid up member of the sect and will stay there until BBC management decide otherwise.
We dont really see or hear anything about what is happening internally in the upper echelons of BBC, that would be a very interesting area to be able to get an insight into. That's where the changes need to be made.
I also wonder how many of the FOI requests were for the same data. In such cases, even if it wasn't posted online - as it should have been - the data could have been collated into a zip file once, then shot off to anyone who asked for it. Maybe a minute or two (perhaps of an assistant's time) per request after the first one?
Dear Mr XXXXXX
Thank you for your interest in our work. Please find attached the requested information. If you have any more queries, please don't hesitate to ask,
Yours
XXXXXXXXXX
I'm not a fast typist but the above took me less than 90 seconds.
I have to admit that it is quicker to type "xxxx off", so maybe that was their reasoning.
"Sir Muir Russell has said that he will announce his panel and work programme shortly."
Wow, they're really speeding right along aren't they. I imagine that by the summer they will have chosen which brand of pencils to use and might even have scoped out some potential lunch spots.
It might be worthwhile reviewing the actual wording of the FOI laws. All the commentary I've seen suggests that the law as formulated prevents the Commissioner prosecuting breaches after 6 months. There is such a thing as a private prosecution under English law though.
Many of the laws that have come onto the books in the last 13 years have been badly drafted; this is an example of course. Poor drafting can be a two edged sword however.
My predictions for the enquiry result :
It will be all the fault of an assistant tasked with looking after the FOI requests. It will be found that they didn't communicate those requests adequately to the "scientists" who therefore didn't see them as genuine requests. Therefore the assistant will be thrown under the bus, and the scientists will be allowed to continue to save the world - one international conference in Bermuda at a time.
Interesting, however, to see the following in one of the CRU emails (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=914&filename=1219239172.txt):-
I wonder if the OIC have any records of what advice was given? Maybe an FOIA request is called for?
xmfclick
Go for it!
I am not sure if the first bullet point is correct - you may have fallen victim to the misleading spin put out by the University and a careless biased journalist.
The Uni statement said:
"We have not received any FURTHER information from the ICO although we are urgently trying to contact them."
University press offices are masters of the misleading statement, such as "responded fully to any requests for information" which of course refers only to the ICO enquiry.
xmfclick, yes, I love the idea of FOIing the IC!
When you start thinking about FOI requesting the ICO, you begin to wonder if the IC shouldn't just recuse itself from the investigation. 77 FOIA does state that:
"No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted—in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
Maybe the Director of Public Prosecutions has the brains and the balls to correctly read the 1980 Magistrates' Courts Act and take the CRU to court.
P.S. The AGW crowd cannot catch a break this week:
"Bin Laden blasts US for climate change"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHCO002.html
mpaul,
In Sir Muir's position it looks like a very wise move to spin things out.
It may be that the whole AGW cardhouse is collapsing. If it's collapsed by the time his report comes out, there'd be no question of glossing over the problems and he'd just be sticking a knife into a corpse.
I don't think he'd want to be viewed as being at the head of the charge causing the destruction of a cherished view held by the establishment. "He could have handled it more sensitively and avoided fueling hysteria".
A quick whitewash with a few slapped wrists is starting to look dangerous and unworkable. Who knows what else is going to emerge? There could be some new revelation which is completely from the blindside.
A quick whitewash with a few slapped wrists is starting to look dangerous and unworkable. Who knows what else is going to emerge? There could be some new revelation which is completely from the blindside.
Cosmic, I think there will be new developments elsewhere in the world that adds pressure. So far this blog has been focused on only the silliness in the UK with regard to AGW. Both India and China are more than a little upset about the western countries trying to control their development and then there is the melting glaciers in the Himalayas, which aren't controversy in India
And now our long lost friend (?) in Pakistan, Bin Laden, is raising hell over it as well (thanks to Legal Opinion)
This may blow up big time. Wo'n't that be luvily, Gov!
Oh, yes -- xmfclick
Go for it. I would join you except I am currently in residence in California and Co Kerry is no longer part of the UK, so I think they would tell me to buzz off.
I have submitted an FOI request ... watch this space!
Hello -- XMFLICK ---HELLO -- Can you hear me? Are you there, XMFCLICK.? Was that a black helicopter I saw circling over your house. HELLO?
xmfclick,
There are some paramilitary dudes here. They want to know the following...
1.) What is your stance on the Freedom of Information?
2.) Do you contribute to, participate in, or administer any internet based website, forum, blog, etc. including any related to the Freedom of Information? Details:
3.) Do you have naughty dreams involving the ICO?
Now it is an offence against Islam to be a climate kaffir.
That should remind the BBC to keep on message.
I must say that I am very disappointed by the lack of imagination shown by the FOI bureaucrats in the old dart. Down here in Orstraylia our lot are more than happy to comply with these sort of requests, it's just that you may have to pay a nominal fee for them to do it.
Our government attempted to foist an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for carbon capture upon us pre-Copenhagen. Nobody really knew what it was about and so a concerned citizen put in an FOI request to our Climate Change Department (yes, sadly we taxpayers fund one) for their assessment of its impact.
Certainly sir, they replied, it will of course cost you A$256,586.98, although the department may decide it involves an unreasonable diversion of resources.