Bishop Hill Why are the police interested in you?
May 2, 2010 Climate: CRU The involvement of the National Domestic Extremism team in the Climategate investigation was the subject of both concern and ridicule a few months back. Those who are on the "concerned" side of the argument might be interested in this article at the indispensable (for civil libertarians anyway) Spy Blog.
The article takes a look at the plethora of unaccountable police forces that have been set up by the current (and soon to be former) government. It isn't pretty reading.
My conclusion reading the article is that the Association of Chief Police Officers, the private company that runs policing in the UK (overseas readers: yes you read that right) and who are responsible for this nonsense, are fundamentally dishonest. Read this:
The units will have less interest in those who choose to sit down in the road or fasten themselves to gates to protest - we are mainly concerned with those who commit more serious offences. However, police forces will always need to deal with such incidents.
More serious offences will include activity that has ranged from blackmail and serious intimidation in the name of animal rights; bombing campaigns by violent and racist individuals associated with far right wing groups; violent disorder from left wing or anarchist individuals, to large scale criminal damage against scientific GM crops studies and mass aggravated trespass or unlawful obstruction of lawful businesses associated with the national infrastructure of our country, such as power stations and airports by those who's [sic] stated aim is to stop any business perceived to harm the environment.
The attention directed at climate sceptics by NDET concerned at worst at case of hacking, which was in fact far more likely to be a leak. In what way was this a "more serious" offence?
Reader Comments (12)
I can see several "more serious" offences there. You have to suspend reality and read it from their point of view. This assumes that the official IPCC/Government view is settled science and is the only reasonable way forward to save the planet. Also you must assume that many skeptics are likely to be coordinating in some structured way (eg bigoil). Oh and they read the Guardian as well.
1) serious intimidation in the name of "human" rights - a campaign to destabilize their view on saving the planet must result in a loss of human rights to continue living on the planet.
2) ....disorder from anarchist individuals - the only reasonable to implement policies based on settled science. Only anarchists would diliberatly attempt to destabilize the reasonable policies and science formed by a consensus of the majority of scientists
3) large scale criminal damage against scientific ............studies - well the hacking certainly caused large scale damage to their reputation
4) "who's [sic] stated aim is to stop IPCC business perceived to harm the environment." - IPCC view is only way forward to save the planet, therefore any major campaign against their view must harm the environment
Last week, I was contacted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the Canadian federal police) who had been asked by UK police to locate a Stephen McIntyre. The Canadian policeman, who didn't seem to know much about the case, said that the UK police wanted to talk to me about whether there had been any misrepresentations of my articles. !!!! They also wanted to locate Andrew Weaver. I confirmed that I was the Stephen McIntyre in question and that I was prepared to talk to the UK authorities - expressing very clearly to the Canadian policeman my total disdain for the idea that this was police business. The inquiry in question presumably did not come from the Norfolk anti-terrorism detachment, as I'd already talked to them at considerable length and they knew how to contact me. I haven't heard anything further yet,
Apparently I was a "loose end" in the enquiry. All I did was ask for some technical details regarding the alleged hacking incident. The police unit that questioned me (via telephone) was apparently called "protective services".
Whatever. But in this case all these cops are investigating the straight-foward rip-off of a bunch of private emails.
But in this case all these cops are investigating the straight-foward rip-off of a bunch of private emails.
Which, of course, is not demonstrated. I always thought "liberals" were in favor of the freedom of the press. But then, if the emails exposed something that you were against, it would have been, wouldn't it?
Welcome back BCL. Hopefully, you can do better in your rhetoric than this. Really, you can, or am I over estimating you? Probably.
BCL - my view is that any emails sent during from work computers whilst working for a public organisation are not private emails as you are using publically funded assets whilst being funded by the public. Private emails are ones sent from your own assets in your own time. Ergo the emails are not private but are public.
At my work, for example, any email that I send and receive from a work computer is automatically the property of the company that I work for. They can search it for info, block it and, ultimately, fire me should any of its contents break their rules. They do, however, allow limited use of private email addresses through webmail but only during your own time.
Why is it any different at UEA?
Quick question, BCL.
The Kingsnorth protesters, and Prof Hansen, and the UK airport protesters, and the environmental protesters at the recent economic summit, will also be on the list of domestic extremists.
Do you approve of this too?
The processes the article alludes to are directed at people engaging in anti democratic and unlawful direct action on single issues. We have one potential case in which a prominent AGW advocacy organisation has suffered from an information leak of some sort. However we have many cases in which the environmental movement, with encouragement from international figures, has engaged in visibly unlawful and sometimes violent actions directed to coercing policy.
So is your point that the various police bodies in the article are fine and dandy, and should work as the article describes, both on the UEA leak, and on all environmental protests which fall within their remit as described?
See, the domestic extremists in the UK are not just or even whoever leaked the UEA materials - whoever did that may or may not be a domestic extremist, or may be a prankster, or a common criminal. But there is no doubt at all that the people who are engaging in direct action to destroy GM crops, and occupy power stations, and riot at economic summits, they are going to count as domestic extremists, and they are going to be targeted. Professor Hansen is undoubtedly on the lists.
Do you approve of that too?
It seems to me the definition of the term “domestic extremism” could fit with the actions of the CRU and global warming campaign?
“The term is generally used to describe the activity of individuals or groups carrying out criminal acts of direct action to further their protest campaign. These people and activities usually seek to prevent something from happening or to change legislation or domestic policy, but attempt to do so outside the normal democratic process”.
The Met decided not to investigate the leak of MP’s expenses to the Telegraph. Why are The Norfolk Police bothering with the CRU leak? It seems many of the same conditions apply.
The spokesman said: "We have considered a range of offences and although the leak of documents is not something that the MPs would condone, we have looked at the likelihood of a successful prosecution and whether a prosecution is appropriate, given other potential sanctions that might be available, such as through employment-related proceedings. Other considerations were the prospect of obtaining evidence and the best use of resources…….
…….From this the Metropolitan Police believes the public interest defence would be likely to prove a significant hurdle, in particular the 'high threshold' for criminal proceedings in misconduct in public office cases. Whilst the unauthorised disclosure of information would appear to breach public duty, the leaked documents do not relate to national security and much of the information was in the process of being prepared and suitably redacted for release under the Freedom of Information Act."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=43659
Another reason, if one were needed, to stay the heck out of Britain.
Martyn - It seems to me the definition of the term “domestic extremism” could fit with the actions of the CRU and global warming campaign?
“The term is generally used to describe the activity of individuals or groups carrying out criminal acts of direct action to further their protest campaign. These people and activities usually seek to prevent something from happening or to change legislation or domestic policy, but attempt to do so outside the normal democratic process”.
No, quite the reverse. Does anyone doubt that the emails were stolen/hacked/leaked by climate deniers seeking to change domestic policy? (Policy which has already resulted in, for example, the Climate Change Act.) Clearly it was an act of domestic extremism, as defined above. The involvement of the National Domestic Extremism Team should come as no surprise to anyone.
BREAKING NEWS
Martin A. has no doubt who and why the emails were released, but he has no idea if they were stolen, hacked or leaked.
"Does anyone doubt that the emails were stolen/hacked/leaked by climate deniers seeking to change domestic policy"?
Only climate science works on supposition Martin.