Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« More on Oxburgh's eleven | Main | US suspends funding of CRU »

14th July 2010

At the Guardian debate on the 14th July 2010, Professor Trevor Davies said:

We are determined to be more helpful with respect to openness.

The same day, UEA wrote to me, indicating that Professor Acton had reviewed my request under EIR for copies of correspondence relating to the Oxburgh panel and had decided to reject it.

Not very determined then.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (16)

Did you say pretty please?

Jul 18, 2010 at 8:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

Actions speak louder than words. But the media hear the words and do not see the (lack of) actions.

Jul 18, 2010 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

It would be interesting to know on what grounds he rejected your request.

The public interest test
The public interest test applies to all the exceptions contained in the EIR, except those relating to personal data. This means that even if an exception is engaged and the authority wishes to withhold the information, it must go on to consider whether it is in the public interest to disclose it. Please see our guidance:

[BH: I've linked the reply from the university. Your thoughts are welcome.]

Jul 18, 2010 at 9:37 PM | Unregistered Commentermartyn

No not very determined. Could do with a bit more of true grit.

Jul 18, 2010 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard

Biofuel drama. Going down the drain. No help from the Lord of GLOBE?

Jul 18, 2010 at 10:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

I think they mean they'll be more helpful to those they see as included in their clique, a typically fascist outlook.

Jul 18, 2010 at 10:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterEd

He reads your blog, evidently.

Jul 18, 2010 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Not very determined then.- Bishop Hill.

I disagree Bish.
I think they were predetermined to determine that no determination could be determined.

Jul 19, 2010 at 12:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterTony Hansen

[BH: I've linked the reply from the university. Your thoughts are welcome.]

I can't find the link, or my reading glasses. Help with either/both would be appreciated.. :)

Jul 19, 2010 at 1:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH


I can't find the link, or my reading glasses. Help with either/both would be appreciated.. :)

Both have been redacted, apparently.

Jul 19, 2010 at 2:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

On last week's Guardian debate beginning at about 1:12:55 and lasting about two minutes...


"Professors Davies and Watson.

How can you say that the CRU and the University of East Anglia have learned their openness lessons when in the reappointment of Phil Jones you've delegated the vice chancellor's office to field all information requests, meaning that Phil Jones and the CRU will never have to answer to the public again...(followed by back peddling by Davies)"

Jul 19, 2010 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul

Sorry - the link is here.

Jul 19, 2010 at 11:52 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Thanks Bish. It seems to me that the UEA is going to plead 12(4)(e) on anything it thinks it can, as it's obviously regarded by Acton as a useful Get Out Of Jail card that he can play. The net effect will probably be that almost nothing which is in the public interest will get out of the UEA, because the CRU essentially operates on a premise of internalised professorial debate/discussion/communication. I simply can't imagine that this will be acceptable to the ICO long-term.

Not sure what it is that you're pursuing in this case but I'd suggest presenting to the ICO for appeal if you think Acton's being resistant and the information you're seeking IS in the public interest.

Jul 19, 2010 at 2:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH


I agree with SimonH. Keep the pressure up. They are simply stalling with the hope that the issue will go away. However, they are merely digging themselves into a deeper hole. So kick a little sand on them to keep them digging.

Jul 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

This rambling excuse for rejecting your request Bish is Acton attempting to comply to recommendations in the review unfortunately in his tunnel vision self preservation mode he conveniently misses the point of transparency. The University is testing the water by trying to set ground rules to suit themselves and no doubt it will happen time and time again until a boundary has been established or the public even believes the Davies statement that “we are determined to be more helpful with respect to openness.” Yeh right action speaks louder than words.

As Don P says keep the pressure up. If you feel your request has been unfairly rejected and you have a reasonable argument which I would imagine you have then bring the ICO in officially and appeal. There seems more to gain than there is to lose.

Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM | Unregistered Commentermartyn

Just in case you have not seen it Bish there is an interesting article over at WUWT regarding FOI requests including a case study under the FOI legislation, it maybe helpful if you decide to appeal to the ICO.

Jul 23, 2010 at 7:35 PM | Unregistered Commentermartyn

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>