Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments

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

Powered by Squarespace
« The scientific firmament | Main | The CRUTEM code »

Sleeping policemen again

Norfolk Constabulary have informed me that they have not spent any further money on their investigation since February 2011.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (22)

Will it be dusted off and now brought out of the "cold cases" archive? Richard Black says he knows it was a hack.

I have it from a very good source that it absolutely was a hack, not a leak by a "concerned" UEA scientist, as has been claimed in some circles.

The Norfolk Police clearly see it as a criminal act too, a spokesman telling me that "the contents [of the new release] will be of interest to our investigation which is ongoing".

Groups like UCS are, however, beginning to ask where that investigation has got to.

I have been passed information stemming from an FoI request to Norfolk Police showing that over the past 12 months, they have spent precisely £5,649.09 on the investigation.

All of that was disbursed back in February; and all but £80.05 went on "invoices for work in the last six months".

Clearly it's ongoing at a very low level, where very low level = zero

Nov 23, 2011 at 11:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Phillip Bratby
Black is just pushing the 'Team line ' as is his role , and just like them he offers no evidenced to support the 'hack' claim but knows it to be true .

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Black's position is: Don't listen to the sceptics, they are wrong. I know, as I have been told the truth by an insider.

He is either a liar, a fantasist, being lied to (again), or conspiring to leak information from an ongoing police investigation (an offense).

Whichever way we should be told.

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

They seem to be scared about it being a leak, but consdering the level of doubt being expressed in the latest emails and also how a whistleblower would have been severely dealt with by UEA and the climate community it could well be an insider.

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

If Black has it on good authority from inside CRU that it was a hack it seems strangely redundant to attempt to support that assertion by reporting that the latest release of emails is "of interest" to the Norfolk Police. Hardly shattering and unexpected news.

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterTS

Very strange that the BBC reporter who is implicated in the leaks, doesn't mention that in the BBC output.

Ho hum, more whitewash please.

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterNick

Stuck-record....normally I would expect an admonishment over the use of the word liar. In this case I can only suggest that the real consensus would agree with you. If Black knows and is with-holding information from the police over what has been suggested was and illegal hack then surely he is breaking the law as well.

The ridiculous thing is the last week has shown Black and his fellow BBC people to be so close to "The Cause" that they must share body fluids!

Now, if he knows, why would he not have made a name for himself by publishing? To embarrassing?

Here we have the CPS saying that the hold up with Huhne is due to a newspaper having information and the CPS have to proceed with due diligence. Are the Norfolk plods going to do the same with Black?

Put up or shut up time Black!

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

Naturally, I will not read them until Norfolk Constabulary has confirmed they are a leak.

Or I see them in a newspaper... or on a website, blog, television, radio book, pamphlet etc.
Or following an FOI request.

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Reed

Well, Republican senator Ed Markey (of Waxman-Markey fame) is obviously so upset by the Norfolk constab failing to do their job properly he wants the CIA to take over

(h/tip: the bad astronomer)

I wonder how the police will take this lack of trust from the US, combined with the thoughtless jurisdiction trampling by this senator?

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpence_UK

Pete, I know. I was careful.

I didn't call Black a liar. I said if his claim is not true than he is a liar. This is not actionable as I am protected in law if Black is lying.

If he's not lying, and he 'knows' about the hack, then he is party to information that should be released (if it is common knowledge amongst his sources; UEA, Paul Nurse and others have also hinted at being in on the know), or he should be prosecuted for revealing information from an ongoing police investigation which has not, at this point, been released by Norfolk's 'finest'.

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

Spence_UK: Markey is a Democratic (not Republican) member of the House of Representatives (not the Senate).

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterDF

Naturally, I will not read them until Norfolk Constabulary has confirmed they are a leak.

I say to we must go further in showing our disgust for these utterly criminal files. I will not read them until they are driven to my door and handed to me in person by Professor Phil Jones. It's high time some people around here showed some respect.

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Yep DF, Markey isn't just a Dem but a fanatical, controlling warmer, from everything I've read. Getting the CIA to hunt down FOIA like bin Laden is right up his street.

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Oops, showing my ignorance of American politics there. Misinterpreted the "Rep." Thanks for the correction.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpence_UK

Damien feels it is the 'real' scandal. Snort, guffaw,

Nov 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

If the liberal Guardian had its way this person they call a 'hacker' would be hung, drawn and quartered - a quaint medieval custom.

Nov 23, 2011 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

My expertise in all this is limited, but it is specific in a few areas, and my nose is twitching on two points.

First, I smell possible perjury. Was evidence given to the various "Enquiries" under oath?

Second, I smell possible fraud, If there is scientific fraud - bad enough - then fraud in respect of funding applications will almost certainly be entailed.

I see that some at Climate Audit are starting to organise the latest release in meaningful ways, them being proper boffins. Even sorting the mails into threaded date order and reading them in context may be very revealing. And dangerous to at least some members of the Team.

Nov 23, 2011 at 4:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeff Wood

Sadly, Norfolk Constabulary is more interested in finding the leaker of the emails than investigating the massive fraud and abuse of public funds that has been perpetrated at the UEA.

I bet the Common Purpose crooks controlling the AGW fraud at the UEA are in a bit of a tizz.

Nov 23, 2011 at 5:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterstopcpdotcom

Was evidence given to the various "Enquiries" under oath


Indeed in the Muir Enquiry the Chairman explicitly refused to ask certain questions because, in that quaint way the English have, it would have been inappropriate to ask the witness to incriminate himself.

It is however contempt of Parliament to lie to a select committee, and such events are taken extremely seriously. This is why there is currently such a fuss about the evidence James Murdoch gave in the inquiry into phone hacking.

Nov 23, 2011 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterArthur Dent

Hi Arthur.

You are right about the English, but only the "old school tie boys".

What we need now is a proper inquiry. One where these people are properly cross examined.

I am confident, having until recently been a "trial" lawyer in the UK for over 13 years, that if that happened these people would be taken to pieces, their careers ruined and some of them would be on the end of criminal charges as a result.

So the powers that be will never let that happen.

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterRB

It is the simplest test for checking whether someone is a supporter of AGW or a skeptic.

Just ask: "Which do you think is of more concern -- a) the fact that the e-mails were released, or b) the content of those e-mails."

Nov 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

In theory it could have been a leak in 2009, and a hack in 2011, in the sense that of the person(s) involved having left UEA in-between.

Nov 24, 2011 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

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>