Bishop Hill UEA footdragging - Part 3
Oct 29, 2012 This is a guest post by Don Keiller.
At the end of the last episode the forces of “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing” consensus appeared to have chalked up another victory.
Well as UEA have previously discovered, to their cost, I can be very persistent.
I felt another court battle coming on.
Dear Mr. YYYYYY, I note the recent correspondence you sent from UEA and HP Security Services, together with the ICO's opinion that the Tribunal's Substituted Decision Notice has now been satisfied. However I remain unconvinced that this is the case.
In particular the letter sent by Mr. XXXXXX (Senior Forensic Consultant, Digital Investigation Services) states that "In being asked to search for "@gatech.edu" or "@eas.gatech.edu" I opted, by way of efficiency, to search for the term "gatech.edu". This will have identified any emails containing this sequence of characters. From these results, I then further filtered this subset of data to display only emails sent by Professor Phil Jones (p.jones@uea.ac.uk). As you correctly state in your letter, no emails were located."
Firstly Mr. XXXXXX is in error when he states that he was "asked to search for "@gatech.edu" or "@eas.gatech.edu".
In fact, as the Black Grouse Report plainly states, "Criteria set out by Mr. Brian Summers indicated that the search was to identify:
…address containing "@gatech.edu". If Mr XXXXX cannot even name the basic search parameters correctly, what confidence can I have in the results of such a search?
The very fact that no emails were located could simply mean that the search parameter was ineffective. For this argument to be at all convincing, I would wish to see examples of any emails that the search actually found, to "@eas.gatech.edu", before "filtering" for emails sent by Professor Phil Jones.
After all absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
In this connection it is valuable to consider UEA's own admission, in the Tribunal Open Bundle Evidence, namely that "UEA have confirmed that the data referred to in the second part of the request was transmitted by Professor Jones of CRU, by email, to Georgia Tech in the USA. The University has also confirmed that there was a cover email sent with the data."
The second part of the request is, of course, the email that is the subject of the search. How can UEA confirm that such an email was sent then, apparently, be unable to find it?
Here it is again instructive to return to the findings of the Muir Russell report (para. 22), where it was noted that “Internet communications for CRU were routed over the university network and through the University firewall. Furthermore the IT Manager introduced automated backup to a server held securely within the Central IS machine room”.
Thus all CRU emails were automatically backed up on the server which is the subject of this search.
Hence the failure of the search directly contradicts the findings of the Muir Russell Report (paras. 28 and 23), which “found the presence of extensive and long duration backups of e-mail and other materials”.
Secondly, it is apparent that UEA has instructed HP Services to search in a way that I believe is designed to thwart the wishes of the Tribunal, namely "establishing the existence of and recovering the email sent by Prof Jones to Georgia Tech on or about 15 January 2009".
Thus it is illogical for UEA not to stipulate a specific date for the search and neither to stipulate the names to whom the email in question were sent.
As I have stated previously, the exact date and persons to whom the email was sent is well known to UEA and has been for some time.
Thus the email below, sent by Professor Jones, directly refers to it.
From: Phil Jones [mailto:???@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:16 PM
To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03]
Dave,
I sent some of the station data to a Jun Jian at Georgia Tech on 15 Jan 2009.
I see now that Peter Webster was a recipient on the email. I also see from looking at Climate Audit that this request results from Peter saying on CA that he's not had any difficulty getting data from CRU (see what he said below on June 24).
I regard this as a personal email between me and this group at Georgia Tech. So, McIntyre has no right to request the data in a personal email.
I only sent a small part of the dataset anyway. They asked for a specific set and said what they were going to do with the data.
Cheers
Phil
Why then was this precise information, namely “15 Jan 2009”, “Peter Webster” and “Jun Jian” not used?
Please also note the date when this email was sent, June 26, 2009. At this point the email in question was still on Professor Jones PC and had undoubtedly passed through the CRU server.
Accordingly if this email cannot be found and therefore no longer exists, then it must have been deliberately deleted from both Professor Jones' PC and the backup server, at some later date, for the specific purpose of frustrating the legitimate FOI/EIR request by Mr. S. McIntyre. As such this is an offence under Section 77(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, hence I expect that the ICO will censure UEA accordingly.
Finally it should be apparent from reading this reply, that I am still not at all satisfied by the way UEA has conducted the search for the email in question, nor the ICO's decision. Accordingly I now request that you send me all relevant information regarding the procedure for a Judicial Review of this decision.
Clearly the threat of judical review concentrated minds because just one week later I received an unexpectedly conciliatory email.
Whilst the Commissioner notes your comments, the Commissioner remains of the view that the UEA has complied with the Tribunal’s substituted decision notice of 18 January 2012.
However, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s view, he nevertheless contacted the UEA’s solicitors for further comment.
The UEA has advised the Commissioner that it would be willing, as a pragmatic and exceptional gesture, to undertake as a final measure the following search of certain contents of the CRU backup server (notwithstanding that it is not part of the University's live information system) in order to further seek to address your outstanding concerns. The Commissioner understands from the University that the offer below is made without prejudice to the University's position that it has complied fully with the requirements of the Tribunal through the work undertaken on its behalf by the independent contractor, HP Security Services.
The University has confirmed to the Commissioner that it would be willing, should you confirm that you wish the University to do so, to undertake a search of the nearest backup taken after 15 January 2009 for each of the four computers owned by Professor Jones. For each machine’s backup the mailbox will be searched to ascertain whether it contains any email sent (or copied) by Professor Jones to either Peter Webster or Jun Jian at Georgia Tech. The University's intention is to search the mailbox for the string “gatech”. This search will, it believes, identify any emails sent to Georgia Tech email addresses or indeed referencing Georgia Tech email addresses on 15 January 2009
I would be grateful if you would confirm whether you wish the University to undertake this step by 31 August 2012.
Is the Pope catholic?
However not wanting to appear too happy, I sent the following reply.
Dear Mr. YYYYY, thank you for your consideration of my comments of 15th August.
Whilst I remain unconvinced that a proper search of the back-up server was executed, I believe that the offer made by UEA to
"to undertake a search of the nearest backup taken after 15 January 2009 for each of the four computers owned by Professor Jones. For each machine’s backup the mailbox will be searched to ascertain whether it contains any email sent (or copied) by Professor Jones to either Peter Webster or Jun Jian at Georgia Tech. The University's intention is to search the mailbox for the string “gatech”. This search will, it believes, identify any emails sent to Georgia Tech email addresses or indeed referencing Georgia Tech email addresses on 15 January 2009".
is a reasonable and pragmatic offer that I would be willing to accept, with 2 minor amendments:
1) That the search includes those emails sent on the 15th January, 2009.
2) That the total number of emails found using the string search "gatech", irrespective of whether they were sent (or copied) by Professor Jones to either Peter Webster, or Jun Jian at Georgia Tech is reported. This would act as a "positive control" demonstrating that the string "gatech" can, in fact, identify emails sent to Georgia Tech.
The Commissioner's reply was immediate and positive.
I note that you accept the offer of the further search.
I further note the 2 minor amendments suggested.
It’s amazing what the prospect of a legal battle with “Big Oil” can do for one’s attitude problems. A further email from the Commissioner shortly followed.
The University has confirmed to the Commissioner that in light of the significant expenditure incurred thus far in securing the services of an independent contractor in order to comply with the substituted decision notice of 18 January 2012, it does not propose to undertake a search for emails sent on any date other than 15 January 2009, or to engage now an independent contractor to undertake those searches.
In respect of your second proposed amendment, the University is willing to confirm the number of emails located using the "gatech" search string sent on 15 January 2009, although it follows from the comments above that the search is not intended to locate emails sent on any other date.
The Commissioner is of the view that the proposal is reasonable in the circumstances.
So UEA proposed to conduct its own search!
Then “a miracle happened”.
I write further to the above matter and, further to my email of 12 September, I can inform you that I have now received confirmation from the University’s solicitors that the University has now concluded its search of the backup server.
As part of that search, the University has located an email sent on 15 January 2009 from Professor Jones to Jun Jian. The University confirms that it is content for a copy of that email (and the rest of the email chain) to be provided to you. A copy of the email chain is attached.
The Commissioner is content that this now concludes matters in relation to your request and the appeal.
There, that wasn’t too difficult, was it?
And the deep dark secrets that UEA had originally rejected my FOI request back in September 2009 using the following terms?
In accordance with Regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and I am not obliged to supply this information and the reasons for exemption are as stated below:
|
Exception |
Reason |
|---|---|
|
Reg. 12(4)(a) – Information not held |
Some of the requested information is not held by the University |
|
Reg. 12(4)(b) – Request is manifestly unreasonable |
Information is available elsewhere |
|
Reg. 12(5)(a) – Adverse effect on international relations |
Release would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations |
|
Reg. 12(5)(f) – Adverse effect on the person providing information |
Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement |
Well judge for yourself the nature of the dark conspiracy:
Dear Dr. Phil Jones,
This is Dr. Jun Jian working in Dr. Peter Webster’s group, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA. I am interested in the below product info found at web (XXXX).
We are going to do analysis on surface temperature trend in tropical oceans. So I want to know if it is possible to get the station ground temperature record observed in central Pacific islands from 1930-1950. Where can we get a data content description? The location of our record is small so we want to know in detail.
Thanks and best regards.
(Climate Change data ($950 or 595 Pounds Sterling) Monthly 5-degree surface temperature anomaly grids 1894-1990, pressure grids 1873-1990, Monthly World temperature grids at about 3500 stations and precipitation data at about 6500 stations.
Retrieval and mapping software include, available for various systems.
Contact Dr. Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK)
Dear Jun,
The Chadwyck-Healey product is something I did with them about 15 years ago. I have not updated anything in it since then. I did not realise that they were still marketing it!
If you send me the co-ordinates of the area of tropical ocean (or possibly part of the Pacific, or one island), I can see if we can send you the station temperature data for the island(s) within the domain.
These would be monthly average temperatures, calculated by whatever way the country uses to calculate mean temperatures. Some will be based on max and min, some on the basis of obs. at fixed hours each day.
Cheers,
Phil.
So there we have it. CRU did possess raw, unhomogenised, non “value-added” data, despite all protestations to the contrary. That is the dirty secret that they have spent £10s of thousands and 3 years trying to conceal.
I wonder if they still do?
Reader Comments (51)
You old teaser, keeping us waiting like that!
the whole climategate cache was searchable online within a week of distribution, UEA should just dump all the emails on that backup server up online for searching, no?
Hats off to you Don. As an Aussie, could I suggest for you a new nickname of The Don (Bradman), in tribute to you hitting UEA for six!
Wonderful - truly both entertaining and ultimately satisfyingly informative
"I wonder if they still do?"
Yes ... Cat on a Hot Tin Roof now, I would think
Un-effing-believable. I don't even know what to call it. These people have gotten so wrapped up in their efforts to stonewall that they have stacked lie upon lie when the truth would have served them better. You'd think they were bureaucrats rather than academics.
However not wanting to appear too happy, I sent the following reply.
Gets my vote as the best line ;)
Obviously the spirit of FOI is not defended by the ICO. Why I am not surprised.
ps CRU did possess raw, unhomogenised, non “value-added” data, despite all protestations to the contrary. How many of the statements made by Jones and other UEA representatives in front of various parliamentary and non-parliamentary committees are truth-challenged by these new findings?
"How can UEA confirm that such an email was sent then, apparently, be unable to find it?"
Ha ha ha ha!
Will UEA be asking Mr XXXXXX for the £Xk he wasted?
More than merely admirable. Congratulations. A happy ending in deed.
But what a depressing, poor, sad, sorry tale it tells of the writhings, half-truths, dissembling and machinations of the bureaucratic/academic mind with a guilty conscience – to say nothing of a grotesque waste of money.
Needless to say, if the likes of the UEA are prepared to go to these lengths to cover up a comparatively minor matter, how far would they go to hide something much more serious? What is also rather depressing, is that you can sure that this startling example of official obstruction of a clear legal duty will receive almost no coverage in the wider media.
Don - for the avoidance of doubt - can you clarify exactly why this email should have escaped the initial net?
Carthago delenda est which translates roughly as 'we must have a public enquiry'
All the stonewalling does is raise the profile and the awareness and the number of eyes...
Then anything not kosher in this email will be open to more scrutiny, or will send someone off with an idea created by the positive tension of the story and result.
Let us call it Information Energy. A new term.
They need to keep the Information Energy as low as possible. More eyes, more energy. Then even chain reactions, energy conversion.
UEA risk management was always poor and hasn't improved it seems. They have no idea have to keep the Information Energy low.
I was under the impression that one of the key UEA/Jones positions through all the 'inquiries' was that UEA/Jones no longer held the unadjusted data. This was what I call their fall-back 'we-may-be-incompetent-but-we're-not-crooks' position.
Were they lying? Or is this Pacific islands set the only one they had?
The use of the word 'marketing' is an eye-opener. Good old UEA, saving the planet one invoice at a time.
Can the reputation of Oxburgh & Muir-Russell fall any lower? They must look in the mirror every morning and either wonder how they allowed themselves to be taken for fools so easily or realise that the Danegeld they received was inadequate...
Along with Acton, they must now anticipate more examples of their incompetence/malfeasance being in the public domain in the same vein as Liberal MPs face the next general election
My admiration, and thanks, Don.
BREAKING NEWS....
A new bunch of green fascist are attacking gas-fired power. Please tweet them a protest message. They are increasing fuel poverty.
https://twitter.com/nodashforgas
http://www.nodashforgas.org.uk/
Regards and thanks Fay
Then just don't get way this stream of lies is such a bad idea . One day in a court room they may get to find out the hard way if we are lucky .
Does the HoC Science and Technology Committee now know about this revelation?
I do hope so.
@Matthu- I really do not have any firm conclusion over this.
Possibilities include;
1) the email was not on the backup server that HP enterprise searched.
2) inappropriate search parameter used by HP services.
3) UEA are in possession of copies of Professor Jones's emails (The University will "undertake...search of certain contents of the CRU backup server") that they have not (to date) acknowledged.
I think that is is the most likely option as thoughout this saga they have said that they have to go via the Police to get access to the server. Yet they did this final search themselves.
Alternatively the Police have returned the backup server to UEA (maybe readers could confirm this?) so that they could search direct.
Thanks for the clarification, Don.
One other slightly odd thing is that they elected to do the most recent (and only successful) search themselves rather than contract this out to a consultant. Why?
Was this purely to save money? if so, why not seek to save money all along?
Or was it to disguise the fact that they were now searching in a completely different place? (Maybe they found another thumb drive somewhere ...) Or was it to conceal incompetence?
Whatever, I guess somebody at UEA must be feeling less than well-pleased with the outcome.
`Mission accomplished and well done to 'The Don'.
We are now wiser but will any wrong-doers be brought to book over the discovery of the existance of raw data or even the stone-walling?
@Matthu- to my knowledge it was to save money.
"The University has confirmed to the Commissioner that in light of the significant expenditure incurred thus far in securing the services of an independent contractor in order to comply with the substituted decision notice of 18 January 2012, it does not propose to undertake a search for emails sent on any date other than 15 January 2009, or to engage now an independent contractor to undertake those searches"
Don -
I hope you write an epilogue to the ICO, noting the frailty of the original reasons for exclusion from EIR, and the wastefulness of the HP search. And how the UEA's position that it had "complied fully with the requirements of the Tribunal" is utterly destroyed by the email's sudden and apparently serendipitous discovery. The ICO should be made keenly aware of the obstructionist tendencies there.
[And kudos to the one at UEA who produced the document.]
"The University has confirmed to the Commissioner that in light of the significant expenditure incurred thus far in securing the services of an independent contractor in order to comply with the substituted decision notice of 18 January 2012, it does not propose to undertake a search for emails sent on any date other than 15 January 2009, or to engage now an independent contractor to undertake those searches."
Which begs the bleedingly obvious question of why they didn't do this in the first place?
Don,
Many, many congratulations. Truly excellent work! Science claims to be self-policing: your work again illustrates that the claim is false and that legal force, or at least the threat thereof, is sometimes required to get professional scientists to act properly.
More of the Bill Lawrys or Slasher Mackays, I feel, untroubled by setbacks, sticking to the task with barnacle stubbornness.
Congrats, Don.
That sure was material capable of damaging international relations as per their claim .. /sarc
I hope UEA students start to understand what their fees are really spent on. None of this years intake should complain if employers fail to take their degrees seriously. I know I don't.
Another FOI needed?
How many hours spent and how much all this cost, with particular interest in the barrister fees?
Any competant IT manager in any company, would have found the email withan hour.
But of course we know that, they know that, and their seems to be no consequences for their behaviour. :(
What is Don's correct academic title? Dr, Prof?
As I would like to summarize all this at WUWT, with links to all 4 posts, to bring UEA's mendacity to an even wider audience
Looks like if you contact Professor Jones, the Chadwyck-Healey product is still available.
http://www.almac.co.uk/almac/bbs/atw/65.htm
Climate Change Data ($950, or 595 pounds sterling from UK source):
Monthly 5-degree surface temperature anomaly grids 1854-1990, pressure
grids 1873-1990. Monthly world temperature data at about 3500 stations and
precipitation data at about 6500 stations, for period of record (long).
Retrieval and mapping software included, available for various systems.
Contact: Dr. Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East
Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom. Distributed in North America by
Chadwyck-Healey Inc.,1101 King St, Alexandria, VA 22314. 800/752-0515.
@Barry my correct title is "Dr".
However I'm not too exercised by this one way or another.
4 posts??
Seems to me, something is seriously wrong here. Too much doesn't make sense. As the Jun Jian e-mail was harmless, UEA would have had no concerns producing it. They were probably thrilled as it promised to cure their FOI headache. To not deliver it earlier indicates to me concern over other e-mails that may have surfaced with wider search parameters.
Relative to the second amendment (total number of e-mails discovered address to gatech.edu) that finally defined the parameters of this latest search, did they deliver those results? Are they subject to FOI? Apparently only a single day, Jan 15, was reviewed.
Based on UEA.s obvious stone-walling tactics, can't help but believe e-mail(s) remain that UEA has desperately, and so far successfully, worked to keep put of the public eye.
When any request is NOT responded to in good faith, it is too easy to fulfill it ONLY to the letter, which can then work to obfuscate the intent of the request. Is the Jun Jian e-mail the only one requested. If so, why wasn't it found the first time? If not, did the use of the knowledge of e-mails to Jun Jian, which were not found at first and subsequently used to argue an additional search, enable UEA to close this issue while keeping damaging e-mails safe behind their "firewalls?"
May the truth prevail
@Peter Green- Thoughtful comments.
Of course the other reason that UEA defended this to the death was to avoid setting precedent.
Namely;
a) that emails on the CRU backup server are "available for the purposes of the (F.O.I.) act".
b) that when searched for (properly) they can be found.
It is depressing, therefore, to find that UEA are still relying on the same tired old excuses that I have comprehensively demolished to impede/reject other FOI requests.
It is as if all this did not happen and that each FOI request is being made to jump through the same hoops as I had to.
Indeed, they know no shame.
@Douglas Keenan.
Thanks from you are really appreciated.
You have done more than most to expose corruption in Climate "Science".
@ Barry Woods - Oct 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM
"Another FOI needed?
How many hours spent and how much all this cost, with particular interest in the barrister fees?"
And to obtain confirmation that no fees whatsoever were paid to HP Enterprise Security Services, for their failure to find emails subsequently proven to exist.
Don,
I should be receiving shortly a response from UEA regarding my FOI request (FOI_12-139) for the Briffa-Wahl emails discussed by Steve McIntyre here. Your work, hopefully, has indeed broke the precedent. We'll see,though.
Thanks for recounting your efforts. It should be helpful.
mod-
Bad href tag in previous post. Can you parse? Thanks.
So after all that effort and the expense caused to UEA etc, you have obtained an email that says exactly nothing. Well done! I'm sure taxpayers will thank you for wasting their money on such a frivolous cause. I'm just hoping you did not pursue this crusade on your university time and equipment.
Do not feed the Troll.
Perhaps they did not go back to the IT company because they did not want to have to admit to them UEA's bad faith.
The reputation of this "HP Services" has been destroyed by UEA. Likewise for the local police, the IPCC, the SciTech committee. Like an inverse Midas, UEA transforms all it touches in plant feed of the solid variety.
Don, I wish to add my congrats for your incredible tenacity in your refusal to take "no" for an answer.
This affair demonstrates the complete moral vacuity of those men of the Establishment who conduct the 'official enquiries'. In an even moderately fair and honest society such people would be objects of shame and pity.
To Dr Don Keiller,
I must agree with barry woods. You should if you have the time follow up on a lot of the issues. Funny things about coverups... they are often what get ppl put in jail for a long time covering up a small crime. If you can show that they lied, defrauded the public or any of a host of other thing you can truly inflict real damage to them. Since you are the person directly harmed by the actions of the coverup its best that you are the one to bring it to court should you decide to keep digging into the matter.
Possible angles is turning HP Services against UEA. HP Services have a reputation to uphold and bad press could quickly result in them saying that UEA did not have them make the searches they so claimed.
That along with getting some real cost figures such as it really did cost UEA 12,500 dollars to run the search would greatly help in that I find it hard to believe it cost that much. This evidence can be used by other FOI requesters to show the EUA has a history of inflating the costs. This would help prevent them from using this excuse in the future. It also would make good PR in general to show just how much money they are willing to spend to block access to what the troll above would say "is a meaningless e-mail". Most likely EUA will release a cost sheet for the search including every possible cost in the book from bottled water to fish food trying its best to inflate the cost beyond mission. If this respond is taken, a further request to detail the costs in the same detailed manner should be made in the case of blocking the FOI. They will be forced to display a huge inflated cost on that as well and thus can be used to display how much the UEA is losing over meaningless BS.
Either way be it they lied about the cost and it was much less or they falsely inflate the cost and thus you turn this against them, the result should have negative effects on them. Sane people will wonder why so much money(assuming so much money was indeed spent) to hide one e-mail.
Don - 4 including original foi victory post, for background
a competent departmental IT manager, would have found a named, dated, subject known email inside an hour. (at any company I ever worked for big or small)
at no cost except for his already paid for time (ie salary). are they saying that nobody employed in IT service by the UEA hadthe capabilities to find an email, on a server specifically with the purpose to back up emails..
if Don could follow up with an FOI on costs time, barristers, and correspondece between HP might be interesting.
But the establishemnt, seem to be able to get aawy with lying with no consequences, what so ever.
How much money spent, to find an email, when correctly searched for it popped up in minutes.
@barry woods
' are they saying that nobody employed in IT service by the UEA hadthe capabilities to find an email, on a server specifically with the purpose to back up emails..?'
Seems like it. Perhaps they should have asked Harry_Read_Me instead of Phil Jones.
robotech master said, above: "Funny things about coverups... they are often what get ppl put in jail for a long time covering up a small crime."
Aussie high profile lawyer, an Australian "living treasure", and more...
Tried to beat a small-time speeding fine and went to jail.
Yep! Know what you mean. Good advice to Don (and caution to crooks).
Latimer Alder above wrote: "Perhaps they should have asked Harry_Read_Me instead of Phil Jones."
I have a lot of time for that Harry, Latimer, and look forward to one day hearing his full story. I hope he tells it with a very humouress slant worthy of the wry humour in his "comment files".
Ahh...The importance of a positive control. How much time and effort and money is lost when they are omitted?
On a slightly related topic, If you haven't already read it, here's a recent quote to savour:
"It's really good to see the public joining in the fightback”
-Simon Entwhistle Information Commissioner's Office director of operations.
The story was reported at the BBC [they're not all bad] of a man who decided to start billing cold-calling companies for wasting his time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20068927
What I found most interesting is that it was the threat of judicial review that finally caused a change of heart. Presumably, up till then they kept hoping that Dr Don would get tired and just go away.
We can only speculate about what they were so afraid of from a j.r. Since these generally focus on the process, not the facts, it seems likely that an independent examination of the process would have caused some embarrassment.
Anyway, well done! And I agree that a post summarising this remarkable story would be welcome at WUWT. The more pressure that is put on these obstructive and potentially dishonest tactics, the better. Plus, it's a cracking read.
Dolphinhead said:
Not really.
It means "Carthage must be destroyed" -- or more literally "deleted".