Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Time to grab them by the belt?

OK - a new experience for me....

I've been trying to locate the technical document for the extensive (and very expensive) program of sea defences planned for the Thames Estuary which is referenced in much of the EA's own "surge" of self aggrandizing PR London "climate change flood surge" bilge - with notable lack of success.

There's some Met Office research which assigns sea level rise a bit part (more of a "we've got to mention it") in east coast tidal / barometrically generated tidal surges - but bugger all else. The EA have a history of shameless invention (cue: "The Wrong Type of Rain"™ - © Chris Smiff) and others. Even when confronted with evidence that they're really wrong a retraction in any form is unicorn dung.

These people are really *not* unaware that observation does *not* support their AGW suffused projections - _at all_ Maybe (!) I'm just a grump - but that to me looks like fraud ....

There are (sadly many) other examples where public servants are deploying abuse of process and worse to force through actions that are almost entirely self serving.

I think collecting likely candidates and having as thorough as possible a wrestle with the "decision support" evidence is a fair way to go. I've as a few know got my own axe to grind - but I will restrain my self in that department. I believe ... the disdain and evasion for empirical evidence in public decision taking at present has to be addressed.

A roll call of candidates and their accomplishments please?

My initial feeling is that we have a target rich environment.

Dec 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Tomo, I am concentrating on those MPs and Lords who are enriching themselves at the green energy trough.
The conflicts of interest are staggering.
Unfortunately as long as they "declare an interest" that gives the corrupt a "free-pass" to make what amendments to bills etc. that will directly benefit the companies they advise/boards they sit on.
The only way to get these scamsters, since the rules effectively legitimise corruption, is to look for technical infringements- failing to declare an interest- that's what I got one on. Then they have to grovel to Parliament and resign the position they did not declare.
Small stuff, maybe, but for the arrogant buffoon concerned, a shock to the system.
They know they're been watched.
"Hansard" is a wonderful source of info. As is the "Members List of Interests".
Chose your "target"- there are so many!- and have a trawl.

All too much for one person, but if we each chose one....

Dec 6, 2013 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Don
I can see the logic in your approach.

The approach of manufacturing evidence and utterly ignoring actual observation is what absolutely riles me. As we both know if the theory + its associated arithmetic do not fit the observations (to put it mildly) - it's not the observations that are wrong. It's the delinquent officials I'd like to nail.

If an adherent of a wonky theory willfully bases policy on their fantasy whilst deliberately and systematically ignoring overwhelmingly contrary evidence - that is misconduct. If involves the pointless waste of public funds in a fashion that deprives others of benefits they might reasonably expect from communal assets - especially in these straightened times - that is Conspiracy to Defraud (the fact that they might benefit from extended salary opportunity is mere icing on the cake).

This whole setting the menu at the trough - "we decide" and "we set the terms of reference" arbitrariness thing has gone too far. There must be instances at DECC and across other public bodies where this sort of abuse has taken place - and... they've been arrogant buffoons and careless...

Partly from the school of "if you've a hammer everything looks like a nail" and extended familiarity - the EA have set themselves up I suspect on the Thames flooding scheme and other "projects".

One Admiral Byng moment would work wonders.

Stephen Lovegrove looks like he's worth a closer look ...


Who's your m'lord?

Dec 6, 2013 at 5:08 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Tomo- agreed.
The sloppy, politicised science riles me as well- which Is why my latest complaint is about the deliberate misrepresentation of a particular aspect of it.
I am alleging that the person involved has misled Parliament- which is a serious offence.

I already have one Lord who has had to make a written apology to the House, but I have been told that I risk being in contempt if I publicise who and what before it is "officially" confirmed.

I was less successful with the odious Tim Yeo- despite the fact he stinks to high Heaven- maybe standards in the Lords haven't sunk so low?

Final point we really do need more "troops on the ground" to help with this.

Dec 6, 2013 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

I would be happy for some qualified candidates and details of their accomplishments at the moment and have a go at winnowing down their suitability :-) .

There must be some highly compromised individuals out there that we don't know about. There is a parallel thing being progressed - but - it's going to be a surpr-i-se! for the lucky recipients of the summons :-)

Dec 6, 2013 at 8:48 PM | Registered Commentertomo

oops ran out of edit time.

I would be happy for some qualified candidates and details of their accomplishments at the moment and have a go at winnowing down their suitability :-) .

There must be some highly compromised individuals out there that we don't know about. There is a parallel thing being progressed - but - it's going to be a surpr-i-se! for the lucky recipients of the summons :-)

As for troops - I think it's a bit early to ask for commitment and they have to be fed - information is pivotal in all this - a key factor in the way this might work is that funding is presently *guaranteed* if there's a proper criminal case to answer (regardless of outcome) and lawyers are nothing if not mercenary ... private criminal prosecution should be explored I've had enough of administrative law.

Dec 6, 2013 at 9:12 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Tomo, by "troops" I mean a band of the "willing" prepare to march through the wastes of Hansard and lists of members interests combing for omissions- failures to declare etc.
A thankless task, but if each "trooper" had a specific target.......

Dec 8, 2013 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

David Rose's article has a contribution from me about a greedy green trougher.
I could do with more help exposing these crooks.

Dec 15, 2013 at 1:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Strike one on Lord Oxbung.

Who can I (we) get next?

Dec 17, 2013 at 12:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller