Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 31 Jan '10 20:33
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113552/Climategate-confusion-over-the-law-in-email-case.html

    Climategate: confusion over the law in email case

    The Information Commission claims it is powerless to bring charges over the Climatic Research Unit 'conspiracy', says Christopher Booker

    By Christopher Booker
    Published: 7:07PM GMT 30 Jan 2010

    There is something very odd indeed about the statement by the Information Commission on its investigation into "Climategate", the leak of emails from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. Gordon Smith, the deputy commissioner, confirms that the university's refusal to answer legitimate inquiries made in 2007 and 2008 was an offence under S.77 of the Information Act. But he goes on to claim that the Commission is powerless to bring charges, thanks to a loophole in the law – "because the legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place".

    Careful examination of the Act, however, shows that it says nothing whatever about a time limit. The Commission appears to be trying to confuse this with a provision of the Magistrates Act, that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities' attention – not after it was committed. In this case, the Commission only became aware of the offence two months ago when the emails were leaked – showing that the small group of British and American scientists at the top of the IPCC were discussing with each other and with the university ways to break the law, not least by destroying evidence, an offence in itself.

    The Commission is thus impaled on a hook of its own devising. By admitting that serious offences were committed, it is now legally obliged to bring charges. And if these were brought under the 1977 Criminal Law Act, alleging that the offences amounted to a conspiracy to defy the law, there is no time limit anyway.

    The real mystery therefore is how the Commission came to misread the very Act which brought it into being. Undoubtedly a successful prosecution involving such world-ranking scientists would be extraordinarily embarrassing, not just to the Government but to the entire global warming cause. So what has persuaded the Commission not to do its duty?
  2. 31 Jan '10 20:37
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024266/the-criminal-case-against-dr-phil-climategate-jones/
  3. 02 Feb '10 11:46
    If I could be bothered to be overly interested in this crusade, I might note that so far the fraudulency of the data is still an assumption by the anti-climate change nuts, and awaits proper investigation.
  4. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    02 Feb '10 11:53
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113552/Climategate-confusion-over-the-law-in-email-case.html

    Climategate: confusion over the law in email case

    The Information Commission claims it is powerless to bring charges over the Climatic Research Unit 'conspiracy', says Christopher Booker

    By Christopher Booker
    Published: 7: ...[text shortened]... e entire global warming cause. So what has persuaded the Commission not to do its duty?
    Section 127(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980

    Look it up.
  5. 02 Feb '10 16:55
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Section 127(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980

    Look it up.
    don't know how.
  6. 02 Feb '10 16:58
    Originally posted by Starrman
    If I could be bothered to be overly interested in this crusade, I might note that so far the fraudulency of the data is still an assumption by the anti-climate change nuts, and awaits proper investigation.
    "awaits" is the right word ... they were salivating over the $45 trillion (initial estimate!) worldwide AGW remediation costs, think they will allow it to be snatched out of their hands so easily?

    funny how the anti-establishment environment people are so in with the establishment!
  7. 02 Feb '10 22:41
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    "awaits" is the right word ... they were salivating over the $45 trillion (initial estimate!) worldwide AGW remediation costs, think they will allow it to be snatched out of their hands so easily?

    funny how the anti-establishment environment people are so in with the establishment!