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
« The sports implement that must not be mentioned | Main | Back to the haystacks »
Wednesday
Dec212011

BBC local news on Tallbloke

BBC East have published a story about the seizure of Tallbloke's computers.

Police who seized computers as part of the Climategate inquiry involving the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been accused of being "heavy-handed".

A Norfolk Police inquiry started after emails from the UEA's Climate Research Unit (CRU) were hacked in 2009.

Last week six police officers went to the Leeds home of a blogger and seized two computers.

Blogger Roger Tattersall said he was "shocked" by the incident. Police said the inquiry is continuing.

It's a longish piece, but frankly there's not a lot we didn't know before.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (59)

Pretty banal reporting. Also, being originally from the North West side of Bristol I was particularly annoyed by:

Another blogger Adrian Kerton, of Stoke Difford, near Bristol, has also been contacted by Norfolk Police after he put in a Freedom of Information request to the UEA

No idea where Stoke Difford is but I went to a rather excellent wedding at Stoke Gifford church in the summer where the Groom managed 4.5 pints at the Beaufort Arms pub opposite before making it to the altar. His brother was with him in the pub and then proceeded to conduct the service.....great fun was had by all.

Dec 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

I think I may have had too many pints myself. I am actually from the North East side of Bristol, which is why I really do know where Stoke Gifford is!

Dec 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

"...did I have any academic qualifications..."

I guess not having them makes you a suspect of something?

The police force over there is clearly a Police Farce.

Andrew

Dec 21, 2011 at 9:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterBad Andrew

I notice the Beeb says the emails were hacked in 2009.
If the Beeb knows that then perhaps the Norfolkish plods should be directing their attention Beebwise.

Dec 21, 2011 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterbarnacle bill

barnacle bill

Muir Russell and his team, of course, 'knew' that the emails had been stolen; they referred to them as such on their website, which Kate Moffatt of Luther Pendragon defended when I questioned why they were doing so. The Norfolk plod appear to be amongst the few who don't 'know' what happened...

Dec 21, 2011 at 10:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveS

The Norfolk police should consider following in the footsteps of Laden and apologize to TallBloke. I suggest something like this format: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KniUNdVZvH4

Dec 21, 2011 at 11:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndrewSanDiego

Adrian Kerton published a paper in Energy and Environment 'Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection'

http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Climate_Change.htm

Dec 21, 2011 at 11:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Cowper

I thought I had been paying attention but have never heard of Adrian Kerton. Where does he fit into the script?

Dec 22, 2011 at 12:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

RoyFOMR - see the first comment of this thread.

Dec 22, 2011 at 1:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Doh! Thanks Martin

Dec 22, 2011 at 1:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

barnacle bill

"I notice the Beeb says the emails were hacked in 2009"

Even more interesting, I thought you must be referring to a different story.

When I first read that story, when it was first posted on the bbc site, it said they were "leaked." Which I see has now been changed to "hacked."

Little temporary slip up at the Ministry of Truth, apparently.

Dec 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM | Unregistered Commenteredward getty

The video is unavailable outside of the UK.

It is of interest to many of us "foreigners". Any chance of a Youtube version?

Dec 22, 2011 at 7:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterCarsten Arnholm

@Carsten,

A video may indeed be "unavailable" outside of the UK, but you can still view it using
Expat Shield (http://expatshield.com/).

It's a bit clunky, and a bit slow, but it's free and it definitely works.

Dec 22, 2011 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Boyce

A good way of viewing BBC content offshore is to use 'Chris PC anonymous proxy' which allows you to choose a UK URL for the final part of the contact. For Macs, use TOR, the same mechanism.

Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

Hang on a minute Adrian Kerton says (12:20) "I'm concerned that Norfolk Police are going to keep my details on file forever for making a legitimate Freedom of Information request.." but he presents no evidence for the causal connection he claims. The police haven't disclosed how Mr Kerton came to their attention other than that it is part of the operation to investigate the hacking of emails from CRU.

Dec 22, 2011 at 10:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

"The scientists were later cleared of manipulating their data, but as yet no one has been arrested."

Oh really? When exactly? The inquiries studiously avoided considering them.

And if they were cleared, who might be arrested?

Dec 22, 2011 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve

Re: Hengist McStone

By pure coincidence it turns out that everyone I know who sent a FOIA request to the UEA ended up being questioned.

Dec 22, 2011 at 10:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

@TerryS
Really, everybody ? Andrew Montford has sent a number of FOI requests to UEA so where's the report of him being questioned? At any rate your comment is anecdotal it doesn't prove cause and effect.

Dec 22, 2011 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

Perhaps this will convince you:

Dear Mr Rotter

I am part of the enquiry team who are investigating the theft of data from the UEA in Norwich last year.
As part of the investigation we would like to speak to everyone who has made any requests for information relating to the CRU at the UEA.
Records indicate that you made such a request last year and as a result I would like to discuss this and any other knowledge you may have with you at a convenient time.
Please can you contact me (I would suggest initially by e mail) leaving a contact number so that we can have a chat.

Kind regards

Sean Baker

More details are available here

Dec 22, 2011 at 12:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Hengist

Have you read Adrian's paper?

Dec 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Cowper

The carbon traders are now getting very worried that the fake science [they didn't know it was fake] they have been funding for decades is going very wrong.

Monckton has triggered this response because by directly accusing UEA and other 'scientists' of fraud, a lot of investment is probably going down the pan.

So, that part of the establishment which stands to lose by the canning of the scam is muscling in to try to make terrorism charges stick.

Meanwhile, the rest of the establishment is waking up to how deadly the effects of this carbon trading future will be, understanding at last that it's a Marxist/Fabian conspiracy to take away their control.

The latest example is the EU carbon tax on aviation which may well trigger protectionism.

Dec 22, 2011 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

Hengist check your facts..

Andrew sent FOI's to UEA AFTER the leak...

The police are on the record of contacting people who sent FOI's BEFORE the leak...

simple, easy fact checking.. why can't you do this, why are you so quick to be contrary.

Dec 22, 2011 at 1:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

@Paul Boyce

Thanks, I shall give ExpatShield a try.

Dec 22, 2011 at 1:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterCarsten Arnholm

Barry , the email to CTM is the first and only thing Ive seen that shows Police are looking at FOI requesters. It says "we would like to speak to everyone who has made any requests for information relating to the CRU at the UEA." It doesnt say in that email anything about the timing of said requests. Where do you get the "police are on the record of contacting people who sent FOI's BEFORE..." ?

To answer your question ' why are you so quick to be contrary' - it's called skepticism !

Dec 22, 2011 at 1:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

Why on earth would anyone who made an FOI request automatically be a suspect, especially when UEA's culture of having no data security is clearly the elephant in the room.

Sounds like simple harrassment to me.

Dec 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterFarleyR

Hengist, I haven't much read your stuff and now that I do I know why I don't. What's the point of checking on people who've submitted an FOIA request afterwards?
==================

Dec 22, 2011 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

@kim
I don't work for Norfolk Constabulary, your question would be better directed at them.

Dec 22, 2011 at 1:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

Re: Hengist

Where do you get the "police are on the record of contacting people who sent FOI's BEFORE...

You are absolutely correct. The police might be questioning people who will send an FOI request in the future.

Dec 22, 2011 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Hengist

Do you think the police will investigate Doug Keenan's allegations of fraud? You know the paper that Jones co wrote with Wang? Read about the allegations here:

http://www.informath.org/

Dec 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Cowper

From the BBC article:

"I think the police don't understand what they're doing. They've raided a blogger in Yorkshire but all the information that they required would be on servers in the United States."

It would appear that the Norfolk police are even more clueless than I suspected. It appears that they think that they can find FOIA by reading the logs of who posted a comment on a blog some time ago -- and that for some reason, he had all those logs on his computer in Leeds. While the IP address would possibly be recorded, anyone who was smart enough to obtain the emails would know enough to use an anonymous server.

Hard to believe that none of the teenage children of the plods involved hadn't explained that to their dads.

Heavy witted as well as heavy handed.

Dec 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Oh dear Barry Woods is wrong on both counts. Here's an FOI request from Andrew Montford to the UEA that pre-dates climategate 1.0

@Jack Cowper Im familiar with Doug's work but I haven't read it. I have no idea is the answer to your question. Maybe the next step is you should tell the police ...

Dec 22, 2011 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

Hengist

Maybe you should enlighten yourself. It may lead you to an epiphany.

Dec 22, 2011 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Cowper

Jack Cowper

Not bloody likely.

Dec 22, 2011 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Re: Hengist

What exactly is it you are arguing?

Are you arguing the police did not target those who submitted a FOI request? Clearly they did.

Are you claiming the police did not talk to Andrew Montford? Andrew spoke with Norfolk police in January 2010. Even though he initiated the contact, he still spoke with them.

What does Andrew speaking (or not speaking) with the police have to do with your claim that Adrian Kerton lied when he said he was targeted because of his legitimate FOI request?

Dec 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

TerryS, I'm fact checking Barry's assertion that Police are focussing on people that sent FOI requests to UEA before climategate. And (by implication) they wont be interested in Andrew Montford because "Andrew sent FOI's to UEA AFTER the leak" which is plainly wrong because Ive shown an FOI request by Montford from before climategate 1.0

Ive never said Adrian Kerton lied. Please don't make things up you only make it more difficult to get at the truth.

Dec 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

"Sir! We're surrounded!"
"Attack in every direction!"

Dec 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM | Unregistered Commentermojo

Hengist

Just had a look at your blogs:

http://muchachoverde.blogspot.com/
http://bbcantigreenbias.blogspot.com/

Cheers they made me chuckle for a minute or two. That's a big following you have there.

Dec 22, 2011 at 4:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Cowper

Why do sane people think it is appalling that anyone who sent in an FOI request to the UEA is questioned by the Police, and people like Hengist think it is the proper thing to do? How do you reconcile the fascistic tendencies of warmenizers with free speech?

Should every warmenizer be jailed for being fascists?

Dec 22, 2011 at 4:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Re: Hengist

I'm fact checking Barry's assertion that Police are focussing on people that sent FOI requests to UEA before climategate.

Barry never said the police are focussing on people that sent FOI requests. He said the police contacted people that sent FOI requests. This is true. It is verified by those who sent FOI requests and by the police themselves.

And (by implication) they wont be interested in Andrew Montford because "Andrew sent FOI's to UEA AFTER the leak" which is plainly wrong because Ive shown an FOI request by Montford from before climategate 1.0

So Barry made a mistake about Andrew's FOI request timings. Big deal.
Andrew had contact with the police in January 2010.

Ive never said Adrian Kerton lied.

Those were not the words you used, but the implication was clearly there.

Dec 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Hengist

"I'm familiar with Doug's work but I haven't read it"

I'm not familiar with that interpretation of familiar. I take it to mean 'not very'...

Dec 22, 2011 at 5:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Bruce:
"Why do sane people think it is appalling that anyone who sent in an FOI request to the UEA is questioned by the Police, and people like Hengist think it is the proper thing to do?"

More to the point, what sane person would think that everyone who sent in an FOI request to the UEA is a potential suspect in the alleged leak/hack? If the plod are contacting everyone who has made FOI requests to UEA without considering their context or relevence to the CAGW issue and the released emails, then its sounds more like an attempt to warn off others from making similar requests.

Dec 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterSalopian

I'm neither supporting Hengist nor having a go. But the obvious question is begging:

The police are investigating the 'unauthorised release' of UEA emails (are we okay with this terminology?).

They are going down a list of people who submitted FOI requests to UEA and asking them about their interest. This is relevant to the investigation and (to me, at least) entirely to be expected at this point (ie after CG 2.0).

I appreciate that nobody wants the police on the phone asking questions, however nicely. But I also suggest that there is no persecution, no fascism, indeed nothing at all out of the ordinary going on here. Just boring old procedure.

CG 2.0 has stirred things up a bit, but that's all.

Dec 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Wow you guys are sure working overtime with the misrepresentations tonight. Did I say it was proper for Norfolk Police to direct their investigation toward FOI requesters ? Nope
Did I say Adrian Kerton lied ? Nope
Did I suggest Police focussing on FOI requesters was time relevant? No I did not, that was Barry

Sorry people I have better things to do than spend my evening correcting the irrelevant diversions and misrepresentations propagated on this blog (and especially on this thread). Goodnight

Dec 22, 2011 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

TallBloke on BBC TV on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10lUiNvpOYM

My FOI request was made on December 2009, the police rang me in Feb 2010

Dec 22, 2011 at 5:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdrian Kerton

BBD

The police are investigating the 'unauthorised release' of UEA emails (are we okay with this terminology?).

Just who says that they are "unauthorized"? We have no idea who released them and just what authority they may or may not have had. It may well have been a system administrator with all the proper passwords who did it. Now if we were to say "alleged" or "possibly unauthorized released" then we would be closer to the truth as we know it.

Dec 22, 2011 at 5:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

"Hang on a minute Adrian Kerton says (12:20) "I'm concerned that Norfolk Police are going to keep my details on file forever for making a legitimate Freedom of Information request.." but he presents no evidence for the causal connection he claims. The police haven't disclosed how Mr Kerton came to their attention other than that it is part of the operation to investigate the hacking of emails from CRU"

I made a legititmate FOI request to UEA so why did the police contact me?
Is it against the law now to make an FOI request?
My wife is cared stiff that because I published a paper suggesting global warming is natural and because the police rang me because I made an FOI request the door is going to be smashed down and my computers seized.
Norfolk Police have emailed me saying that my details might remain on file for however long they want to regardless of the progress of the investigation, which appears to be going nowwhere.
If you wanted to contact me before jumping in why didn't you contact me via my webpage?
I guess you do know how to use an internet search.

Hengist, how would you like the police to raid your place?

Dec 22, 2011 at 6:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdrian Kerton

@BBD:
"They are going down a list of people who submitted FOI requests to UEA and asking them about their interest. This is relevant to the investigation and (to me, at least) entirely to be expected at this point (ie after CG 2.0)."

Even the greenest Norfolk Plod having just fallen out of the haystack, should been able to tell from the text of each FOI request whether, it is or not relevant to the investigation and worth following up. Otherwise it is a shotgun approach that smells to me of intimidation. My IT skills are limited but I know that FOI requests are tedious and time-consuming. If this was a hack, I suspect whoever did it went for the direct approach, rather than wasting time making a request.

Dec 22, 2011 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterSalopian

"I appreciate that nobody wants the police on the phone asking questions, however nicely. But I also suggest that there is no persecution, no fascism, indeed nothing at all out of the ordinary going on here. Just boring old procedure. "

I think it is out of the ordinary to pursue people making legitimate FOI requests. They should only pursue subjects if they have information that leads them to suspect an involvement in crime. They should not be allowed to go on fishing exercises upsetting law abiding folk.

Why did they need 6 officers to go to TallBloke’s unless the intent was to cause fright?

Dec 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdrian Kerton

ThinkingScientist

“I think I may have had too many pints myself. I am actually from the North East side of Bristol, which is why I really do know where Stoke Gifford is!”

See my history of Stoke Gifford www.akk.me.uk

Bad Andrew
"...did I have any academic qualifications..."

I guess not having them makes you a suspect of something?

I have an HND and an MSc [+OAP]

Carsten Arnholm
The video is unavailable outside of the UK.
Now on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10lUiNvpOYM&feature=youtu.be

I wish you all a Merry Christmas. Except Hengist!

From us ("the wishors") to you ("hereinafter called the wishee"):

Please accept without obligation, explicit or implicit, our best wishes for
an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, low
stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice
holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious
persuasion or secular practice of your choice, with respect for the
religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice
not to practice religious or secular traditions.

Please also accept, under aforesaid waiver of obligation on your part, our
best wishes for a financially successful, personally fulfilling and
medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of this calendar year of
the Common Era, but with due respect for the calendars of all cultures or
sects, and for the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious
faith, choice of computer platform or dietary preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting you acknowledge that:

This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal at the
wishor's discretion.

This greeting is freely transferable provided that no alteration shall be
made to the original greeting and that the proprietary rights of the wishor
are acknowledged.

This greeting implies no warranty on the part of the wishors to fulfil
these wishes, nor any ability of the wishors to do so, merely a beneficent
hope on the part of the wishors that they in fact occur.

This greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or the
restrictions herein may not be binding upon certain wishees in certain
jurisdictions and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wishors.

This greeting is warranted to perform as reasonably may be expected within
the usual application of good tidings, for a period of one year or until the
issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first.

The wishor warrants this greeting only for the limited replacement of this
wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wishor.

Any references in this greeting to "the Lord", "Father Christmas", "Our
Saviour", or any other festive figures, whether actual or fictitious, dead
or alive, shall not imply any endorsement by or from them.

Dec 22, 2011 at 6:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdrian Kerton

Adrian/Tallbloke:

I hope that you will both make representations to the Justice Committee call for evidence on the FOI. Looks like you've both some strong evidence of the plod using it for illegitimate reasons.

Dec 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterSalopian

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>