Bishop Hill What's up with Norfolk Police?
Jun 22, 2011 Climate: CRU FOI A few weeks back I got some general ledger details from UEA and we discovered, among other things, that UEA had made a big payment to Norfolk Police Authority. The police authority is the body that oversees the constabulary, which I thought was rather odd.
I therefore put in an FOI asking them for a copy of the invoice plus any related correspondence. The immediate response was slightly strange in that I was passed straight on to Norfolk Constabulary's FOI department. At the time I assumed that Norfolk Police Authority and the Constabulary itself must share financial ledgers. I thought nothing else of it.
However, today the response has come back.
In the context of a request under the Freedom of Information Act being for information not
documents, as you have detailed above, you are already in possession of the invoice information between Norfolk Police Authority and the University of East Anglia. Please see below an explanatory statement regarding this payment. No contract exists in relation to this work.
Whilst conducting their investigation into the access to and downloading of data from the
computers at the University of East Anglia, the Major Investigation Team engaged the services of a company with the ability to forensically examine the computer system. The University made their own decision to engage that company to review the security of their system and carry out work on their behalf. The company completed the work and invoiced Norfolk Constabulary for all of the work undertaken, and UEA reimbursed Norfolk Constabulary for the work that had been completed at their request.
So, they are not letting me see the actual invoice and they are not saying anything at all about the related correspondence.
The story about this representing a recharge for computer forensics is strange too. We have seen in the UEA disclosure some costs for computer forensics, although only £5k or so.
Does this make anyone else a bit uncomfortable?
Reader Comments (122)
Re: Latimer
> if indeed UEA hired Qinetic, how did Qinetic know they were hired? There is no contract.
How would you know that?
Fishy . What is the name of the company involved would be a starting point. "No contract exists in relation to this work " if there wasn't a contract what was the purpose of the payment and the nature of the work?
Hmmm......
....funny old outfit Qinetiq - grew out of the old Royal Signals and Radar Establishment at Malvern, which I used to work quite closely with back in the '70's.
There were quite a few spooks in evidence in those days - and I note from Wikipedia that they still had a CIA man on the main board until recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QinetiQ
I'm not normally given to conspiracy theories - but Qinetiq might be a safe choice if the establishment needed to keep the results of the investigation under control.
RB
It stinks to me, too. I imagine the approach from UEA to the contractor was something like, "That work you've just done for NP, could you just...?"
Let's review how obtuse Norfolk Constabulary have been in the past providing information about the case.
Here is an account on Bishop Hill in December 2010 (Correspondence in italics):
Here is again on Bishop Hill a statement by Norfolk Police in response to a similar request:
Two weeks later Norfolk Constabulary writes to our host:
That's what Norfolk Constabulary say when they want to say, I don't know nuthin'. I'm tellin' ya! I don't know nuthin'.
Yes, Kim, How do you provide a safe house and new identity for a person addicted to writing scientific papers under his/her correct name, cunningly camouflaged with a dozen co-authors?
But no, I think the leaker was less senior and peed off because of the poor science being witnessed. Give the leaker a break, probably has a promising future career, especially now with the knowledge of how to hide invoices from public view - as well as how to expose emails to the public view. Could be quite employable.
Now who can we think of that had adequate access to the servers, was probably very pissed off with being given s..t work to do and a bit unhappy that he wasn't having a social life any more? Larry? Garry?......
UAE hire Company X who discover that it is an inside job. UAE decide not to prosecute (to avoid embarrassment) and the police take no further action.
Not sure any FOI request could uncover the facts if this is true.
I think we have to assume the Liberator still desires anonymity. That is a key point. We all know, as do all honest scientists, that the Liberator played a critical and heroic role in the events of the day, and is still in play.
We should all look forward to the time when the climate(intentional) is right for the heroism to be revealed. It is a measure of our present corruption that the Liberator still feels unsafe.
============
Over at John Cooks place Skeptical Science the answer is perfectly clear:
"In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen."
He's a scientist (and a sceptical one to boot) so he certainly wouldn't just make it up.
In my view, the police know who leaked the emails as do the University administrators and that the police investigation is effectively over. But the liberator/s of the emails cannot be charged with any crime because of the UEA's refusal to unlawfully comply with the FOI at the first place. The leaker did not commit a crime in this instance but upheld the law that the UEA breached.
This explains why the police sought advice from the Office of the Information Commissioner; to determine whether the UEA's withholding of those emails was a breach of FOI laws, it explains why the police has billed the UEA for IT work, and it explains why the UEA don't seem to be bothering the police for a result.
UEA hired them but they didn't realise that and invoiced the police, who also didn't realise and paid?
Re Foxgoose
TerryS
I think you missed the Bishop's point Terry, Norfolk Police Authority isn't "Norfolk Police". It is the body which oversees Norfolk plod.
Wonder if VAT is involved.....
Just a thought. For information only. For seller read service provider.
A VAT invoice must show:
an invoice number which is unique and follows on from the number of the previous invoice - if you spoil or cancel a serially numbered invoice, you must keep it to show to a VAT officer at your next VAT inspection
the seller's name or trading name, and address
the seller's VAT registration number
the invoice date
the time of supply (also known as tax point) if this is different from the invoice date
the customer's name or trading name, and address
a description sufficient to identify the goods or services supplied to the customer
Think how important UEA is in Norfolk affairs. There will be constant exchanges between the University, the Norfolk police and any number of other local "great and good" institutions and individuals.
Police are called in to investigate a leak/hack. In the course of this they call in an outside firm to do forensic work on the UEA system. UEA says, "while they're here they can do a similar (possibly related, possibly not) piece of work for us".
Somebody somewhere gets the invoicing mixed up. Boss-men of UEA and Norfolk PA bump into each other at Lord-Lieutenant's Something or Other Do for Something or Other: "Oh, by the way ..." "Sorry about that;send me an email and we'll fix it."
Proper? Hardly.
Likely? Quite possible.
Add it to the file of sticks we can beat them if and when we need another one. Meanwhile, more important things to worry about.
Before I left england/suffolk some years ago I had a very similar unpleasant experience with the suffolk police and the local MP. The 'air' of corruption is rife in the UK and this little episode does nothing to make the smell go away.
Good ask Bish but expected result. That is, no result from the UEA enquiry. All disappeared into the ether or the smell.
As they say in medicine, NFN.
17 months without any public reporting about the alleged hack of crucial e-mails pertaining to trillions to be spend urgently world wide because of "abnormal global warming"?
The UK police is descending to Indian levels: His (establishment) master's voice.
That has the makings of a good demo slogan -
"Free the CRU 18MB !!"
Surely the police should be invoicing UEA? I seem to remember that they had spent quite a lot of money...
How about this scenario?
NC hire Qinetiq for forensic investigation. UEA decide that Qinetiq's knowledge, both general and specific due to their work for NC, make them the ideal firm to advise UEA on how to improve their [UEA's] security so as to avoid a future repetition of the incident. Qinetiq said something along the lines of "we're happy to do the work, but our client is NC and we can't take on another client which may create a conflict of interest. However, if NC ask us to do what you [UEA] want, we'll be happy to do it." UEA routes requests to Qinetiq through NC, with an agreement to reimburse NC for such activities as it approves. Qinetiq's invoices segregate charges for UEA-requested activities to facilitate such reimbursement.
This scenario doesn't require Qinetiq to have made a billing error, nor put itself into a potential conflict of interest. There is no formal contract between NC and UEA, merely an informal agreement for reimbursement. I'm not sure that it puts UEA's financial controls in a good light, but that's not inconsistent with previous experience vis-a-vis Muir Russell. One would expect that any requests to Qinetiq from UEA (via NC) would be made in writing, so it's worth reiterating the request for relevant correspondence.
Slightly O/T, but it appears that is SOP to not have embarrassing documents to prevent FOIA inquires.
This is what is going on in USA with our friend Hansen of NASA. The punch line is
Sound familiar?
Read about it here Hansen's hand out
There's a more prosaic but more devious explanation for the curious money trail. Unless I miss my guess, the UEA had a shrewd idea within days of exactly who the leaker was. The one mistake they made in the heat of the moment was calling in Norfolk Constabulary straight away.
They lost control of the investigation.
By engaging a forensic team themselves, they got first bite at the preliminary report. I'm sure they had some conversations/discussions before the final report was forwarded on to the police.
They simply can't allow the leaker to be found. Can you imagine the trial?
"Seeing as we’ve just passed the anniversary of the Climategate leak, it might be of topical interest to repost a piece I did shortly after the emails became a blogosphere bombshell. In the time since then, the ‘hunt’ for the whistleblower has not met with any success that I’m aware of. I would be stunned if it ever does."
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/profile-of-the-climategate-whistleblower/
Pointman
ROFL.
Dear Bish,
I found myself in an almost similar position recently. My prospective employer advised me that I hire a lawyer and recommended a top firm. I accepted the suggestion and in turn, requested whether they could make initial payments on my behalf, which I would reimburse at a later date after successful employment (mainly because I could not afford it). My future boss agreed momentarily, only to point out that, that would put them in a position of conflict. What she was completely true, and made sense.
Although I agree with TerryS' recounting of what the police have represented as the sequence of events, I dont beleive this is proper at all.
How can a police team make payments on behalf of one of the investigated parties?
Secondly, how can the same computer foresnsics team be allowed to work on two different aspects of the same case material? The UEA and the Norfolk police, at the root of it, have completely different objectives. One wants to find out 'who did it', the other party *potentially* wants to protect those who did it. Let us remember: IT security is not equal to 'forensics'.
This is weird.
ITEM 1 The Major Investigation Team engaged the services of a company with the ability to forensically examine the computer system.
ITEM 2 The university made their own decision to engage that company to review the security of their system and carry out work on their behalf.
ITEM 3 The company completed the work and invoiced Norfolk Constabulary for ALL of the work undertaken, and UEA reimbursed Norfolk Constabulary for the work that had been completed at their request.
When I look at this it looks as if the police engaged the company for forensic examination (ITEM 1), the university also hired the company for a security review (ITEM 2). The whole of the work done was invoiced to the police. The police sent the invoice to the university for work carried out on behalf of the university (ITEM 3).
This reply implies that the work carried out was for a lot more money than the sum paid by the university to the police.
If it was not then it looks as if there was no crime committed and the university has paid the police for the information from the computer company to keep the findings under wraps.
A key question is surely whether the police investigation is still active. If it has been closed then they either know the identity of the hero or they have given up because it is not possible to tell who it is. If the case is still open then they are presumably still on the trail although that is a bit hard to believe after all this time. Is any this FOI-able, Bish? Are they obliged to inform the public of the status of a case?
For f**** sake! Why does Bish or any of us have to chase this down? Where in (and I am trying not to swear here!) hecks sake is the HoC Science and Technology Committee and especially the much lauded (at the time) token M.P. with a scientific background?
Why have they not called the Norfolk Constabulary in for the results (or lack of ) and disclosure of the costs! Why the heck does the HOC have a Science and Technology Committee?
It is total B.S. that these people get paid to do this work and a blog has to lead them by the nose with F.O.I. requests from people who have to earn a living!
This gets more surreal by the day!
Time to put a call in to the MSN!!!! Yea Right!
Translation: UEA found out that their university systems had been routinely compromised (if not made to jump through hoops and bark like a dog) over the course of many years by various denizens of the CompSci department, and as a result resembled nothing so much the electronic equivalent of Swiss cheese. They hired an outside company to plug the many holes, or at least those they could find, and started hoping nobody asked too many questions.
"A key question is surely whether the police investigation is still active." Indeed: if/when the Norfolk Constabulary case is closed the server will presumably be returned to UEA. Will the e-mails which Peter Sommer failed to analyse be FOI-able?
btw Sommer's report [1] (mbox format is too difficult to analyse) bears all the hallmarks of providing Muir Russell with cover to avoid any analysis of the e-mails.
[1} http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Report%20on%20email%20extraction.pdf
No one has said this yet so since I am safe here is the US, I will. This sounds like a money laundering scam to me. You need to pay some body under the table, have a friendly third party pay for it and then pay back the third party as if it was a part of normal business. If the police, UEA or the IT security company does not have any contracts regarding their deal it would be amazing. If everybody starts working on trust in the UK what is to become of all the lawyers .
"No one has said this yet so since I am safe here is the US, I will."
No one has said that here because people hanging around here tend to be reasonable.
I've only skimmed the comments on this thread, but from what I've seen everyone is getting wrapped up in the financials of who paid what to whom and when.
The major point for me is that a forensic IT investigation has been done, and therefore a report will exist showing the findings of the investigation. This should tell us something at least regarding the leak / hack scenario.
Could there be an FOI request for the report ?
Re Peter Whale
I doubt that, and abuse of process to deny public access to either data or the findings would be a very bad result. RB made a good point earlier about the importance of maintaining the independence of the police service, despite the best efforts of politicians and often the ACPO. Then again, if the UEA has been wasting police time, it does seem reasonable and proper to charge those costs to them. And charge them for good measure. The police get enough grief without getting roped into the UEA's political shenanigans.
Re: Mactheknife
What I find interesting is that this forensics report was payed for as part of one (or both) of the Russell and Oxburgh inquiries.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that at least one of these inquiries has seen the forensics report and not mentioned it in their reports
TerryS
Yes, which means that either they didn't like the results of the report or it was inconclusive. If it indicated a "hack"" we would know by now.
Ed
sHx
Being a reasonable person I must admit that my statement was sensational and unfounded but I will point out that I used the weasel phrase sounds like. Second I must also admit I have become a cynic wrt the UEA and the subsequent investigations. Third having a reasonable amount of experience in contracting for Public Works I sadly admit to varying degrees this is not an unheard practice here in the states. For example some years back it was found that the NY police department’s maintance contractors were charging the department for work actually done to other departments and to influential individuals connected to the police department and the city. My apologies.
The NC doesn't want anyone to see the invoice - presumably because the invoice is prima facir evidence of a conflict of interest in the work undertaken by the contractor.
Forensic examination of disks undertaken for NPA in case possibly concerning unknown person at UEA
Other forensic tasks on same disks independently undertaken on behalf of someone at UEA
(How embarrassing if the second item destroyed evidence vital to the first item.)
A long time ago, I wanted a survey on a house I wanted to purchase, and asked if I could see the survey already performed on behalf of the building society, which they had already commissioned.
I was informed that I could have that survey report if I paid for it, despite the survey report already existing, and having of course been paid for by me anyway, as the prospective borrower.
Could this be a similar situation? The NP had already performed the investigation and paid the contractor, but were willing to sell on the same report to UEA at a price?
Andrew,
In response to your question, most people here seemed to be saying "Yes". It's a "No" from me.
@Peter Brown
Reasons?
Sorry Messenger. No offence intended but, I'm not required to respond to FOI requests.
If there is no contract, there is no need to pay any invoice; otherwise, we could all be rich simply sending invoices to all and sundry and demanding/suing for payment of the invoice rendered. There must be an underlying contract supporting the right to submit the invoice tendered.
Very strange, but then again, I have not seen the underlying paperwork.
Jun 22, 2011 at 1:40 PM | kim
"I think we have to assume the Liberator still desires anonymity. That is a key point. We all know, as do all honest scientists, that the Liberator played a critical and heroic role in the events of the day, and is still in play."
I agree, and I think that we should let sleeping dogs lie.
Selfishly considering the UK only, knowledge of who did what and to whom in Norfolk and what a "report" (does it even exist?) reveals will not reverse the disastrous course of action set in motion by the 463 gullible fools in the HoC in October 2008 by voting "aye" for the Climate Change Act 2008.
Remember that the CCA 2008 had been the law of the land for more that 1 year when Climategate broke.
The only people that UK citizens should be targeting now are the current inmates at the HoC.
Of the 463 gullible fools who voted "aye" in October 2008, 345 of them were re-elected in May 2010. For information, the 3 wise men who voted "no" were also re-elected in May 2010.
These are the only people who can be held to account by the voters in the UK.
UK Scientists and their Establishment minders and/or apologists are beyond the reach of ordinary folk consequently it is largely a waste of time throwing brickbats at them.
As kim said earlier:
"I think we have to assume the Liberator still desires anonymity. That is a key point."
Let sleeping dogs lie.
There was a trial balloon sent up by David Adam in Nature last year (around the time of the anniversary) to the effect that it had been (more or less) officially determined that the release of the emails was a "hack". However, Adams' pronouncement did not fly. I've tried to trace this back, but the only "evidence" in support of my claim that I can find at this point, is a comment Shub made back in May in the thread Plodding along:
My recollection of Adam's original piece was that he spoke mysteriously of unnamed "informed sources" as the authority for his claim.
So I know I wasn't the only one who saw this over-inflated trial balloon! More recently, I saw someone somewhere try to re-inflate this same balloon - by claiming that s/he had seen a 'forensic report' on the E-mails - in a comment on some thread somewhere! (sorry, tried to retrace my mouse-tracks, but haven't been able to find it).
Considering Muir Russell, Oxburgh et al - not to mention this latest non-responsive reply to an FOI - together with the above - some days I do wonder whether or not there is a manual out there in AGW-advocacy-land on how to obscure and obstruct. Might even have been written by Acton ;-)
Brownedoff Two of the most interest question yet to answered are who and why ?
Who because that would confirm the leak or hack and tell about the internal world of the CRU .
Why because there was clearly a rational behind this , these where not just a dump of e-mails .
Its the 'why' which I bet even to this day keep Jones and Co awake at night , becasue in that 'why' may be a lot more details that CRU and friends may very much hope never get seen in public .
After observing the UK's recent history of obfuscation, hugger-mugger, whitewash and general jiggery-pokery, I'm drawn to the worst case scenario. What if the scenario of TerryS is modified to read:
1. UEA verbally engages company "X," with assurances of future work.
2. Company "X" approaches Norfolk Police with a proposal for work.
3. Norfolk Police subsequently engages company "X."
4. Company "X" issues a complete report to UEA.
5. UEA returns an expurgated version of the report to Company "X."
5. Company "X" issues the expurgated report to Norfolk Police.
6. Company "X" bills Norfolk Police for both 4 and 5 at UEA's behest.
7. Norfolk Police pays Company "X" for both 4 and 5, as UEA expected.
8. Norfolk Police auditors discover the mistake and ask UEA for money for 4
9. UEA pays Norfolk Police for 4.
10. Company "X" and UEA sign a post-dated contract for 4.
The sleaze factor is highest under this scenario, perfectly consistent with "hiding the decline" and other Climategate revelations. Note that the work for 5 would actually have been performed under 4. There would still be no contract between Norfolk Police and UEA. UEA would have successfully kept very embarrassing information from the plod and made them look inept at the same time. And Company "X" would still have been paid twice for the same work!
Brownedoff, you forgot the part about how it is a measure of our corruption that the Liberator still feels the need to be anonymous.
I think the Liberator sought anonymity from fear, but also from the desire to not be the story himself, or herself. I think the fact that the first reason was necessary is disgraceful, and I admire the second reason, but disagree. That hero is a huge story unto its heroic self, but that story won't be proclaimed until this madness has passed.
=================
The UEA would appear to have no credibility, The CRU malignancy should have been excised long ago.
has the MSM ever shown the slightest interest in following up the Climategate story? no.
Qinetiq - is it possible to confirm their involvement?