Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« How to Starve Africa: Ask the European Green Party | Main | What New Scientist wouldn't print »

Upper Tribunal Decision

Guest post by David Holland

I have temporarily put on the Internet a scanned copy of the decision of the Upper Tribunal to refuse my appeal in regard to my request to the University of Cambridge.   I have also posted my oral arguments to that Tribunal.   Naturally I entirely disagree with this decision as well as the First Tier Tribunal refusal in regard to the ZODs held by the Met Office, which was discussed at CLB.   The Upper Tribunal refused me permission to appeal it.   Taken together these two decisions largely if not wholly exempt climate change information from the EIR.

I am not inclined to pursue either judgement and shall leave it to readers to make their own judgment as to why the climate scientists involved in these two cases do not want to disclose the environmental information they hold.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (71)

The decision looks fair enough to me.

To quote from the conclusion of the decision, "Professor Wadhams acted in a private capacity when assisting the IPCC"

Three points arise from this.

As a private individual he is not subject to requests for information under FOI or EIR. Nor is the IPCC

That information is the property of Professor Wadhams and/or the IPCC, not the University of Cambridge.

It is not appropriate to ask the University for information which it neither owns or legally controls.

Jun 6, 2016 at 11:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

I absolutely and unflinchingly agree with Entropic man.

Professor Wadhams is a private individual and so is the IPCC. Both are here engaged in private affairs of no consequence to anyone but themselves.

You, denier, are trying to sneak into someone's bedroom!

Jun 6, 2016 at 11:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterAyla

Well done David, thanks for all the hard and what must have been very frustrating labours.

" I am not inclined to pursue either judgement "
is fully understandable.

But your work has great value, it is on the record, the questions asked, are on the record. The refusals to answer, are on the record. The reasons for refusal, are on the record.

In the future, clear logical thinking people will be able to visit the records and draw their own conclusions, unless of course.......

Jun 6, 2016 at 11:24 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

If EM is correct, then how can anyone challenge the opinions of Professor Wadhams and the IPCC?

It seems, as David Holland has found out, that mere UK taxpayers can not even find out what he wrote, whereas IPCC supporters have freedom of access.

Gavin Schmidt, of Real Climate, called into question Wadham's relevence and expertise, via Twitter, when the good Professor, endorsed by both UK Government's DECC, and the UN's IPCC, was speaking at a Public engagement.

EM seems quite satisfied by this lack of accountability, whether or not he knows what facts or evidence are being concealed. Climate science seems to thrive in the absence of facts and evidence.

My confidence in anything connected with climate science, remains 'low'.

Jun 6, 2016 at 11:40 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

David - thanks for pursuing this despite the outcome.

btw: I didn't know Entropic did irony. Did you Ayla?

Jun 6, 2016 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Ayla, quite right! What two consenting adults get upto in the privacy of a hotel bedroom at a climate conference, should only be the subject of local laws, not UK FOIA.

Rajendra Pachauri is hoping to appeal any Indian Court decision to the UK Information Commissioners, as he believes they give preferential treatment to railway engineers aswell as climate scientists.

Jun 7, 2016 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

2. I trust, from the correspondence on UT 150 - 157 that the Respondents do not dispute that Professor Wadhams had used his status as a Professor of the University together with his University telephone number, postal and email addresses. He did not apply as Mr Wadhams using his private addresses and phone number.

Jun 7, 2016 at 12:01 AM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

It is not appropriate to ask the University for information which it neither owns or legally controls.

Jun 6, 2016 at 11:05 PM | Entropic man

Are climate experts required to have their own Professional Indemnity Insurance? if Universities can claim to have no legal control over their work, an individual working for the IPCC may not be able to rely on his/her University for the costs of defending any claim, for being wrong.

This may be a relief to Cambridge, depending on what they actually know about Wadham's work. Schmidt was keen to disassociate his opinions from Wadham's.

Jun 7, 2016 at 1:26 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sadly it's still too early for independent observers to realise how shoddy climate work has been. They're still think that they're defending honest and admirable endeavour from nosy trouble makers so err on the warmists side. I do think the time will come when everyone will want to know what these guys got up to. Thanks for putting in so much hard work.

If the US scientists are anything to go by, the information could hve been very revealing. Ayla's right, it would have been pants down.

Jun 7, 2016 at 1:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Ayla (halo be her name)

The non aggression pact you have now forged with EM
Is dangerous in the extreme
He is a self-professed old man
Short of envelopes
But nevertheless a staunch defender of the true faith
Recently taken on new duties as an explainer of the law.

He is constantly attacked by zombi-like carbon lovers
Whereas you, sweetness, are universally loved
Deluded fools with the temerity to criticize you
Are roundly beaten back, even by the carbon sullied

Can you afford this liaison
In your tender condition?
All this talk of bedrooms
Mark me
No good will come of it.

Jun 7, 2016 at 6:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

"Professor Wadhams is a private individual and so is the IPCC. Both are here engaged in private affairs of no consequence to anyone but themselves.

You, denier, are trying to sneak into someone's bedroom!"

Who is this new "masked avenger" ayla? Shouldn't he/she be in bed by 11.18PM?

First of all I believe the judgement to be correct, if Cambridge University doesn't hold the material i.e. in the sense that it is officially held, not just put their on their computers by an individual employee, the are unable to divulge it.

What I don't agree with is (1) that the IPCC is an individual, private or otherwise, it is not, it is an organisation put together by UNEP for the purpose of reviewing the science associated with anthropogenic warming of the planet. (2) As such the interaction between Wadham's and the IPCC is not a private matter, and should be available to be viewed by the public in its entirety. I am supported in this by the report of the IAC, which called for more openness from the IPCC. (3) what is in the IPCC reports is a long way from being "a private matter of no consequence to anyone but themselves". The purpose of the IPCC is to produce reports which will enable governments to put in place policies related to global warming and it's purported dangers. As such it has the potential to impact greatly on the lives of ordinary people, to that extent ALL of it's considerations and dialogue at ALL stages of its preparation should be available for public scrutiny.

Jun 7, 2016 at 6:17 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

golf Charlie (1.27am) When I occasionally worked as a consultant while employed by UEA I was strongly advised to take out insurance or, within each report I wrote, to add some legalese that should indemnify me from any future legal action.

More to the point was that the university gave me a limited number of days during which to engage in outside work activities. I would assume Cambridge is no different. If it could be shown that the good professor exceeded his limit of allowable days working for/with the IPPC I believe he might be vulnerable either to claims he broke his contract with Cambridge or/and for part of the time he worked on IPPC business whilst being a university employee.

Jun 7, 2016 at 6:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

ClimAte science seems to thrive in the shadows for some reason?

The downside is climate scientists now have a confirmed route to keep their work out if the sunshine and in the dark.

I mean honestly, what could go wrong?


Jun 7, 2016 at 6:45 AM | Unregistered Commentermailman

I am presuming this whole matter started before Prof Wadham's peers started sniggering during his presentations?

Jun 7, 2016 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

I thought the whole idea of scientific research was to put it into the public arena for public review and further advancement of knowledge. This post-normal science is a different ball-game, done in a murky shade, hidden from scrutiny. It will not be good for the future of real science.

Jun 7, 2016 at 8:41 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Alan Kendall, if somebody suffers a financial loss as a result of Wadham's expertise, who should they sue? Vicarious Liability allows an aggrieved party to pursue the Employer, who may be better able to pay compensation than the Employee. Whether or not someone is paid for their work is not relevant.

Cambridge now have a 'Legal' opinion stating Wadhams was not acting on their behalf. Their Professional Indemnity / Public Liability Insurers and Legal Advisers can now wash their hands of Wadham.

The message seems to be that IPCC 'Experts' can trade on the good name of their University, without the University being held accountable for any errors/mistakes.

This reinforces the lack of accountability of the IPCC, and anyone doing anything for it.

"If it is for the UN IPCC, you can write any old rubbish and get away with it", now has some legal back up. The IPCC has no need for any kind of Quality Control, as it is Unaccountable

Many Climate Scientists are very relieved about this ruling. Of course it would not stop an aggrieved party from suing an individual for everything he owns, if he could prove an economic loss as a result of relying on the expert's advice.

Jun 7, 2016 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

So, Cambridge University has finally admitted that Wadham was/is its equivalent of the Madwoman in the Attic!

Claimant Sceance progressing by Leaps and Bounds, I see.............

Jun 7, 2016 at 9:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

I agree with green sand and not b y. This is a man who wants to be both poacher and gamekeeper according to his current whim - and whatever is best suited to his protection from realists.
A reminder: he is also the man who accused realists, inter alia, of arranging to have a carbon fraud scientist struck by lightning on the Yorkshire moors.

Jun 7, 2016 at 9:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Spilligan

The more they wriggle, dissemble, and hide, the less we (or anyone else) will trust them.

Real scientists wouldn't behave like this.

Jun 7, 2016 at 9:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew Duffin

golf Charlie. I am the last person you should be asking about legal matters (try EM?). It occurs to me that Wadham may have had some of his time bought out by the IPPC. In which case, any work product would not be in the control of the University (but what if he used university facilities - secretarial assistance, involvement of university paid postgraduates, computer time?). If he were bought out, his salary would have been paid essentially by IPPC. Are IPPC employees exempt?
If he used postgraduates, are their work products exempt?
I would imagine most of these legal pathways have already been trodden.

Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Completely unrelated, but:
in 2007 I wrote to the MET Office asking them for wind data so that I could carry out some analysis of the UK's wind resource. They were extremely helpful. They would be delighted to supply the data that I had requested. The only thing was that the data (hourly) would cost me £1400 (+VAT) per annum for each station request. That's about 20 p per data point. They also said (somewhat surprisingly in those days of well-established, inexpensive database utilities such as Oracle) that the request would take some time to extract and make available.
Needless to say, I didn't follow up on the request.
So: even if the data is public, from an organisation that is publicly funded by we, the taxpayers, they can keep you out.
Just a pity, for them, that the data leaked into aviation METARs, which ARE in the public domain.

Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

Entropic man on good form and hilarious as usual. Very entertaining, but does he write his own gags?

Jun 7, 2016 at 9:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Reed

You may remember that “Private Capacity” was the excuse first used by the Met Office for not disclosing John Mitchell’s AR4 IPCC work. It was also recommended to the UEA by the Met Office (ie government) solicitor. You may remember Sir Brian Hoskins urging his FOI officer to collaborate with the Met Office and UEA. Now see what help DECC gave me in trying to establish just what Peter Wadhams put on his form when he applied to serve AR5. DECC delayed and it took a complaint to the ICO to get the full answer.

Jun 7, 2016 at 10:17 AM | Registered CommenterDavid Holland

They don't like it up 'em.........

Jun 7, 2016 at 10:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

Alan Kendall, Vicarious Liability in English Law (Wikipedia) is an interesting place to start. I do not know the US equivalent.

I am not sure if I am diverting this thread from David Holland's starting point, but he did invite comment on Wadham's motivation for obstructing access to research. UK Academic Institutions must be relieved that they do not appear to be responsible for the advice/recommendations/conclusions of their employees, as in this instance, even if Wadham used any property or facility owned by Cambridge University, and despite the fact he used his Cambridge University accreditation to gain UK Government's DECC's recommendation to the UN IPCC, no one is accountable or responsible for revealing what he did/said/wrote. Presumably, no one is liable for any mistakes either.

Cambridge must be relieved that they are not responsible for, and potentially liable for Wadham. Wadham probably feels he has 'won'.

Another excellent reason for Trump to pull the financial rug out from beneath the IPCC's feet, to divert attention from the rug he keeps above his head.

A Pyrrhic Victory for Climate Science to celebrate, as it paves the way for Climate Scientists to be sued personally, and not rely on their employers for legal costs. In this instance David Holland can not demonstrate any financial loss, but I don't think that was his motivation.

Meanwhile Wadham is free to continue making unsubstantiated allegations about the deaths of climate scientists. Can we assume his IPCC submissions are based on fantasy aswell? In the absence of evidence to the contrary ......

Jun 7, 2016 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The er. peer review of his presentation at the RS Arctic Seminar has been mentioned. A copy of the complaints and responses is available here:


Jun 7, 2016 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterMick J

I know Cambridge University pretty well, and this looks to me exactly like 'Hey, dude, this chap wasn't working for us when he did what he may or may not have done: We dont want any part of this, and we have a pretty reasonable case for saying so'

I dont read it as them leaping to his defence. Indeed there may well be 'words in private' but more a question of simply not wanting to know or be involved.

I think the tide is turning against cliamte scientists who play politics with the evidence.

Institutions are not ye ready to sack them, but they are less than impressed either.

Jun 7, 2016 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterLeo Smith

I do not understand why, if the salary of the good Professor was being paid by the University, he was not a university employee and therefore why his work product is not considered, at least in part, the property of the university.*
The only way that Cambridge can be made to act responsibly in this matter is if incoming money streams are adversely affected. The threat of removal of bursaries or other income from a large benefactor would be enough to cut through any further intransigence. Failing such a benefactor willing to threaten in this way, I cannot see Cambridge moving on this issue one jot.

* if Cambridge ever used the existence of Wadham's work to promote itself, it would be acknowledging that work as being a university product.

DECC's involvement however is a different matter.

Jun 7, 2016 at 11:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

It's complex so I may have misunderstood

#1 "Professor Wadhams acted in a private capacity when assisting the IPCC", but he was working for the public in assisting the IPCC
and also would suffer no injustice ..if he simply handed over the paperwork.

So it would be moral justice if he did.

Cambridge U itself is not free to act for fear of setting precedents. Like something out of Yes Minister.
DH and team have high integrity and deserve a medal.

Jun 7, 2016 at 12:08 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

stewgreen (Jun 7, 2016 at 12:08 PM), I believe the murky methods of Cambridge University were fully exposed by Tom Sharpe back in 1974 :-)

Jun 7, 2016 at 12:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

You have what appears to be their desire for a 'final' decision; blind and ignorant as that decision is.

Perhaps with their insistence that the information that you seek is not officially held and is not officially available for review and analysis; the time is to challenge the legitimacy of any research or analysis that used Wadhams research, writings or analysis as a basis?

Based on wacky Wadhams' absurd announcements and claims, Wadhams' refusal to release foundational or contributory research seriously contaminates any faith that his research is honest, fair, or even genuine research instead of more gray writings drawn from advocacy propaganda.

Jun 7, 2016 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterATheoK

Alan Kendall, it is that murky area that Cambridge are relying on, as have the IPCC from the outset, by using 'unpaid volunteers' who are salaried by others, fully expensed, and given time off by their employers. No liability can be pinned on anyone, if no one is obliged to be honest about what they have done.

The IPCC has been riddled with mistakes from inception. Nobody has been held liable for any of it. In the UK for the time being, that will continue.

The IPCC considers itself to contain the best Climate Scientists in the world, and this is not challenged by 97% of climate scientists. How many investigations does Mann claim to been exonerated by?

Jun 7, 2016 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

In most cases the scientists claiming immunity from scrutiny were being paid their government or university salary while working for the IPCC. I don't know about this particular case. But such an arrangement makes "privacy" a little bit of a stretch.

Jun 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterCraig Loehle

Alan Kendall: very few scientists have their time paid for by IPCC, which has a skeleton staff. Most working on its reports are paid by their governments.

Jun 7, 2016 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterCraig Loehle

Wadhams has doubled down again this weekend with yet another "end of the arctic ice" prediction. He has refused to acknowledge his past doom predictions as wrong, so except that he thrives on seeing his name in print, I don't understand why he keeps throwing stupid, and easily disproved predictions around.
I don't know what he suffers from, but its probably hard to pronounce.

Jun 7, 2016 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered Commentermikegeo

i easy innit? make ipcc "private individual"
is the eu already a "private individual"?
i guess the bolshevik brainwashing circus is a " private individual"

they all look 100% paid for with tax money.

something which is 100% paidfor with publixc money should be a "public individual" and all the lawyer shysters and establishment chars exposed for the criminal frauds rthey are

Jun 7, 2016 at 5:07 PM | Unregistered Commentervenus


the reason Wadham keeps writing rubbish, is that he finds it rewarding.

The IPCC requires scary stories, and is composed of those carefully selected not to be to selective.

Why should the IPCC care about scientific accuracy whilst it represents the United Nations, and appears to guarantee immunity from National Laws?

Jun 7, 2016 at 5:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

David Holland, as do many others, I appreciate your efforts in this matter. Even when those efforts are stone-walled by authority.

But maybe the information may still possibly come to light from FOI requests elsewhere in other countries. Who knows? For every sender of a genuine email, there is usually a recipient.

Jun 7, 2016 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

'Only last month, while giving evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee inquiry on the Arctic, Cambridge University’s Professor Peter Wadhams claimed that although the Arctic is not ice-free this year, it will be by September 2015.'

Say no more; the man's a Fool.

Jun 7, 2016 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

Say no more; the man's a Fool.

Jun 7, 2016 at 5:43 PM | NCC 1701E

He is one of the IPCC's finest. No wonder Cambridge are glad to have distanced themselves.

Perhaps I have been looking at this from the wrong angle. Is it possible that Cambridge have been trying to achieve plausible deniability for Wadham's actions for a while?

Jun 7, 2016 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@GC: Yup, the dance of Academic Death is a common feature of many present Uni Depts which rose to prominence when daft politicians swallowed the modern version of the Chicken Little fable.

'The main emphasis of the story, that one should never jump to wild conclusions without considering the evidence, and that one should never believe a rumor, is unchanged in either case, but the alternate endings could be classified as either more or less disturbing.

Ending 1: Foxy Loxy, taking advantage of the gullible crowd who have in mind to warn the king that the sky is falling, leads them to a "shortcut" which happens to be the entrance to his den. He and his family descend upon them and enjoy a very fine meal.

Ending 2: Wise Owl, woken by the commotion, demands to know what the group is up to. By examining the hard evidence, he decides that Chicken Little came to a bad conclusion for his lack of thought. The whole group leaves in dismay, especially a humiliated Chicken Little.'

You and I are Wise Owls.

Say no more!

Jun 7, 2016 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

NCC 1701E.

Ending 3 Nuts fall on other animal heads, and an animal committee is formed to review the evidence for the sky falling. The wise owl is ignored and the king is convinced by the committee (that claims 97% support). A massive and destructive programme of tree felling is instigated and foxy loxi cleans up.

We might be wise owls but few hear us.

Jun 7, 2016 at 7:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

So Prof Wadhams was working as a private citizen during office hours while on Uni salary, using Uni equipment, and all travel expenses for the Intergovernmental Panel (again, while his time was being compensated for his day job by the Uni) were paid for by the Uni.

Is that about right?

Jun 7, 2016 at 7:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterterrymn

I can see Cambridge's point of view along with QC Markus' example of the pigeon hole.

However having just updated training on export control, there is a slight problem that using his official email and address blurs the lines between Church and State as it were. If someone had have sent or he had sent IP or even ITAR related information (it can happen very easily if you aren't careful) Cambridge would have been liable.

They should have given him 2 separate addresses. I'm sure since he is a prominent academic this would hardly be an imposition.

With regards to David's request the last bit even allows for this. As in you could make the reports public after a time.

Jun 7, 2016 at 9:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMicky H Corbett

Like others, I appreciate everything David Holland has done to expose the climate change establishment to greater public scrutiny. However, given liberal attempts to restrict freedom of thought and expression on university campuses, I'm generally not in favor of restricting the freedom of professors to pursue scholarly activities while they are being paid and supported by universities.

How does Professor Wadhams differ from a skeptical professor at a public university (say Judith Curry) working on the NIPCC report? If she received a draft of a NIPCC report via her Georgia Tech email address or read it on a Georgia Tech computer, should Georgia Tech have to disclose it? I think the authors of the NIPCC deserved the opportunity to candidly and privately discuss the content of their report without being forced to disclose working drafts.

One difference is that Professor Wadhams was nominated for his role at the IPCC by the British government, which is a member in the IPCC. I assume that Wadhams' expenses were also paid by the British government. Given that Professor Wadhams was working on a government-sponsored project, there is certainly a greater need for public disclosure of his work. However, I don't think it is the responsibility of Cambridge University to produce documents arising from one of their professors working on a government-sponsored project. The government sponsor (DECC?) should be held responsible. The government, of course, is hiding behind the procedures of an international organization, but they shouldn't be able to make arrangements that restrict their ability to disclose information.

Jun 7, 2016 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank


Time to ask Cambridge if he is speaking as an individual or as a member of the university!

Jun 7, 2016 at 11:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterclimatebeagle


Thanks for being frank and correct!

Jun 8, 2016 at 12:04 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

thanks for your efforts David

not that it matters but found this from June 01, 2014 -

to give a quote, just a taste -

"The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers was founded in either 1929 or 1930. Early records were destroyed when a Luftwaffe bomb struck the Temple in 1941. Our first fifty years of history are recorded in Wigs and Workers: a History of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers 1930 – 1980 (Nick Blake and Harry Rajak, Haldane Society, 1980).

The Society was named for Viscount Richard Haldane, who, as a Liberal, had been Asquith’s Lord Chancellor from 1912 to 1915, when he was hounded out of office by the then, as ever, xenophobic Daily Mail. He moved leftwards politically, becoming the logical choice as Lord Chancellor when Britain’s first short-lived Labour Government came to power in 1924. By 1929, when Labour was elected again, Haldane himself was dead and Labour Party lawyers were still in very short supply. A small group of barristers formed the Haldane Club to provide legal expertise to the government, trade unions and co-operative movement.

Any chance of high office for early Haldane members evaporated when Ramsay MacDonald split the Labour Party and formed a National Government in 1931. Ever since, the Haldane Society has been a legal thorn in the side of every government, lobbying for law reforms, civil liberties and access to justice for all; supporting national liberation movements against colonialism and campaigning against racism and all forms of discrimination. We have had many distinguished members but judicial appointments and elevations to Queen’s Counsel have been conferred despite, not because of, membership in the Haldane Society."

Jun 8, 2016 at 12:06 AM | Unregistered Commenterdfhunter

very lkttle respecr for cambridge since what i know of oxford and carbondating..

watered down club of upheaveled raj riders
they think they are still relevant i guess as they can lure in mny rich chinese kids

Jun 8, 2016 at 12:23 AM | Unregistered Commentervenus

David, I can understand the judgement but ...

(a) FOI legislation has been used to obtain IPCC information from other bodies, in fact I don't think we would have seen the reviewers' comments for 4AR and 5AR if not for the FOI request in the USA about 4AR comments.

(b) Unless Wadham never worked on IPCC material when physically at the university (and likely using university resources) it's a bit rich to claim that the work was done in a private capacity. There might be other reasonable grounds for rejection, but not this one.

(c) As you argue, the IPCC has certain regulations and it declares itself to be open and transparent, so it can hardly object to anyone seeing if and how those regulations are carried out.

(d) This refusal might set a dangerous precedent for others trying to learn more about what went on regards the preparation of these reports.

According to FUNCA ( the UN needs the equivalent of FOI legislation so that it can practice what it preachs about openness and transparency rather than hide in the shadow world outside national government FOI legislation.

Jun 8, 2016 at 1:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn McLean

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