Feb
Police pension fund conflict of interest raises question of Climategate cover up
Legal experts have advised me that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), not the Information Commissioner’s Office nor Norfolk Police, should rightly be handling the ‘Climategate’ investigation. This policy has been in effect for over twenty years. I am reliably informed that in England, since the Roskill Report (1988), all serious fraud investigations are taken away from normal police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service because the SFO has highly-trained specialists in complex data analysis dedicated to solving this exact kind of case. We also understand the private police unit investigating has considerable pension fund investments in climate change carbon stocks.
Last week week we reported that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) bungled their investigations into wrongdoing at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia UEA. The ICO stated that although staff at the UEA broke the law, they have determined (falsely) no criminal charges could be brought due to expiration of the prosecution time limit. This error in interpreting the criminal statutes has caused considerable embarrassment to the authorities.
The reason the SFO has investigated all such cases for over twenty years is due to the recommendations of the Roskill Report (1988). This report had concluded that complex fraud with high financial and international implications should not be dealt with by regional police forces that were ill equipped to investigate such major cases. Thus the SFO was set up. Currently the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), a private limited company, is masterminding the police investigations. ACPO also allegedly have considerable pension investments in carbon trading offset stocks and are unaccountable to the public under Freedom of Information law (FOI).
ACPO handed the investigation to NDET, a secret police group, that were only investigating “computer hacking” ( i.e. hunt down the whistleblower!) not the fraud perpetrated by climate scientists. NDET admits that:
“this is not strictly a domestic extremism matter.”
Standard UK police procedure shows that ACPO and the ICO should never have been assigned this case. The matter involves international data fraud relevant to the climate policies of nations around the globe. Only those officers with the necessary expertise as required under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 should be investigating.
We know that in the Climategate scandal the facts show that Professor Jones and others were paid to do government work. But on company time, in official emails they admit to discussing, planning and executing various strategies to subvert the law. Jones was warned by the UEA Freedom of Information (FOI) Officer to desist in deleting FOI protected emails (see leaked email: 1228922050 of December 9, 2008). Jones ignored that direction and data was then apparently lost or destroyed. Moreover, the leaked emails substantiate the allegation that the ‘pernicious professor’ encouraged others to conspire with him in perverting justice.
We may infer from the evidence now in the public domain that a conscientious whistleblower leaked the proof of the crimes onto the Internet. There is not a shred of evidence pointing to any ‘hacker.’ Any further self-serving nonsense from the British Government that they intend to pursue prosecutions only against the whistleblower and nothing against those who have been engaged in the alleged greatest scientific fraud of all time constitutes malfeasance of public office.
Thus, based on the facts as known, if there continues to be a delay in assigning this most important case to the Serious Fraud Office which, in turn, results in a failure to attain criminal convictions, we may fairly draw very damning conclusions. Thereby, critics may justly accuse the British Government of intentionally engaging the services of secret police officers with compromised interests and no compunctions about transparency. Thereafter, all allegations of malfeasance of public office will become very hard to deny.
“Government backing Pachauri to the hilt, says Jairam Ramesh”
Not the most reassuring expression to use, or maybe it was a Freudian slip.
If Dr Pachauri had stuck to his job description and just overseen the collation and evaluation of scientific work, he could have met contrary views with ease, offering to assess them and include them in future reports. Unfortunately he underwent a transmogrification and, operating as a politician, he can’t claim the sanctuary he would have had as a ‘scientist’.
Even worse, he isn’t a scientist and his bruising style of political brawling makes him of little use to real politicians. He can never be portrayed as the cool and calm face of impartial scientific research, if he’s always emerging from some foul mouthed attack on other qualifed scientists.
A bit off topic but a must watch:
This is a UK MP explaining why he fiddled his expenses. The same UK government that wants to impose ‘carbon tax’ on us all.
It’s really true (the interview) watch and laugh. (or cry)
link:
http://order-order.com/2010/02/05/jim-devine-explains-everything/
Enjoy.
best comment:
“How the hell did someone so bloody thick and stupid end up as an MP. If that interview had been at a Police station he would probably have required an Appropriate Adult to assist him and look after his rights and welfare. He looked and sounded like someone with the early symptoms of dementia or recovering from a brain injury. What a joke.”
The Norfolk police are “rounding up the usual suspects” This fraud will be broken through the political process first. We should remain uncompromising in our approach to the parties of the right while building public pressure. Once they see what has to be done they will do it but not until the pressure becomes unbearable.
The police, of course, are not the only ones with a glaring conflict of interest in this matter. See:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/02/bbc-pension-funds-linked-to-climate-policy/
[...] (SFO) as per the recommendations of the Roskill Report (1988) ought to be conducting this case, not Norfolk Police nor NDET.The SFO is under the sway of that political appointee, the Attorney-General who in turn is [...]