Oxburgh and Davies

Remember how Geoffrey Boulton tied himself into knots about his connections to the UEA and the climate science community. Now the emboldened Trevor Davies isn’t even bothering. Alert readers at CA here and at Bishop Hill’s spotted the following 2006 picture of Oxburgh (3rd from right) with Davies (far right).

Caption: Lord Oxburgh and the Vice-Chancellor [of U of Newcsatle] joined a group of delegates for the first of three annual HSBC lectures. From left: Mark Vines of HSBC; Francis Sullivan of HSBC; Vice-Chancellor Professor Christopher Edwards [of U of Newcsatle] ; Professor Keith Tovey of UEA; Lord Oxburgh; Professor Paul Younger [of U of Newcsatle] ; Professor Trevor Davies of UEA. Running text: Lord Oxburgh’s lecture rounded off the first HSBC Partnership in Environmental Innovation Day, attended by representatives from HSBC and the University of East Anglia as well as a number of high-profile business partners and alumni.

We discussed Davies in an earlier CA post here. In that letter, Davies (who has vociferously denounced the public circulation of the Climategate Letters) sent a “leaked” government document to the CRU Five so that they would have an edge over their rivals for government funding.

I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research councils’ thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source.

To my knowledge, no climate scientists to date have spoken out against Davies’ use of a leaked document nor have any demanded that he be prosecuted. I wonder if the Norwich police are working as diligently on this case as they are on the source of the Climategate dossier.


  1. SimonH
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    Purely anecdotal but I was asked this evening if, in the light of Oxburgh’s appointment, it would be possible for a student to sue the UEA for damages or to get a tuition refund and transfer to “a proper university”. You’d have to be pretty heartless not to pity those kids in Norfolk. :o(

  2. justbeau
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    Global Warming must be great for universities as publicity.
    Our faculty are a great bunch of guys, busy saving the earth itself. Send us more grants and students and we will make things even better! Let the good times roll. Davies is looking happy, he may like to party. Rock on East Anglia.

  3. Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

    So Davies leaked illegally
    A document for his group to see
    In full contempt of laws and fees
    Collected by bureaucracies
    Who profit from false prophecies
    Built from doctored histories…

    And now that he has been selected
    To judge the evidence collected
    About some science, once neglected,
    As if his hands, deeply imbedded
    Within the corpse had just been vetted!

    Let this whitewash now begin
    Now that they control the spin
    And nothing shall be found within
    While they ignore what’s happening
    As money flows behind the scene
    To fill the coffers up with green…


    ©Dave Stephens 2010

    • philh
      Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 10:18 AM | Permalink


  4. Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 9:56 PM | Permalink

    The alert reader in both cases being ‘mpaul’, using exactly the same wording here as on Bishop Hill, so I’m presuming the same person, based on the evidence currently available.

    What to make of the event in 2006 (or perhaps late 2005) that led to the photoshoot? HSBC Partnership in Environmental Innovation Day, with the ex-chairman of Shell giving the talk, as part of a wider involvement of the sponsors in the two universities:

    HSBC is supporting a number of Newcastle University projects and posts with an environmental theme. The funding is benefiting a wide range of projects at Newcastle and East Anglia Universities, including research into geothermal energy, how to make East Anglia a carbon-neutral university, and the production of low-cost water filters in Bangladesh.

    Well, those low-cost water filters sound a great thing. I like to be positive, as I know other contributors here do. And that of course was what HSBC was always looking for from this initiative – positive publicity. Whatever else may be true, I doubt the bank’s PR department will be as eager for such a link up with UEA this year.

    This year clearly the action is all with those outfits seeking to operate below the PR radar, like GLOBE International, a name almost beyond parody for the budding conspiracist. But the extent those guys have already bungled stealth mode, with the very unfortunate choices of Morley and Byers, and the timing of the Oxburgh announcement on the very day Channel 4 showed the incriminating film with Byers asking for $5000 a day to influence government policy, leading to him being stripped of his membership of the Labour party … this is the kind of publicity no PR firm in world could ever buy you. Well done everyone.

    • EdeF
      Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 12:11 AM | Permalink

      How in the world do you get kicked out of the Labour party? That’s like getting
      kicked out of Vegas on New Years.

      • Grumpy Old Man
        Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49 AM | Permalink

        You plot to remove Gordon Brown from office, fail, and then face the political version of Hanging, Drawing and Quartering. Mr Brown has the ability to get mad AND even.

  5. ZT
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

    Isn’t Cambridge in East Anglia? I know that standards are slipping at that once famous university too – but you would think that at some point the Cambridge dons would help ease these people into early retirement. (Before they bring the county into complete disrepute).

    A quick google revealed this baffling side activity for Trevor – he clearly does not have much to do – apart from saving the planet.


  6. Alan Wilkinson
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 11:07 PM | Permalink

    “I wonder if the Norwich police are working as diligently on this case as they are on the source of the Climategate dossier.”

    I’m suspecting few have too much to worry about in that case since I’ve heard nothing after this exchange with them:

    From: Alan Wilkinson
    To: Irwin, David
    Date: Mar 02 2010 – 10:40am

    Hi there

    I doubt I can add anything to your information since I know nothing that is not already public on the relevant blog sites and have no direct contact with any of the individuals involved. If you have specific questions it would be easier to use email to answer them as I am on the other side of the world in New Zealand so the timezone is a problem. Email also allows me to research my records for any answers you require rather than relying on memory – particularly since my FOI request was nearly a year ago.

    Alan Wilkinson

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Irwin, David
    Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 3:45 a.m.
    To: Alan Wilkinson


    I am one of a team of police officers investigating the recent theft of data and emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

    During the enquiry I have become aware that you have previously made requests to the UEA for the release of data under the Freedom of Information Act

    Accordingly, I am keen to discuss the issue further with you if at all possible. I can be contacted on any of the numbers detailed below or by return of email. Preferably, could provide me with a contact phone number and a suitable time to call you.

    Kind regards,

    DC889 IRWIN
    Protective Services
    Norfolk Constabulary HQ

  7. GrantB
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 9:05 AM | Permalink

    Alan Wilkinson – I have just received a similar request by snail mail from the Norfolk Constabulary today. I must surely be the last on the list and was hitherto feeling quite left out. At least DC Baker knew that I resided in Australia and that there was a time difference of sorts.

    From: DC Sean Baker
    Date: 16/03/10
    Re: FOI UEA

    “Dear Mr…. “(Comment: Dr would have been nice, as it is my correct pre-nominal and it is what I signed off as in the FOI request. But never mind)

    …(general background)…(records indicate that you…)..and then this

    “I appreciate that you live on the other side of the world and communication may be difficult so I would ask that if there is a significant time difference you let me know what it is so when I call its not in the middle of the night.

    Kind Regards
    Sean Baker

    I worry that the team investigating this heinous information technology crime have no one amongst them who can work out the time difference between Brisbane Australia and Lowestoft, Sussex. I have an almanac, a sextant and an abacus so I will do my best to calculate the delta t. Significant or otherwise.

    • Neil McEvoy
      Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 9:18 AM | Permalink

      That would be Lowestoft, SUFFOLK – though I’m not sure of its relevance.

      The HQ of the Norfolk Constabulary is in Wymondham (pronounced Wind’em), which is in – wait for it – Norfolk.

      • GrantB
        Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

        Neil – my mistake, you are correct. The full address under the signature of DC Baker is

        Joint Norfolk/Suffolk Major Investigation Team
        Lowestoft Police Station
        Old Nelson Street

    • Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

      They have not contacted me

    • Alan Wilkinson
      Posted Mar 26, 2010 at 10:25 PM | Permalink

      I doubt the sextant will suffice, Grant. You may need a chronometer. Mr Plod may even have one he could send you?

  8. DaveG
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM | Permalink

    Is it up to climate scientist to demand that anybody is prosecuted?

  9. Robert
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 11:02 AM | Permalink

    Sort of like the police investigating themselves for alleged transgressions by one or more of their members. We all know the outcome of these “investigations”…..

  10. Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    I’d like to know what West Anglia has to say about all this.

  11. thefordprefect
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 12:29 PM | Permalink

    Mr. McIntyre,

    The time must have come that you should put forward your panel selection for such inquiries.

    You or your followers criticise nearly every sentient creature put up by UK gov or UEA or ….

    You must name names.

    They must not have relatives/friends/degrees/etc. associated with UEA (jones), Pennsylvania State University (mann), University of Virginia (mann), etc, etc. …(trenbereth), …(Santer)

    They must not have co-authored papers with any of the accused, they must not have connections to environmental groups, they must not have connections to renewable energy, they must not have received funding from environmental, left wing, they must not …etc.

    They must not have a green blog nor must they have contributed to one.

    AND of course:

    They must not have relatives/friends/degrees/etc. associated with University of New England (plimer), New South Wales (Plimer), University of Newcastle (plimer), University of Melbourne (Plimer)University of Adelaide (plimer), University Guelph (Mcintrick), etc, etc.

    They must not have authored, co-authored papers against AGW, they must not have connections to right wing think tanks in any country, they must not have connections to fossil fuel, they must not have received funding from fossil fuel lobby, right wing, they must not …etc.

    They must not have a blog critical of AGW nor must they have contributed to one.

    They must not be a member of any political party.

    They must not have contributed papers to, or financially to any group that has been critical of/supported AGW.

    None of the above must have occurred within the last 20 (?) years.

    The must have absolutely no view on AGW (essential).
    There must be a leader in the field of climatology’s (is this compatible with above)
    There must be a scientist with belief in acceptable Scientific process,
    There must be a Statistician versed in all versions of statistical analysis (see Tamino’s blog for controversy) with no preconceived ideas of correct application.
    There must be a “judge” versed in finding facts amongst the dross.
    There must be … etc.

    I think you get the picture.

    And another small point must be affordable to the university.

    Now publish your names for the blogosphere to criticise. Please!


    • EdeF
      Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 3:24 PM | Permalink


      The criteria for selecting a panel to review the performance of an organization is well known and has been applied for many years in the Anglosphere. These are not controversial requests. You recuse any close family member or friend, anyone with a significant financial interest in the organization, anyone who has already spoken out in public about the merits of the case, anyone whose views are intemperant on the subject. For this review, this leaves a vast number of people still eligible. I have noticed that the panel is not exclusively made up of people working in the UK. They could have done much better. I believe they need to go the extra mile to convince the public that the review is competent and unbiased. Have they done that?

    • curious
      Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

      Ford – your logic is faulty. Just because you know a particular panel is incorrect it does not mean you know the correct panel. Nor does it mean finding the correct panel is your responsibility.

      The cost issue is irrelevant – the UEA called this Inquiry voluntarily. One would expect part of their decision process would be to assess the cost of running a satisfactory process and whether or not they could afford it. If they cannot afford to run it properly this reflects on their commitment to a valid exercise in the same way as their selection of compromised panel members.
      From Bishop Hill’s coverage:

      Announcing the appointment, Prof Trevor Davies, the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, said: “CRU’s scientific papers have been examined by scientists from other institutions through the peer review process before being accepted for publication by international journals. We have no reason to question the effectiveness of this process. Nevertheless, given the concerns about climate research expressed by some in the media, we decided to augment the Muir Russell review with an independent assessment of CRU’s key publications in the areas which have been most subject to comment.

      “We are delighted that a renowned scientist of the standing of Lord Oxburgh has agreed to chair this very strong independent panel and await its findings with great interest. Colleagues in CRU have committed themselves to providing any support required by the panel.”


  12. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

    FP, for the original Muir Russell inquiry, I think that they should have done what most inquiries do – appoint a judge. I’ve suggested that in the past and do so again. I am unfamiliar with the roster of UK judges, but I’m sure that there are many well-qualified judges who could have produced a report that would concluded the controversy one way or the other in a way that Geoffrey Boulton and Muir Russell are unlikely to.

    • Posted Mar 26, 2010 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

      Speaking of the Muir Russell inquiry … the other day, my mouse and I ventured over to http://www.cce-review.org/Evidence.php in the hope of finding and reading the submissions (which they promised to publish “quickly”) made to the inquiry. Alas, we were very disappointed. A follow-E-mail, asking when these submissions will be available, has thus far resulted only an an auto-response [which indicates that if relevant to the remit my E-mail will be included in their evidence] and a read-receipt from the designated Luther Pendragon PR Person.

      And while I’m here, I know it’s O/T, but I thought you might be interested in a graph (not a hockey stick) showing the number of 2007 publications included in the references to 40 of AR4’s 44 chapters. Preliminary results indicate that there are 354 of these leaps back to the future, of which 56 pertain to the work of WG1.


  13. Stacey
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

    @The Fordprefect

    Firstly I don’t think the contributors here are followers of Mr McIntyre. Secondly your diatribe is flawed, simply because if an inquiry is to be independant then those chosen to be involved should be, well, independant and have no conflict of interests.

    For example if a major building collapsed and an inquiry were to be held into the cause, you would not expect members of that inquiry to have commercial interests in the project or to have been closely involved in the past or have recent connections with the Contractor, Architect or Structural Engineer, or would you? I think not. This is because it would not serve the common good and give confidence to the public.

    Ever you be so high………

    Have a good evening or day or sleep tight.

  14. Coalsoffire
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    I agree. There is nothing left for the Onion to do.

  15. Stacey
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM | Permalink

    On the 26th of October 1966, after resolutions by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State for Wales, Cledwyn Hughes, appointed a Tribunal to inquire into the causes of, and circumstances relating to, the Aberfan disaster. Sir Herbert Edmund Davies, a respected south Wales barrister with much experience of mining law, was appointed chairman. At its preliminary meeting, Davies posed the four broad questions that the Tribunal would look into. They were:

    What exactly happened ?
    Why did it happen ?
    Need it have happened ? Was this a calamity which no reasonable human foresight could have prevented, or was it caused by blameworthy conduct by some persons or organisations ?
    What lessons are to be learnt from what happened at Aberfan ?

    My comment is that I do not recall at the time anyone questioning the integrity of the inquiry even though I was only a teenager.

  16. P Gosselin
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

    Seems behind every back door these guys try to bolt through, there stands Steve McIntyre and Co. blocking the way.

    • justbeau
      Posted Mar 27, 2010 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

      Yes, McIntyre is multi-skilled.

      He is good in statistics, so he busted the Hockey Sticks and taught Captain Jimmy that the US was too darn hot back in 1934.

      Happily, he has a fine sense of humor, too. McIntryre can observe the antics of the Team and bring them to public attention. Pauchauri the Love Guru writes low-brow porn. Jerry North wings it. Mad Jim muses about lights-out in teapot domes. The University of East Anglia appoints rent-seekers and believers in the hypothesis of CO2-forced catastrophic global warming to offer a whitewash of its shoddy science. McIntyre does not have to do anything to make these parties look bad. They choose to do this to themselves. Sweet!

  17. UK John
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

    What I really like is the Google Ad that keeps appearing below Steve’s text, the site is “Zoosk”, they seem nice young ladies. brightens my day!

  18. thefordprefect
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    EdeF Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 3:24 PM
    Steve McIntyre Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM

    OK we have a Judge – any judge (one hopes so – they should be independent) – I’m not sure that McIntyre’s supposition that there are suitably qualified judges – but then what is suitably qualified?

    Now give me a list of other people to contribute to the inquiry – remember they must be suitably qualified. You say there are many out there who would do. Now name them, please.

    There must be a statistician, a scientist, a climatologist, a financial expert, a biologist/ecologist (any more?/less?)


  19. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 5:37 PM | Permalink

    Ford, most legal inquiries don’t form “panels”. The judge is the judge and he conducts the inquiry. He would obtain testimony or consultation from relevant experts. The Muir Russell inquiry, in particular, is supposed to stay away from the scientific matters, so it’s particularly easy in this respect.

    Has anyone seen the terms of reference for the Globe International/Oxburgh inquiry?

    • geo
      Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

      There is certainly something to be said for that, as the model also frees the judge to take all the “biased” testimony s/he wants, so long as s/he is relatively balanced in doing so.

      That model better recognizes the hopelessness of obtaining a large unbiased panel, and rather tries to manage the problem of bias in a more realistic manner.

    • JCM
      Posted Mar 26, 2010 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

      Selection of counsel for a judicial inquiry is as important as the selection of witnesses. As long as the counsel to the inquiry is not a failed NDP candidate like the aforementioned Paul Cavalluzo who chose to vigorously attack the former Conservative Premier Mike Harris when the Walkerton water issue was clearly a case of local hicks running a poor operation. Nepotism led to poisoned water.
      Somewhat OT but important when asking for a judicial inquiry.

  20. David
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 5:38 PM | Permalink

    Have you gents seen this description of attempts by as you call them “the team” to interfere with submission of research in peer review journals (JGR no less)

    Click to access McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdf

    I’m speechless. How far has the rot gone….

  21. Kondealer
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    They clearly are too arrogant to be bothered.
    WEll I have already informed them of this latest insult and I invite others to do so

    Email them at

    and tell them all about Boulton and Oxburgh

    and you will get a reply like this

    > Sir/Madam
    > Many thanks for your email to the independent Climate Change Email Review. All emails will be read and eventually published by the Review.
    > If relevant to the Review remit, your email will be considered as a submission by the Review team.
    > Where possible we will try to respond to questions raised, though the volume of emails received means that this may take time.
    > With best wishes
    > The independent Climate Change Email Review team

  22. coalsoffire
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

    This sort of thing is driving me from being a skeptic to cynic, or even a fatalist. I think I’ll listen to Leonard Cohen sing Everybody Knows (an emotional dose of reality for sure) tonight and then try to restore my faith in humanity tomorrow.

    Everybody Knows”
    by Leonard Cohen

  23. MIke
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 8:09 PM | Permalink

    You are really grasping at straws. What was this document? If it was private e-mails hacked or downloaded from a computer without the owners knowledge you might be able to make a comparison with the stolen/hacked/leaked CRU e-mails. Has anyone asked Davies what this document was?

  24. pat
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 11:12 PM | Permalink

    25 March: biased-bbc blog: Conspiracy?
    The so-called (BBC World Service) trust is a founding partner of a body called COMplus, which describes itself as a “diverse global alliance of organisations committed to scaling-up the impact of sustainable development communications through partnership and collaboration.” Thus the BBC is a prime mover in shadowy – but highly organised – international efforts – snip – . To add insult to injury, COMplus, surprise, surprise, is funded by your money, via the Department for International Development (and of course through WST itself)…
    It’s no coincidence that men like – snip- Stephen Byers are also involved as one of the main cheerleaders for COMplus…

    please control your language.

  25. Rob H
    Posted Mar 26, 2010 at 12:10 AM | Permalink

    If you can get an email address you should inquire of the Norwich police if they are looking into the letter. Copy some appropriate people. See what the police say. An email is forever.

  26. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Mar 26, 2010 at 9:11 PM | Permalink

    I just sent this to David Irwin of the Norfolk Police, who was the guy who interviewed me:

    David, I don’t know if you saw this [link to this CA page], but there are other matters demanding your attention …

    Many thanks, please let me know when charges are filed for Trevor Davies leaking of files …


    We’ll see if anything shakes out.


  27. thefordprefect
    Posted Mar 27, 2010 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    Is that it then?

    Not one name put forward to take part in an inquiry.

    It is not easy finding suitably qualified people who are TOTALLY independent of the climate change “debate” is it?


    • SkipSmith
      Posted Mar 27, 2010 at 5:51 PM | Permalink

      Instead of asking people to construct a hypothetical panel, a more fruitful way forward would be to ask who on these existing inquiry panels is acceptable.

      • AJC
        Posted Mar 28, 2010 at 7:51 AM | Permalink

        “a more fruitful way forward would be to ask who on these existing inquiry panels is acceptable”.

        No. The sensible approach is to shine a spotlight on anything in their backgrounds which compromises any of the panelists.

        Everyone keep digging!

  28. Phillip Bratby
    Posted Mar 27, 2010 at 2:31 PM | Permalink

    Christopher Booker has picked up on the story in the Sunday Telegraph.

  29. brent
    Posted Mar 28, 2010 at 5:52 AM | Permalink

    Sunday morning funnies 🙂

    Penn State climate professor: ‘I’m a skeptic

    Penn State’s Michael Mann, under fire in e-mails probe, says his global warming research passes test. He also has a regret.

  30. Al Gored
    Posted Mar 28, 2010 at 11:36 PM | Permalink

    Wow. The corruption here just keeps looking worse and worse. Thanks for continuing to expose it. Sure hope the truth still matters.

  31. thefordprefect
    Posted Mar 29, 2010 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming
    More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming. …
    The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.

    Well that’s 31k to 37k (depending on source) that cannot stand in any unbiassed committee

    • Sleeper
      Posted Mar 29, 2010 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

      Re: thefordprefect (Mar 29 13:26),

      First we had hundreds of thousands of pages of raw data, now we have tens of thousands of biased scientists. You sure do like big numbers Mike.
      Here’s another one: there are billions of people on this planet. I bet we can come up with a few scientists capable of understanding the issue who don’t have their hand in the cookie jar.

  32. Julian
    Posted Mar 31, 2010 at 7:39 AM | Permalink

    Lunatic conspiracy theories. Is that what you are reduced to these days, Steve?

  33. Eugene WR Gallun
    Posted Apr 5, 2010 at 5:05 AM | Permalink

    Hide the decline — I don’t think this has been explained correctly to the public. Past temperature records are based largely on tree rings. Tree rings are “nature’s thermometer”. But are they really accurate? We can check tree rings against the recorded temperatures of the last 150 years and they should match. If they don’t match it means one of two things. 1)Tree rings don’t record past temperatures accurately and thus we have no idea of what temperatures were in the past thus no way of saying current temperatures are extraordinary or 2)the tree rings are accurate and the recent record of rising temperatures is false data. Either way global warming gets blown out of the water. That is why they had to “hide the decline” in temperature that recent tree ring samples were showing. Either tree rings are useless for establishing what temperatures were in the past or the current temperature data used to promote global warming is false. EWRG

  34. Posted Apr 5, 2010 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    Hi Steve

    I wasn’t sure how best to contact you but figured here was as good as place as any. I made a submission to the Inquiry and have received my copy.

    I do have a certain sympathy with the Committee, given the pressure to get a quick result; anything controversial would potentially have a seismic effect on the election. However, the Inquiry was rushed, superficial and biased, not least because there was not a balance of evidence weighed orally and if people don’t read the submissions in full, you miss most of the evidence.

    Having skimmed the findings and read the press, I’ve been ploughing through all the evidence again with a view to de-constructing the findings in the context of evidence presented.

    I’ve already written to my MP requesting that the Inquiry be reopened or a new Inquiry called, after the election. This one can hardly be regarded as adequate in the light of the burden of policy and expenditure riding upon it.

    Would you please contact me off-list with a view to preparing a formal submission to the Inquiry.



    Posted Oct 7, 2010 at 12:18 PM | Permalink


3 Trackbacks

  1. […] Oxburgh and Davies […]

  2. By TraVotez on Mar 31, 2010 at 2:03 PM

    […] (62)  Oxburgh y Davies […]

  3. By Traduire RSS on Mar 31, 2010 at 3:59 PM

    […] (129)  Oxburgh et Davies […]

%d bloggers like this: