Climate Audit

mpaul

Curiouser and curiouser.

ZT

I wonder if it will be a case of “three to five minutes” to determine that wrongs were committed? (when someone gets around to having a look at the server)

see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/19/news-corp-police-payments-macdonald

Pat Frank

Honestly, this whole cozy British police – public relations – government revolving door of corrupted process, collusion, coverups, and conflicting interests is almost like a conspiracy theorist’s dream of a secret cabal of controlling elites.

• Steve McIntyre
  Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 9:20 PM | Permalink

  Sort of like sending Kim Philby to Canada to debrief the defecting clerk, Igor Gouzenko. Philby’s “investigation” wasn’t very thorough either. Even after Philby had been identified as a Russian spy, he wasn’t arrested until many years later when an American who had associated with Philby (Michael Straight) was vetted for a job in the Kennedy administration. And even then Anthony Blunt, another spy, remained protected for another 20 years or so as the Queen’s art curator.

  • KimberleyCornish
    Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 11:03 PM | Permalink

    The British intelligence officer who interviewed Gouzenko was Roger Hollis, about whom suspicion has been reignited by a recent article of Paul Monk in “Quadrant”.

    • Adam Gallon
      Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 3:32 AM | Permalink

      Peter Wright, author of “Spycatcher”, raised those suspicions in 1987.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 6:46 AM | Permalink

      You’re correct about Hollis. There was a Philby connection that emerged in 2003 – this is what I was recalling:

      The files released today to the National Archives in London showed that Philby was entrusted by SIS chief Stewart Menzies with the task of drawing up an assessment of the implications of Gouzenko’s disclosures for the British armed forces’ Directors of Intelligence. Philby circulated a draft copy of his paper to MI5, the domestic security agency, suggesting that it might need “tidying up”.

      But it received a cool response from senior MI5 officer Roger Hollis who, in a pointed memorandum drew attention to a series of “small inaccuracies”.
      “Perhaps you hedged on this, so as to avoid giving the Directors of Intelligence too much detailed information,” he said.

      There is no suggestion from the file that Hollis – who went on to become director-general of MI5 – suspected Philby of passing misinformation.

      Indeed, he appeared to be more concerned that Philby was encroaching on his territory as Canada – regarded in London as a self-governing dominion within the British empire – was supposed to be MI5’s responsibility.

      “I feel that the question of circulating the document from your office to the Directors of Intelligence is a matter of some embarrassment,” he wrote.

      “The case took place in Canada and here the security rests on our office and not yours.”
      Years later, in exile in Moscow after having been unmasked as a KGB agent, Philby admitted that Gouzenko’s defection with dozens of secret documents stuffed up his shirt had been a huge setback for the Soviets but said there had been little he could do.

      “It was a disaster for the KGB and there was no way I could help,” he told journalist and author Phillip Knightley.

      “The Mounties had Gouzenko so well protected that it was impossible for the Russians to do anything about him, bump him off or anything like that,” he said, using the colloquial name for the RCMP, Canada’s national police force.

      KV 2/1421 – 1423 seem to be the relevant files released in 2003 and are available at Kew Gardens. KV 2/1421 includes correspondence between Roger Hollis at MI5 and Kim Philby at MI6 (including Philby’s signature) from February 1946 where Philby is seeking Hollis’ comments on a draft (not on the file) he has prepared about the case. Though most of the files refer to Hollis’s interviews with Gouzenko (for example in KV 2/1423 there is reference to a meeting Hollis had with him on 21 November 1945), none contains a report or note of the actual interviews.

      I think that I’ve mentioned previously that my grandfather McRuer presided over four of the post-war spy trials in Canada. Some years later when American senators wanted to depose Gouzenko, he presided over the deposition by the senators and their staff and was credited with keeping it formal and non-circus.

    • Richard Drake
      Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

      he presided over the deposition by the senators and their staff and was credited with keeping it formal and non-circus.

      He has my vote as the man to clean up NOTW hacking and Climategate then 🙂

    • ferd berple
      Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

      The problem with any “team” or “secret society” is that it makes cover-ups easy. Each member vouches for the other members of the team, to discredit any witness that comes forward. This allows the “team” to advance their own interests, regardless of the wider interests of the community in which they operate.

      This has not been limited to spy networks. GE Canada was taken over by a religious organization, that promoted their own members and held back non-members. 20% of all salaries were donated to the church as tithes, and wages raised accordingly. If you failed to promote and raise the wages of a fellow church member, you were hurting the church. This persisted for 20+ years until discovered and GE Canada was shut down as a result.

      It is not hard to imagine that a similar same technique has been used time and time again by groups within companies and other organizations to take control from within to promote their own interests.

      Climate Science is simply following a similar strategy. Those that are members of the “team” are actively promoted and defended by the team. Praise is lavishly heaped on any science that the release. Those that are not members of the team are ostracized and heavily criticized for any science they release.

      This technique is nothing new. Nor is the harm that ultimately results. The reason being that the “Team” praises its members not for their merits, but rather for their membership. This allows shoddy and faulty work to slip through and be presented as though it was high quality work. Over time this leads to a corruption of the organizations involved, until their results can no longer be trusted to be accurate.

    • hro001
      Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

      ferd Jul 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM, do you have any links in support of:

      GE Canada was shut down as a result

      Not that I disbelieve you, but assuming that “GE Canada” = “General Electric Canada”, my family had a very dear friend (who passed away a few years ago) who, prior to retirement, worked for GE – and was quite active at his local church. So I’d like to be able to fwd this info.

      Interestingly, on the CoI front, my father (who for a time worked for Westinghouse) was required to (and did) disclose any and all contacts he had with this family friend.

      And, on a more humourous (but somewhat related) note … back in the days when computers made their debut in the industrial workplace, I recall my father telling the story of a visit to our friend’s office. Our friend was showing off his computer; but some programmer had arranged things in such a way that regardless of what our friend did, all that displayed on his monitor was “Back to work xxxxx, back to work xxxxx” 🙂

• Richard Drake
  Posted Jul 24, 2011 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

  Re: Pat Frank (Jul 22 20:16)

  Honestly, this whole cozy British police – public relations – government revolving door of corrupted process, collusion, coverups, and conflicting interests is almost like a conspiracy theorist’s dream of a secret cabal of controlling elites.

  And yet it’s not as bad living in London Town and disagreeing with the official line as it was in Moscow in the days of Comrade Lysenko and his pal Jo Stalin, at a time Philby and co were doing all they could to help from outside. Put another way, we have a fighting chance, just as we did despite all the disastrous mistakes of the “old boy network” in bygone eras.

  If there’s one article I’d recommend reading to get a balanced view of this crisis it would be John Harris on 18 July, entitled “How the phone-hacking scandal unmasked the British power elite”. This in particular I appreciated and agreed with, coming from a Guardian writer:

  When he decisively began to exercise his grip on British politics in the 1980s, Murdoch was an intimate of Margaret Thatcher, who cleared the way for his move into British television, though to claim that she was under his spell was deeply misplaced.

  Outstanding leadership means never coming under the spell of such a person, how dynamic and useful they may be to your tactical plans. We need more of the same. Never rule out what it can achieve.

JCM

The big story in this ‘hacking’ business is, and will become more prominent, the close relationship between NoTW and the Met Police; from the top ranks having lunch meetings and spa treatments, down to lower ranks accepting 5 figure sums of money from NoTW. Any officer close to those directly involved will be very worried. Most of the print media are drilling down on the political aspects but the policing aspect is bubbling away under the surface. It may eventually explain why the UEA email investigation is somewhat stalled, resting, dead or gone to the filing cabinet marked ‘Pending’.

• ZT
  Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 2:05 AM | Permalink

  The problem is – of course – once the corruption reaches a certain level, a cozy circular firing squad has been formed. The journalists know that there have been occasions when they have avoided some tedious work by asking for a reverse ping, and the police know that the journalists could turn them in at any point, and the politicians – like to be supported by the papers, and have their speeding tickets torn up. Far easier to go along than create waves. Basically the same situation set itself up in climatology, the climatologists, politicians, and journalists turning a blind eye to each other’s dishonesty and occasionally helping out with an lenient inquiry or PR job.

• Richard Drake
  Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 2:36 AM | Permalink

  You mean that “the UEA email investigation is somewhat stalled” now, I take it, and the reasons (some kind of police corruption) will emerge later. If so, I tend to agree with all.

  The single most important question about the police investigation is why it was organised under Protective Services, which is responsible for Counter Terrorism. For DCI Irwin to introduce himself to Steve as a Counter Terrorism Intelligence Officer and give the impression that those who had criticised CRU in any way (or even sent a FoI request) were being considered the miscreants (ie terrorists) would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious. A disgraceful abuse of police power. We need answers on that and fast. It’s remarkable how Wallis has swung the spotlight back on these matters.

• BillyBob
  Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

  NOTW will turn out to be only 1 of many newspapers implicated.

  “The files from Operation Motorman, which was conducted by the Information Commissioner’s Office in 2003, have been requested by the police conducting the current investigation.

  The scale of the dubious news gathering practices is evident from the earlier inquiry, which revealed that 4,000 requests from 300 journalists and 31 publications for confidential information were made to a private investigator.

  Many of the cases indicated use of illegal practices, according to a BBC report.

  The investigation found the Daily Mail had made the most requests, followed by the Sunday People and the Daily Mirror.”

  http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_britain-phone-hacking-probe-widens-to-cover-other-newspaper-titles_1567964

AntonyIndia

He was dodgy alright, but Muir Russell was not a high ranking police officer.
Also News of the World also did not select or pay its own “judge” like UEA officially.

• Steve McIntyre
  Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

  Also News of the World also did not select or pay its own “judge” like UEA officially.

  it’s kind of amusing to picture a Muir Russell-style “independent” investigation of NOTW phone hacking. Everything run out of Rebekah Brooks’ office. First they get a hopeless front guy, who doesn’t even go to the interviews with Glenn Mulcaire. Then get an 18-year former NOTW employee currently working as an editor at another tabloid to take charge. It’s eerily familiar.

  Or an Oxburgh style investigation. Everyone worried about Neil Wallis’ frail health. Wrap it in up 2 days without talking to victims.

  Or a Penn State style investigation. They would report that the circulation figures had gone up under Wallis’ editorship so how could there be anything wrong?

  • mpaul
    Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 11:25 PM | Permalink

    Or a NOAA style investigation. They would report that News Corp stated that they paid bribes but the police stated that they didn’t received bribes. Therefor the investigators are unable to resolve the conflicting statements. But it doesn’t matter anyway because the policemen involved were in a different division at the time.

  • hro001
    Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 11:52 PM | Permalink

    Or an Oxburgh style investigation. Everyone worried about Neil Wallis’ frail health. Wrap it in up 2 days without talking to victims.

    That’s not so far-fetched, Steve! According to Bloomberg’s timeline:

    July 9 [2009]:

    Cameron defends Coulson. “Of course I knew about that resignation before offering him a job, but I believe you should give people a second chance,” Cameron says.

    Paul Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time, starts an investigation of the News of the World and the Sun, another News Corp. publication. Assistant Commissioner John Yates is assigned to the inquiry.

    About eight hours later, Yates tells reporters that “no additional evidence has come to light” and “no further investigation is required.” [emphasis added -hro]

    Hey, considering all the twists and turns during the last week or so, for all we know perhaps Oxburgh was being “coached” by Yates (via Wallis)?!

  • walt man
    Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 5:27 AM | Permalink

    -snip –

    Steve: My comment to which you are replying had nothing to do with the snipped allegations. The comment had nothing to do with Jones and read:

    it’s kind of amusing to picture a Muir Russell-style “independent” investigation of NOTW phone hacking. Everything run out of Rebekah Brooks’ office. First they get a hopeless front guy, who doesn’t even go to the interviews with Glenn Mulcaire. Then get an 18-year former NOTW employee currently working as an editor at another tabloid to take charge. It’s eerily familiar.

    Or an Oxburgh style investigation. Everyone worried about Neil Wallis’ frail health. Wrap it in up 2 days without talking to victims.

    Or a Penn State style investigation. They would report that the circulation figures had gone up under Wallis’ editorship so how could there be anything wrong?

    I am not online overnight and responses to your comment are off-topic and have been deleted as well.

    • charles the moderator
      Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 6:12 AM | Permalink

      snip

      I’m sorry if this comment goes over the line, but given the unrelenting machine-gun slandering of our host by the likes of Jones et al for years, sometimes you need to point out the obvious and skip diplomacy.

      So, take your pick 1 or 2.

mac1005

Quote, “A judge sitting in a court case on the newspaper would not be dining with its editors and I don’t see why members of Scotland Yard should have done either.”

Would not? Well it appears he has!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8656131/PhonThe judge in charge of the phone hacking inquiry e-hacking-inquiry-judge-attended-parties-at-home-of-Rupert-Murdochs-son-in-law.html

Lord Justice Leveson, the judge in charge of the phone hacking inquiry, went to two parties in the past year at the London home of Matthew Freud, a PR executive married to Elisabeth Murdoch, the daughter of Rupert Murdoch widely tipped to be her father’s successor.

• Richard Drake
  Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 5:24 AM | Permalink

  This came from a Evening Standard report yesterday:

  But questions were also being asked about the decision to appoint Lord Justice Leveson to lead the hacking inquiry after The Standard revealed that he has had dealings with Rupert Murdoch’s son-in-law, Matthew Freud.

  A spokesman for the judge said he met the boss of Freud Communications “by chance” at a dinner in February last year.

  Mr Freud then offered to help the Sentencing Council on how to promote public confidence in the criminal justice system.

  “To that end, in his capacity as Chairman of the Sentencing Council, and with the knowledge of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Leveson attended two large evening events at Mr Freud’s London home: these were on 29 July 2010 and 25 January 2011,” the spokesman added.

  Prior to his appointment to the inquiry, Lord Justice Leveson told the Government about the links.

  Downing Street said Lord Leveson had been appointed on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice “in line with the procedure of the Inquiries Act 2005.” He was the only proposed candidate.

  “He has been entirely open about attending these events,” a spokesman added.

  A spokeswoman for Freud Communications declined to comment saying they were private events.

  I wouldn’t be too concerned about this. This was before Judge Leveson was appointed and Elisabeth Murdoch, Matthew Freud’s wife, isn’t an executive of News International. It’s quite different from Andy Hayman fraternising with NOTW people when he and they knew he was in the middle of investigating them.

j ferguson

I’m having a very difficult time comprehending what is going on here, or was going on. It looks like repertory theater. Are there really so few people over there who can do these things that the same ones are called and recalled for every “play?” If so, why?

One might suppose that if you always get the same cast, the producer might be the same, or the author. But that also seems difficult to see.

Or is it really the NOTW that drove everything such that any event capable of being blown up into a good scandal would have the cast populated with “trusted” players sure to “develop” titillating sequences?

A sort of dark Disneyland.

Jonas

Told ya

JEM

I’m still inclined to suspect that Mr Wallis and OO were engaged by UEA, or someone on behalf of UEA, for something more ‘active’ than just PR spin. Perhaps someone thought it might be helpful to spelunk the voicemail of some of the players to try to figure out who knew what about the email release and when.

If this were the case, it would mean that someone close to UEA or the Norfolk Constabulary would have had to know of Mr Wallis and of his ‘specialty’ and be in a position to engage his firm or recommend him to someone who would.

Now we hear of Mr Hayman, who could well have been in the right places at the right times to make those connections.

Only guesswork, of course, but things do get curiouser and curiouser.