date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:56:26 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter [FOI-08-23] to: "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Keith, I have emailed the Met Office in regards the material released by them. They won't accept direct phone calls so this is the best I can do at the moment; I will report on their response asap. On a related matter, I will need contact details for the individuals contacted in regards their attitude towards the correspondence referred to in the request. This will go to the issue of 'confidentiality' as used in the s.41 FOIA exemption for material whose release 'would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person' I should note that this exemption only applies to information obtained by UEA from other persons; it does not extend to information generated within UEA. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:23 PM >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter > >Sorry people correct versions now attached - please delete previous >message attachments > >Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil > >attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland >to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting >comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing >some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed >response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our >collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their >opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence with regard to >Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally >opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim), >copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to Holland's >earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from >the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but >we must also consider whether my decision to send one or other of the >alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond >to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though >originally drafted in response to John Mitchell - a review editor >rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would consider the >shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not >be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value >your opinion as to the best course of action to take ,i.e. which >letter - or indeed neither - from here on. >regards >Keith > > > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ >