OK - a new experience for me....

I've been trying to locate the technical document for the extensive (and very expensive) program of sea defences planned for the Thames Estuary which is referenced in much of the EA's own "surge" of self aggrandizing PR London "climate change flood surge" bilge - with notable lack of success.

There's some Met Office research which assigns sea level rise a bit part (more of a "we've got to mention it") in east coast tidal / barometrically generated tidal surges - but bugger all else. The EA have a history of shameless invention (cue: "The Wrong Type of Rain"™ - © Chris Smiff) and others. Even when confronted with evidence that they're really wrong a retraction in any form is unicorn dung.

These people are really *not* unaware that observation does *not* support their AGW suffused projections - _at all_ Maybe (!) I'm just a grump - but that to me looks like fraud ....

There are (sadly many) other examples where public servants are deploying abuse of process and worse to force through actions that are almost entirely self serving.

I think collecting likely candidates and having as thorough as possible a wrestle with the "decision support" evidence is a fair way to go. I've as a few know got my own axe to grind - but I will restrain my self in that department. I believe ... the disdain and evasion for empirical evidence in public decision taking at present has to be addressed.

A roll call of candidates and their accomplishments please?

My initial feeling is that we have a target rich environment.

Don
I can see the logic in your approach.

The approach of manufacturing evidence and utterly ignoring actual observation is what absolutely riles me. As we both know if the theory + its associated arithmetic do not fit the observations (to put it mildly) - it's not the observations that are wrong. It's the delinquent officials I'd like to nail.

If an adherent of a wonky theory willfully bases policy on their fantasy whilst deliberately and systematically ignoring overwhelmingly contrary evidence - that is misconduct. If involves the pointless waste of public funds in a fashion that deprives others of benefits they might reasonably expect from communal assets - especially in these straightened times - that is Conspiracy to Defraud (the fact that they might benefit from extended salary opportunity is mere icing on the cake).

This whole setting the menu at the trough - "we decide" and "we set the terms of reference" arbitrariness thing has gone too far. There must be instances at DECC and across other public bodies where this sort of abuse has taken place - and... they've been arrogant buffoons and careless...

Partly from the school of "if you've a hammer everything looks like a nail" and extended familiarity - the EA have set themselves up I suspect on the Thames flooding scheme and other "projects".

One Admiral Byng moment would work wonders.

Stephen Lovegrove looks like he's worth a closer look ...

Who's your m'lord?

I would be happy for some qualified candidates and details of their accomplishments at the moment and have a go at winnowing down their suitability :-) .

There must be some highly compromised individuals out there that we don't know about. There is a parallel thing being progressed - but - it's going to be a surpr-i-se! for the lucky recipients of the summons :-)

oops ran out of edit time.

I would be happy for some qualified candidates and details of their accomplishments at the moment and have a go at winnowing down their suitability :-) .

There must be some highly compromised individuals out there that we don't know about. There is a parallel thing being progressed - but - it's going to be a surpr-i-se! for the lucky recipients of the summons :-)

As for troops - I think it's a bit early to ask for commitment and they have to be fed - information is pivotal in all this - a key factor in the way this might work is that funding is presently *guaranteed* if there's a proper criminal case to answer (regardless of outcome) and lawyers are nothing if not mercenary ... private criminal prosecution should be explored I've had enough of administrative law.