From: David Clarke <daveclarke292.nul>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:03:26 +0100
Archived: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:10:32 -0400
Subject: Re: MoD Blocks Release Of UFO Files


>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Sun,  1 Aug 2010 23:48:17 +0200 (CEST)
>Subject: Re: MoD Blocks Release Of UFO Files

Quoting himself, Nick said:

>Some time ago a ufologist made a Freedom of Information Act
>request to the Ministry of Defence about my non-MoD work as an
>author, journalist and TV pundit.

I note from this response that by mentioning my name in any way
will in some mysterious way empower me. Either way, it is very
bizarre and abnormal behaviour.

>Just to clarify, I have no objection to ufologists inquiring
>about my UFO investigations at the MoD. That's their right,
>under the Freedom of Information Act. But two or three
>ufologists in the UK have developed an unhealthy obsession with
>me. I m not comfortable with such individuals intruding into my
>private life by asking about my non-MoD work.

Why don't you name these two or three individuals?  Are you
frightened of empowering them too?

As is clear from my original request, a copy of which is
included in the Information Commissioner's notice, I did not
request any information about to your "private life". You flatter
yourself by suggesting that anyone would be in the remotest
way interested in your private life.

The request was made in the context of how the MoD developed
their policy as to how to respond to your very public (not
private) statements - addressed to the media and the wider
public.

Statements which contradicted Government policy on UFOs - a
subject that is of great interest to the readers of this List
and the wider public. You started the fire and now you want to
get out of the flames.

By any measure the contents of these documents, created by
public servants paid for by the public purse, is a matter of
public interest. They will remain so, no matter how you try to
dodge the issue.

>The argument that by virtue of being in the public eye I've
>somehow waived my right to privacy is absurd and sounds like the
>sort of thing a stalker would say to the police after being
>arrested.

See my comments above. As per usual your comments are misleading
and bear no relation to the facts.

>However, with the possible exception of 9/11 - where I've taken
>part in TV and radio debates against those who believe it was an
>inside job - ufology is the only topic where I ve been the
>subject of obsessive behaviour and hatred as a result of my
>media activities.

This is just a smokescreen to avoid answering perfectly
reasonable questions, such as:

1. Do you know what is in the seven documents that you objected
to the release of?

2. If you do know, what is the nature of the material that you
consider private? Is it disciplinary or commercially sensitive,
for instance?

3. If you don't know what the contents are then why are you
objecting to their release?

4. How can you justify standing on a Disclosure platform whilst
actively blocking the release of documents?

People will be able to judge for themselves your commitment to
Freedom of Information by the detail of your response, or lack
thereof, to these questions.

--
Dr David Clarke

http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.