Bishop Hill largely in the absence of supporting facts

The deny-o-skept-o-sphere's take on the Hackgate scandal has posed a question I'd been meaning to ask for some time:

Which Andrew Montford sidesteps

This is in the context of a cop being arrested as part of the Hackgate police op. But has Monty made up the claim of bribery and corruption , or can he support it?

A question Monty refuses to answer. Instead I recieve a few ad homs from Bishop Hill devotees. This is my personal favourite:

A troll I may be but asking for supporting facts is normal especially when serious allegations of bribery and corruption are made. So is his claim supported or not ? Or did Bishop Hill aka Andrew Montford invent his allegation of bribery of a police officer ? 

In a nutshell this is how climate *skeptic* blogs work. Andrew Montford is not used to being called to support his accusations , his blog followers will deal with the correspondence whilst he moves on to the next attack. It's only a week since this thread but already Monty has made at least one other claim of corruption . To date Bishop Hill has not addressed the question directly posed above . Bishop Hill is a blog that maintains serious allegations against some of the world's top scientists yet if it is not convenient the Bishop Hill blog (and the skept-o-sphere in general) will obfuscate and obscure rather than set the record straight and admit a false accusation has been made.

Tweet