Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
On the 31 st July 2023, I did a blog post called ‘political death looms in Rutherglen’, my contention was that the by-election on paper see... -
When former Nicola Sturgeon was cornered like a rat by the Holyrood press pack, you could see in her demeanor that she extremely uncomfortab...
Like you, totally underwhelmed by what's going-on at Holyrood. The successful candidate will be chosen by a secret ballot of SNP members. The ballot will be managed by Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick and the winner will be announced by Peter Murrell. There was a similar selection process gone through for the Edinburgh Central Holyrood seat and despite Joanna Cherry being the overwhelming favourite amongst SNP members, she was not selected and Angus Robertson was selected instead. Frankly, it really doesn't matter who is selected as I see the SNP have entered the vortex which leads to electoral oblivion. If only the Tories were still being led by Ruth Davidson, we may all have something to look forward to but as it is, there is nothing to look forward to.
ReplyDeleteThe fact the Sturgeon camp is so rattled by Kate Forbes is great tho
DeleteMy brother in law has a dog which he got from a pet rescue centre in Edinburgh. A few months ago it suffered a slipped disk. My brother in law pays for health insurance for the dog and within a few days it was sent to the vet hospital in Edinburgh for an operation. This story is of no help to you of course, but it just shows you what the constant year on year erosion of our NHS has brought us all to. I'm sure that many people are unaware of how bad it actually is but Scotland's NHS is now significantly worse than England's and more money is being spent on it. Just imagine what it is like if you are a drug addict requiring help or an alcoholic requiring help.
ReplyDeleteI've been waiting 3.5 years for a hip replacement. It's not nice to be disabled and get no help or treatment. At leased the junkie with a poor hip wouldn't experience much discomfort, and the alcoholic wouldn't even be aware that he couldn't walk correctly since he would be too drunk to realise he had a damaged hip. Lucky them.
DeleteThe reaction of journalists was the thing that was most revealing to me about Sturgeon's resignation. Many were happy and relieved but Philip Sim and James Cook of the BBC and Colin Mackay of STV stood out for me as reacting as though a death had just been announced. It just shows how in thrall these journalists are to the SNP. You talk about Sturgeon's communication skills, but that's not enough, is it. Do these journalists not realize that? At the previous few elections, around 30% of the voting public have voted SNP; that can only go one way from here and if Humza were to be chosen as successor, that may drop to 20%. What's the point of Holyrood in that circumstance. All they do is mutter about independence there and if only 20% of the public are in agreement with that strategy, then there is no future need for Humza and no future need for Holyrood?
ReplyDeleteI'll give you an update on the sinking school (whether you like it or not):
ReplyDeleteEngineer H is the key man and everything depends upon him now. He says the school is OK and it's not going to sink but 44No others say that it is not OK and it is going to sink.
So, far then, engineer H has been the roadblock. He has been the roadblock for the past 5-years now and everyone is reluctant wait any longer for the arrogant fool to get round to saying something sensible.
Hence, his engineering firm, which are one of the world's top half-dozen engineering firm, have appointed someone else, independent of engineer H, to look at this afresh. I understand that it is a young female engineer and it shouldn't take her long to reach a conclusion.
This is an example of how Scotland treats whistle-blowers. I see it as inevitable that I will be found to have been entirely correct and yet I have been treated abysmally by all at Holyrood. There has been in my view an attempt to silence me by bankrupting me and where else in the world would that happen?
Keep pushing, they expect people to give up, always dark before the dawn
DeleteWhen you are a whistle-blower in Scotland you need to prepare for a cack-handed pile-on by the Scottish Government. That's the way they work. However, this is now entirely their problem to resolve to an outcome and that has been made very clear to Jackie Baillie.
DeleteLater this afternoon, the lawyer sent a letter to my MSP (you know who that is?) asking her to obtain the design calculations from engineer H which support his contention that the building is safe.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds complex doesn't it. As if we're asking for hundreds of pages of calculations that no-one will understand. The calculations though can be done in a single page and are not complex at all. In fact, the Americans did the calculation in their head.....so nothing to get alarmed about.
Anyway, if engineer H can produce the calculations then he wins and I lose. If he cannot produce the calculations, then I win and he loses. So, it couldn't be simpler.
By the way, do you know who is liable to pay my losses? It's the Scottish Government. This is what happens when they get involved in matters that they don't understand. So, it shouldn't be long now, George.
By the way, there have been many sources of annoyance over the years haven't there. The main source of annoyance for me just now is that my MSP has been saying for years that I would need to see a lawyer to resolve this for me. It is not a lawyer though, is it. She should have been sorting it out.
Just to show you how straightforward this case is, I set out the calculation below. As you can see, any do-it-yourself man would grasp the concept here. Wet soil is weaker than dry soil, quite a lot weaker, and that is the concept:
ReplyDeleteRequired design bearing capacity: 150kN/m2
Available bearing capacity, Dry Conditions: 150kN/M2
Available bearing Capacity, Wet Conditions: <75kn/m2
Presumed Design Factor of Safety: 2.5-3.5
This is all published data from the land expert who advised engineer H.
My MSP has previously said: 'Engineer H sounds really angry with you'. Of course he is angry, but he is also wrong and that's the point.
The lawyer yesterday asked my MSP to go back to engineer H and ask him to clarify this specific point.
He got the Factor of Safety right though; otherwise the school would have collapsed years ago.
I notice Kate Forbes said last night: "I'm against GRR because I listened to normal people"......this is probably enough to put her out of the contest already.
ReplyDelete"The presence of shallow and potentially upwelling groundwater on the site reduces the allowable bearing capacity to <75kN/M2 and with this present they will not be appropriate as a founding strata".
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, they are the founding strata. This is what I have been explaining to all at Holyrood since 2014. Is it really that difficult to understand? It's not, is it.
As one of the Americans said: "This is just a botched building job. They were given a foundation solution and they chose to ignore it. If you don't want to follow expert advice, don't ask for it".
On Channel 4 news last night it was saying that all of the arms manufacturers in the US can produce a certain number of howitzer shells PER YEAR. That number (they didn't say what it was) is being used up every month by Ukrainian forces. The strategy for Ukraine just now appears to be to soak-up artillery fire from the Russians and to mount a counter-offensive in a few weeks time. What I am saying is that it may come down in the end to who runs out of ammunition first. I always wondered at the supply chain for weapons and ammunition, from the manufacturers to the battle-field, and that may turn out to be a problem soon for both sides.
ReplyDeleteThe latest and current scenario re the sinking school is that the prima facie case is that the building is non-compliant and therefore unsafe.
ReplyDeleteResponsibility for that lies with engineer H and his employer, but responsibility for knowing about it and doing nothing lies with the Scottish Government.
Responsibility for ensuring that her constituent's interests are properly protected lies with my constituency MSP, Jackie Baillie. I last heard from Jackie at the beginning of December and so she has some catching-up to do at this point.
Hence, Protect wrote to Jackie Baillie on Monday. That organization was set-up by the UK Government in response to the Piper Alpha disaster and this school is the third longest running case in their history.
I'm sure you will agree, when an organization like this has to write repeatedly to a senior MSP on a matter as important as this one, it indicates that something is wrong. This is not a normal government working to normal and acceptable world standards, is it.
I was asked if this has even happened before in world engineering? Has a building ever collapsed 6, 8, 10 years after it was finished and for the collapse to occur due entirely to the way it was built. So, it's not the design itself that's faulty, it's the as-built design. I am not the right person to ask that question to, but I am not aware of any other examples and neither are any of the other engineers who have advised me.
ReplyDeleteThe closest we can think of was immediately after the New Zealand earthquake of 2011. Huge amounts of ground water migrated to the surface due to a combination of what is called 'liquefaction' which is water from shallow aquifers and water from artesian layers which had been blocked or made discontinuous. All of this water made caused enormous damage.
When the soil is sand or sand and gravel, this can result in an immediate collapse of a structure but when the soil is clay, as it is in the school in Aberdeen, the collapse can be delayed for several months or years and they were still demolishing and rebuilding roads and buildings due to delayed subsidence many years after the initial earthquake.
So, what is happening at this school in Aberdeen may well be a first in terms of world engineering and no-one can think of another comparable example. Sadly, it is not a first than any UK professional can be complacent about. It has been reported and it has been in the Press and so it must be independently checked and I understand that engineer H's colleagues are checking it now.
It is perhaps stating the obvious to say that if engineer H has been wrong for all of this time and I have been right (and I have been supported by many other world experts don't forget) then that will be seen as an exemplar failure of whistle-blowing laws in Scotland. Would this happen anywhere else in the world? In my experience it would not or, if it did, then people would be facing jail sentences for it.
As you can imagine, I am becoming more and more irritated that I have lost-out on so much over the years whilst engineer H, civil-servant H and the Professor of Law carry-on as if they are innocent of any wrongdoing. However, we should have a response from engineer h's colleague by now. The Americans that looked at it five years ago were able to respond almost instantly.
So, we appear to have what is a world first in engineering.
One point I would make about the New Zealand earthquake was that most of the fatalities were caused when a modern building, the Canterbury Television studios, suddenly collapsed. That resulted in the deaths of 115No people and its collapse was investigated by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
ReplyDeleteThey found that the building collapsed due to a design error and they reported their findings to the New Zealand government who acted upon them instantly and implemented all of the recommendations in the American Society of Civil Engineers Report.
The American Society of Civil Engineers have also given their opinions and recommendations on the school in Aberdeen and these opinions and recommendations were passed to the Scottish Government in 2017. Just like the Canterbury Television building, they have identified a design error and they all recommended that it be fixed very, very quickly. Most said that it could be fixed, but not everyone said that and several were more pessimistic.
The way Holyrood works is that you can only ask your MSP and they either help you or they don't help you and if they don't help you then nothing gets done. I have been asking my MSP why these opinions and recommendations have been ignored since 2017 and all she ever says is: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you".
Is that answer good enough? It is obviously not good enough but in Scotland, that is all you get. It sounds hard to believe that we maintain a government that is this systemically dysfunctional, but that is what works nowadays for all at Holyrood and all of the other public bodies in Scotland.
Anyway, the action for now is with engineer H, civil-servant H and the Professor of Law and I would be expecting answers from all three of them, now.
The NHS is still here, but it's a third-rate system.
ReplyDeleteMost of our recently graduated doctors, it would seem, immigrate as soon as they can.
Our lawyers are third-rate, too. In fact, calling them third-rate is the nearest they will get to a compliment all year.
DeleteAn update on the sinking school: An "Extended Check" was carried-out this week . It was carried-out by another engineer, from another office, within engineer H's firm.
ReplyDeleteBasically, engineer H's company are the "Approved Certifiers" of the building and so only they can carry-out this check. I expect that is finished now and the results are known. (Believe it or not, I asked for this to be done in 2014 and it's only being done now - what does that tell you?)
Basically, we want to find-out whether I am right, or engineer H is right. If I am right, than that vindicates me and I can get-on with the rest of my life and I can leave it to engineer H and the Contractor to fix the school from here.
We already have half a dozen or more lawyers involved in this case, but I'll give you the legal position, as I understand it, and this is from Scottish Building Standards: "Failure by Approved Certifiers" to fulfil their legal obligations will potentially lead to loss of registration and criminal prosecution in instances of reckless certification".
So, as you can see, we are at the pivotal moment just now.
As I have said many, many times now, this has occurred due to a mistake by the Contractor which I reported at the time. Instead of investigating that mistake, everyone has covered it up and the public reaction to that will I expect be entirely negative.
As you can imagine, Jackie Baillie's the parliamentarian that everyone wants to speak to just now, but she is not responding.
This, I suppose, can only go-on for so-long, can't it? Whether this ends-up in the Press or not is anyone's guess at the moment. I will leave it to the EIS to deal with the Press on the matter of the school. On the Scottish Government's treatment of whistle-blowers though, that is something I would be prepared to go to the Press about.
Sadly, it looks to me as though it will be the Scottish Government that pays for everything. Perhaps that is why they have been so quiet. Am I not due an apology?
George - Protect asked Jackie Baillie to request that we are copied with the Extended Check and they did that on Monday and they repeated the request again, yesterday.
ReplyDeleteProtect exist to protect whistle-blowers and, ergo, the public. As you can imagine, their instincts have been developed after having dealt with numerous cases like this one in the past.
The "pressure point" is the Extended Check and the action is with Jackie Baillie. No-one else can do this for her and so I imagine that many are now waiting for this report.
I understand that the External Check is now complete. As set-out in "Professional and Legal Obligations" it is for engineer H's firm to report these findings to the Scottish Government Ministers and I presume that has already been done.
ReplyDeleteThe Ministers involved have been Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Shirley-Ann Somerville.
If it turns out that I have been correct, and that seems almost inevitable now, the corollary of that will be that the building has been "Recklessly Certified" since 2015 and responsibility for that will lie with engineer H and his employer.
I still haven't heard anything from Jackie Baillie. What she has been concerned about to date is that this would reflect badly on Aberdeen City Council, which is a Labour Council. But, according to "Professional and Legal Obligations" noted above, responsibility for this lies squarely with engineer H, his employer and with the Scottish Government.
Does this example not show just how ill-informed the lawyers have been? Not only Scottish lawyers, but engineer H's lawyer has had a go at this too as she was just as ill-informed. When a member of the public has to explain to all of the parties involved what their responsibilities are in terms of criminal law, surely we should be asking the Professor of Law why this has come about right under his nose?
God knows how all at Holyrood are going to explain this.
Is this an even worse reflection on Holyrood and our parliamentarians than the Shirley MacKie case? I think it's a lot worse.
The rules are all explained here: https://www.ser-ltd.com/ser-scotland/resources/guidance-notes/responsibilities-and-liabilities
ReplyDeleteIt is only a couple of pages long and it is worth reading all of it if you have the time. The most relevant sections are near the end:
1. Every building must be designed and constructed in such a way that the loadings that act on it, taking into account the nature of the ground, will not lead to :
a) Collapse of whole or part of the building.
b) Deformations which would make the building unsafe for its intended use.
2. It is unlikely that a court would take the view that a design certificate provided by an Approved Certifier, absolves the designer from responsibility to design a safe building.
So, as I have been saying for months, going-on years, it is engineer H and ergo his employer who are responsible for this. He is the Approved Certifier and if he has issued a certificate "recklessly", then he has problems.
By the way, you will notice that the guidance notes refer to "PI Insurance", which is Professional Indemnity Insurance. That's the way it should work and the public should be at no risk. Sadly, it was John Swinney himself that intervened and cut across what I and the experts from the ASCE were advising at the time and when a Gov Minister does that, PI Insurance will walk away and never come back, as you can imagine.
Engineer H's employers will be working 24-7 to find a solution as they will not sit back and accept the prospect of facing criminal investigation in the event of an accident which, don't forget, a few journalists who know nothing of engineering, warned would occur several years ago.
So, that's everything sorted-out for everyone. I'm sure that, at this stage, all the public will be interested in is when this building will be fixed? My guess is the bull-shitting is now over?
It looks as if we're at the end now, George. I'm just waiting on an outcome now that gets me paid and back to work. I will of course keep you informed of that.
ReplyDeleteI would like to get my Emails back. That's been a 6-week fishing trip by the Scottish Government and they have not uncovered anything which is remotely compromising.
"Stop the world...Scotland wants to get off". Wouldn't it be nice to see the Professor of Law lead this to an outcome from here?
It's been an exemplar case on how Scotland treats it's whistle-blowers, hasn't it.
Things appear to be moving relatively quickly now, George and so I will update you:
ReplyDeleteI understand the Contractor engaged with an American engineer and received advice from him some time ago. This chap is not a member of the ASCE, but his opinion can be reviewed against the opinions of expert members of the ASCE that I referred to earlier today.
The only two people IN AUTHORITY of course are 'engineer H' and the 'Professor of Law' and both have been paid by the Scottish Government and are under Contract and so they have a duty to investigate this, to communicate with all of the parties that are involved and to get this right.
I suspect that both are in trouble at the moment but we will know if that is, or is not the case soon enough.
It looks as if the engineering profession in Scotland may be in the same putrid mess that the legal profession is in, doesn't it.
What's the present position?
ReplyDeleteThe lawyer at Protect has written to Jackie Baillie MSP and has asked her to send a letter to engineer H asking him to confirm that the 'as-built' design has been checked and is compliant and therefore safe. As you know, I and many other engineers believe that it is not safe.
That letter was sent to Jackie Baillie last Monday 20th February and was sent to her again on Thursday and so we should be at the point of expecting a response from engineer H.
If he fails to answer the question and disclose the truth, that will most likely put him in breach of criminal law. I have sent him the opinions and recommendations of the ASCE members many times already and so he is aware of the exceptional calibre of engineer he is up against.
When engineer H responds to Jackie Baillie, she will inform Protect and they will get straight back to me without delay.
That should happen before the end of this week and at that point my involvement will be at an end and I will be expecting my costs for the past 9-years to be paid by the Scottish Government.
I will keep you regularly informed via this web-page.
I was reading the whistle-blower's revelations in the "Lockdown Files" which were released to the Daily Telegraph yesterday. 100,000 WhatsApp messages were sent by Matt Hancock over the period of lockdown and that puts the 1,000 Email messages sent by myself over the course of the past 9-years into some perspective, doesn't it.
ReplyDeleteAs you can imagine, there has been plenty of comment on this over the past few hours. One of the more measured comments that I read was the following: "She (the whistle-blower) is doing her job, that's all. There are those with power who want to keep their mistakes private, and those whose job it is to expose those mistakes to the public, and she is one of those people who are duty bound by professional ethics to release the information."
I have explained the duty of "professional ethics" many, many times over the years haven't I. Basically, Matt Hancock has been proven to be a liar. That may be acceptable to the public in some scenarios but when lives are put needlessly at risk by it, we can see that it is definitely not acceptable.
When engineer H answers Jackie Baillie's letter and Jackie Baillie responds to Protect and Protect responds to me, we will find-out what the duty of "professional ethics" means to this chap and to his employer.
I suspect that my work and that of the experts of the American Society of Civil Engineers is so thorough, honest, professional and therefore so damning of the lack of honesty shown by him and his employer to date that we may move almost instantaneously from "professional ethics" to "criminal law".
We shall soon know.
While we're waiting, the following is from The Daily Telegraph whistle-blower:
ReplyDelete"Already, the inquiry is mired in a secrecy row, as lawyers busy themselves redacting civil servants’ names from thousands of documents. By the time all those being paid vast sums of taxpayers’ money to protect reputations have finished, it is hard not to imagine the whole thing may become a colossal whitewash."
She understands the way it works. Now imagine what it's like in Scotland when you are up against Emeritus Professors of Law - two of them in my case. How much do you think they have been paid over the years and what have they done?
The essential thing for any whistle-blower to do is to report the situation straight away and it is for that reason that protections should be provided and are provided elsewhere in the UK. Sadly, these protections do not exist in Scotland.
ReplyDeleteI reported this straight away and told everyone that what the contractor was doing was never going to work. The engineering was wrong, so wrong in fact that it couldn't possibly work and it would inevitable end in the school sinking into mud.
When the complaint is about incorrect foundations then it stands to reason that an investigation should take place straight away, while the foundations are under construction.
That was never done. If, at this stage, the building can be fixed, and that is far from certain, then it will cost a great deal of public money.
Approaching year 9, the nearest we have to a check is one which was done, reluctantly, by engineer H late last summer. Engineer H's lawyer refers to the same check and both of their letters to Jackie Baillie give the impression that the building is safe. Therefore, the way the law looks at it is that they are personally satisfied that it is safe. Hence, if a failure occurs, engineer H could be found in breach of criminal law.
I suspect the school has started to sink already. It may not have been noticed yet but the amount by which the surrounding land is sinking is likely to be having an effect on the building at this stage.
Also, I presume that wiser heads within engineer H's firm have realized that he will be held personally responsible for any building failure, whether or not it results in fatalities. That's the way the best known precedent cases have turned-out in the past and it has always been my belief that this case will turn-out that way too.
Jackie Baillie has therefore written to engineer H and asked him specifically if the as-built design adopted by the contractor and explained to him by myself and members of the ASCE is safe, or unsafe.
That is specifically what we are currently waiting for and I expect him to say it is unsafe.
His response is due any day now. In many engineering environments, when an inquiry is considered as 'safety critical', a response is expected within 24-hours. Engineer H has kept us all waiting for 2-weeks and I do not know what to make of that and I say that simply because I have never before come across this attitude to public safety, which many would call a delinquent attitude.
He's fortunate that I have persevered for as long as I have. Otherwise, who knows how this would have ended.
"So farewell John Swinney, a very deeply religious man. So, deep that it was buried under a bushel."
ReplyDeleteEngineer H should be replying to Jackie Baillie on Monday. That means that all decisions have to be made today so that letters can be written, reviewed and agreed so that the letter arrives in front of Jackie Baillie on Monday.
ReplyDeleteJackie will send the letter to the whistle-blowing organization Protect and they will forward it to me.
John Swinney resigned yesterday and so that removes the roadblock we have all been working around for the past number of years. Dare I say it, the dead-hand of John Swinney has been removed at last.
Incidentally, engineer H is from a firm of engineers that have been in existence for 50 years or so. In that time they have grown to be one of the most recognized names in world engineering. I Believe it was founded by three engineers, one of whom was a Scotsman.
I'm sure that he would be as angry as I am that 50 years later his engineering firm would be using lawyers to threaten a whistle-blower with bankruptcy.
All I will say is that engineer H had better be right and the whistle-blower had better be wrong. So, it's an important few days ahead for his firm.
If the whistle-blower has been right and engineer H has been wrong, then I think there may soon be a procession of others following in the footsteps of John Swinney.
At the stage we are at now, all that I am interested in is an outcome for myself. The EIS Teaching Union will presumably take up the case of the sinking school from here?
As I understand it George, it wasn't resolved to an outcome yesterday and so it goes-on into the weekend.
ReplyDeleteI have to repeat everything twenty-times before the Scottish legal profession and Scottish parliamentarians join the dots, so to speak, and so I will repeat this one last time:
At the end of the Iraq Inquiry and when he had retired from public life and could speak freely, Alastair Campbell, Head of Communications for Tony Blair, said of dealing with whistle-blowers:
There are 4-stages to dealing with them -
Stage 1; you deny everything they say.
Stage 2; you deny it again.
Stage 3; you seek to discredit the whistle-blower.
Stage 4; you say it was a misunderstanding and you apologise.
If you cast your mind back, there were always three people 'with authority' to resolve this case:
1. Civil-servant H
2. Engineer H
3. Emeritus Professor of Law
Civil-servant H was employed by Aberdeen City Council and was a wee woman of moderate ability who was nevertheless in charge of everything and made a right mess of it. She is now employed by the Scottish Government. If there is one thing that we can all agree on, it is perhaps that she should be left out of it from now on?
That leaves engineer H and the Emeritus Professor of Law.
Can I suggest they both agree what needs to be done to fix the school, they both get their apologies issued and they are both encouraged to that that NOW.
It is for the EIS to take this from here, but I would suggest the allocation of responsibilities should be as follows:
ReplyDeleteEngineer H:
1. Can the school be fixed?
2. How can it be fixed?
3. Provide a Risk Assessment to establish that it is safe to use in the meantime.
Emeritus Professor of Law:
1. Who pays?
2. Who has design liability now?
3. Why was this not investigated in 2014?
As far as my financial settlement and future job are concerned, that is for Jackie Baillie MSP to agree with the Scottish Government and that position was explained by the UK's most senior whistle-blowing lawyer. The analogous case is the Shirley McKie case which was agreed by Mike Russell MSP.
I learned earlier today that when your Emails are removed, you are locked-out of your account and it is impossible to re-gain access to your account, that can only be done by Police Scotland. So, Scotland's treatment of whistle-blowers is consistent and the same harassment seems to me to apply right across the board.
This case gets more and more putrid as the days go by, doesn't it.
As I said last week, I am expecting a letter from Jackie Baillie on Monday.
I've been keeping an eye on the Daily Telegraph's coverage of the 'Lockdown Files' this week. I've been interested in the treatment of the whistle-blower.
ReplyDeleteShe was a journalist who signed a non-disclosure agreement but went ahead to make the public disclosure to The Daily Telegraph on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so and she should be protected.
That was my rationale too when I made my disclosure in 2014. It didn't work for me and so would it work for her? The answer to that question is 'yes' it has worked for her and I notice that there have been no legal threats made against her.
I am therefore wondering why this discrepancy exists, between the treatment of whistle-blowers in Scotland and England? This is really a question that should be answered by all at Holyrood, isn't it.
Anyway, Sturgeon is gone, Swinney is gone and Ian Livingstone is gone too and so it is probably right to ask both engineer H and the Professor of Law if legal threats of the type which have been issued to me would be issued in England, or the US, or Germany for example?
If the answer to that question is 'no'. Then why are you both issuing them and am I not due an apology? This is a question of course that should be asked of and answered by the 'owners' of these two companies.
So, what started as a cack-handed pile-on against a whistle-blower looks very much as though it could bring many of them down. The Lockdown Files have been trying to make the point that decisions made by parliamentarians and civil-servants ended-up putting lives at risk. It is far easier to make that case here, isn't it.
We'll see what tomorrow brings George, but it looks as though I have been entirely correct from day-one.
ReplyDeleteIt's time for Jackie Baillie to come down on the right side of this. If Mike Russell can do it, then Jackie Baillie can do it too.
I was asked earlier what the makes the Professor of Law such a key figure just now. Well, his law firm wrote the Design and Build Contract and have been administering it since it was signed, early in 2014.
ReplyDeleteHis job is to communicate regularly with all of the parties that are involved and make sure that they are complying with the law.
When I told his law firm that a mistake had been made during construction and that, as a consequence, Design Standards were no longer being complied with, that meant that the Contractor and engineer H were breaking the law.
I asked them to get it checked by an expert because I wasn't certain that I was correct, but they didn't do that. I paid them and it was the only thing I asked them to do, but they didn't do anything.
Hence, what could have been fixed relatively easily at the Contractor's cost in 2014, may not be able to be fixed 9-years later. If it can be fixed, it will be very expensive and it will have to be paid for at public cost.
So, in the event of a collapse, it may be engineer H that will be held responsible but at the stage we are at now, it may be the Professor of Law that will be held responsible. Why? - because he stands likely to be accused of failing to ensure that all of the parties that are involved communicated with each other and complied with the terms of his Contract.
Anyway, back to Jackie Baillie and everything depends on her now. I was reminded earlier that Mike Russell only needed the opinions of two American experts to solve the Shirley McKie case. Jackie has the opinions of forty-four American experts. So, there doesn't appear to be much of a problem, does there.
The cost of a new school of this size and design is approximately £18m and the risks to pupil safety, if they do nothing, have no doubt already been explained to the Professor of Law by engineer H. The design for fixing the school will be provided by engineer H and the decision as to whether that work should be carried-out and when it should be carried-out, lies I would presume with Shirley-Anne Somerville.
I think she should get-on and make that decision on Monday so that we can all get on with the rest of our lives.
I thought you might appreciate this opinion....from the Daily Telegraph 'Lockdown Files'. This chap sounds just like you; could it be your wee brother?:
ReplyDelete"Hancock should have never been allowed anywhere near the position he reached. I believe he should now be behind bars, along with others.
“Getting a vaccine in that timescale is fraught with issues” I think is a rather diplomatic statement given the number of yellow card issues (more than all other vaccines- real vaccines- combined) and the surge of all cause mortality since April last year.
I pray the country learns from the terrible mistakes it made".
One thing that surprises me about this case is that anyone could expect me not to disclose the expert information I have been given.
ReplyDeleteHow could burying this information be excused?
I suspect that some have considered the prospect that criminal negligence charges could be brought against them and that's even without an accident occurring.
I contacted Jackie Baillie's office this morning and made the following points:
ReplyDelete1. This is the third longest lasting whistle-blowing case in UK history. The information has remained the same for each of the past 9-years and it appears to me to be a failure attributable to MSP's.
2. Responsibility for bringing it to a conclusion rests with Jackie Baillie and engineer H. I cannot do anything more and neither can any lawyer or civil-servant.
3. Protect are the experts and have offered to help, but they can only do that if Jackie Baillie engages.
4. If I and the others have been mistaken, then that can be established today and there is no reason to wait for weeks and months on engineer H. He's employed under Contract and that allows him to be instructed to answer any question put to him, instantly.
I am expecting a response from Jackie Baillie today. I haven't heard anything from her since early December and, as you can imagine, that is a problem. Whistle-blowing doesn't work for anyone when that happens.
It is increasingly likely that this will end-up back in the Press and they will ask engineer H for his design check. That's all that is required at this juncture and, as I allude to above, issuing it is routine and is required under the Contract.
ReplyDeleteAll of the interested parties understand that he has checked and approved the changed design and the two letters issued by engineer H and his lawyer give the reader that impression.
If engineer H and his lawyer have lied and have therefore misled
the public then this company will be in the biggest trouble they have ever been in.
I have referred to the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse about twenty times over the years and engineer H will be in an exactly analogous position to Jack Gillum; the only difference being this building hasn't collapsed yet.
I have known for years that this was going to happen. Secrecy in engineering only leads to needless disasters like this one.
I'm still waiting on Jackie Baillie and I presume that she's still waiting on engineer H. I've asked to be called tomorrow and for her letter, attaching engineer H's design check, to be sent to Protect tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteThe way it stands just now is that the school building may have been 'Recklessly Certified' in 2015 and that can lead to criminal prosecution and I understand that everyone is aware of that?
So, what Jackie Baillie and I are waiting for from engineer H and his lawyer is confirmation that this in not the case.
It is incredibly disappointing that this type of information cannot be provided quickly, isn't it. Most of the experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers did the calculation in their head, within seconds, and so it is not complex.
I just had a call from Jackie Baillie's office to say that she hasn't sent the letter to engineer H, yet.
ReplyDeleteThe letter was written for her a fortnight ago by the UK's foremost whistle-blowing lawyer, but she cannot send the letter, it has to be sent by Jackie. She sent a reminder a week ago and Jackie still hasn't sent it. Truly, words fail me.
This is why this case, which could have been resolved in less than 8-weeks, has carried-on for years. Everything takes multiple iterations and Jackie Baillie's constant default position is to do nothing.
I explained that I am a professional engineer who has been unemployed for the best part of 9-years due to this case. I am receiving help from Protect, but I am not receiving any help from my MSP and that is not acceptable.
I am expecting another call tomorrow but, as I say, I am astounded by this lack of honesty and lack of accountability and care.
This case has time-lapsed from a legal perspective and so no lawyer can progress it from here. That has been explained to Jackie Baillie many, many times since 2016. I was made to wait by the Professor of Law because he was certain that I was wrong. When the building was finished, it began to sink almost instantly but by that time he was able to say to me: "You're time lapsed and so there is no more that I can do for you".
ReplyDeleteIt is therefore in the hands of Jackie Baillie and no-one else can solve this. Jackie should be calling me today.
.All that she has been asked to do is to send a letter, which has been written by Protect, to engineer H who is the engineer with design authority for the project and so the only engineer with authority to provide a definitive answer. Many othes have answered as you know, but only he can provide the authoratative answer that everyone is waiting for.
The letter asks: "Provide your design review, including calculations, that demonstrates that the ground is stable enough to support the weight of the building. These calculations to recognize that the confined artesian layers have been blocked up to a depth of 5m below ground level."
Once Jackie Baillie asks that question of engineer H, we will have an immediate answer. The building can either be fixed, or it cannot be fixed. The experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers had split opinions on this; some said it couldn't be fixed, but many said that it could be fixed. That decision is for engineer H and it will be a very, very difficult decision.
So, we're all waiting on Jackie Baillie.
By the way, I made the point yesterday that these cases should be resolved for the whistle-blower in 1-8 weeks and this case has gone-on for almost 9-years. It would be prudent for Jackie just to do as suggested by Protect and ask the question, otherwise she may be seen as the primary cause of this delay.
I don't suppose that many will be following the Lockdown Files in the Daily Telegraph, but they were handed 100,000 WhatsApp messages to and from Matt Hancock which explained his handling of the Covid crisis.
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Telegraph has a Lockdown Files Team of investigative journalists going through all of these 100,000 messages and they demonstrate an attitude to the public which is shocking.
No-one cares any longer about the official Inquiry because they know it will work within terms of reference and the identities of many will be redacted. Not so in the Daily Telegraph and the readers can read it all and make up their own minds.
Normally, the whistle-blower would have been sent a cease and desist letter by now and threatened with bankruptcy, as has happened to me, but the Daily Telegraph have their own lawyers and they are satisfied that the public interest grounds that they are publishing this data under are strong.
I called Jackie Baillie's office 5-minutes ago. They weren't going to call me and so I called them. She is not prepared to send the letter to engineer H. She didn't provide a reason. So that's where we are currently. The stasis continues - no reason given - it just continues. This, as I have suspected all along - is the roadblock.
ReplyDeleteIt has been explained to Jackie by Protect that she can question engineer H. I cannot do it because they have sent me a cease and desist letter, but she can question him and I think the public expectation would be that she would question him.
If there are enough vested interests, all they need do is refuse to communicate. Most of them will get away with this on the basis that they will say: "Not me...I'm not an engineer...I know nothing". However, there is one roadblock and if you identify that, then that is the party that will be held primarily responsible.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I do not know whether Jackie Baillie is right to refuse or not. I suspect though that she is not right and so if she is following advice which is the opposite of that given to her by Protect, she ought to be sure that that advice is correct.
I was just checking there and Protect are accepted as the experts in whistle-blowing law across all jurisdictions in the UK, including Scotland.
ReplyDeleteI presume that Jackie is being advised not to contact engineer H by the Professor of Law; Jackie assumes, like we all would I suppose, that he is the expert. However, it is Protect that are the experts.
I believe that I am stating the obvious here, but isn't it clear that this design has been checked many, many times, and has been found to be unstable? That appears obvious to me anyway.
That means that what we have going-on just now is a cover-up. Essentially it has been covered-up by the Professor of Law; that's the way I see it anyway.
So, we appear to have got there in the end. We've had to do it ourselves and we have not had much assistance, have we.
I don't know if you supported lockdown or not, but the following is from Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News:
ReplyDelete"Alex Thomson
42 MIN AGO
The Lockdown Files have revealed several truths:
(i) the conduct of ministers during the lockdown period was not remotely scientific, was, at times, cult-like or frenzied and lacked any sense of proportion or ethical integrity;
(ii) Matt Hancock is personally culpable for inflicting crimes against humanity on the British people, but also that he was very far from alone; and
(iii) even now almost all Tory MPs, almost the entire opposition and the vast, vast majority of the British media is wilfully blind to/ determined to suppress the authoritarian shambles and downright wickedness that they abetted or cheered on.
Shame on anyone and everyone who shrugs at these revelations and still clings to support of lockdown."
I watched the leaders' debate last night. I'm one of these people that sees Holyrood as being on its last legs and I was interested to know what the new FM would be like as I wasn't a great fan of the old one.
ReplyDeleteI thought the problem with Yousaf is that he comes across as condescending, in the same way that Thatcher was condescending. It's not a word that's used often in Scotland because very few of us are condescending, but he is.
He will be like Sarwar (and this comment has nothing to do with race or religion), some people will vote for him and these are the hard-liners that will vote for their party regardless. But, as far as attracting new voters that haven't voted SNP before, I would forget all about that.
Forbes talked repeatedly about growing business, but that's all she said and she didn't explain how you do that. I remember she was wanting to give the latest ferry order, which has gone to Turkey, to Fergusons. That tells me she doesn't understand anything about business or growing the economy.
Regan came across best for me. Less of a bull-shitter than the others but I would worry about the future of Holyrood because for me it is nuisance value and has been for years now. It might improve slightly, but it is inevitably going to run-out of money soon and then there will be an audit and then it will close.
I wonder what the folks at Holyrood think. I might not be too far away from the public opinion, but what do the folks that work there think, I wonder. Are they even trying these days?
In conclusion to this - if we go back to the Hyatt case for the twenty-first time, that was investigated by a Professor of Law and his presentation was what we would expect from a Professor of Law.
ReplyDeleteI know you have experience of Scottish Professors of Law and so too do I.
The difference is that Scottish Professors of Law realize that what civil-servants and parliamentarians, and even in this case engineers, do is sometimes not right and is sometimes unlawful.
Their function is to enable that and if a whistle-blower points out that it's not right, they seek to intimidate the whistle-blower.
Would that be fair?
I have mentioned the Shirley McKie case a few times now. She had been fighting that case on her own for 9 or 10-years before Holyrood came into existence. If you remember, Holyrood's place in Scottish life would be 'to solve Scottish problems for Scots inside Scotland.' Who could disagree with that.
ReplyDeleteShirley McKie's constituency MSP was Mike Russell and he solved the case for her in a very short space of time. It was one of the first times that Holyrood had truly been used for its proper purpose. How often did Mike Russell engage with Shirley McKie and others on her behalf during that time? Who knows, but I would reckon once or twice a week perhaps.
Move the clock forward twenty years and my MSP is Jackie Baillie who has been leading this case for 7-years now. How often has she engaged with me during that time? I have had one meeting and one phone call. She has done more than that and I do not wish to be unfair to her, but it has all been half-hearted. For example, the last I heard anything from her was at the start of December when she said that she was busy on GRR but would contact me early in the New Year. She still hasn't contacted me.
This case is similar to Shirley McKie's case in that McKie was accused on the basis of bogus information produced by Scottish public bodies. That information was identified as bogus and was dismissed by American experts. Exactly the same scenario applies in my case.
Protect have advised Jackie numerous times that she is in charge; not me, not them and not any lawyer and that is the way whistle-blowing works in the UK.
I used to work away busily getting opinions from worldwide expert engineers and I would send them to Jackie and she would respond by Email saying: "No-one here agrees with you", and that would be it. It was as if I was presenting my homework to the teacher and she was saying all the time: "This isn't good enough".
I understand that the opinions that I presented in 2017 are in fact good enough. I knew that at the time and so did Protect. So, the prima facie position is that the school is unsafe and I recollect Protect saying that 4 or 5 months ago.
I understand also that engineer H is now blaming the Contractor.
So, responsibility for fixing the school, for it being wrong in the first place and for it never to have been properly investigated is a matter for ministers at the Scottish Government to resolve from here.
Sadly, my case can only be resolved by Jackie Baillie - just as Shirley McKie's case could only be solved by Mike Russell. So, that's all that I am waiting on now.
Responsibility for failing to assist and support me properly over the years falls to Jackie Baillie. No-one would say that Mike Russell is Holyrood's hardest working constituency MSP, but he did enough and he made it work. Jackie though, has left me to fight this case by myself against odds which were just as onerous as the odds which were stacked against Shirley McKie. Not good enough, is it.
I spoke to Protect's lawyer half an hour ago. That office is full of lawyers and she is the Head lawyer.
ReplyDeleteShe has written to Jackie twice and Jackie hasn't responded and she is astounded by that.
That organization deal with many employers, from delinquent employers to very good employers and she was expecting a Holyrood parliamentarian to respond.
So, it's going back to the Press. I have sent a short summary of two paragraphs to Protect and they will review it and if they agree with it, they will contact the Press.
As I say, Protect are lawyers and not engineers and the way they look at this case is the same way they would look at a medical negligence case and that is to weight my evidence against engineer H's evidence. It therefore couldn't be simpler.
Another thing she is astounded about is that I have been left unemployed for the best part of 9-years. She is trying to do something about that and my MSP isn't.
Another part of the story that Protect wanted to be clear about was how this became a whistle-blowing case in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI told them that I had complained to the Contractor that work that had been carried-out was wrong and would cause the land to flood and to sink. The corollary of that is the building will sink too.
I was sacked for saying that, and for saying that it needed to be fixed.
Under these circumstances, you must step forward as a whistle-blower. What you say should be protected and you should be protected.
With a reasonable amount of assistance from my MSP, their opinion, based upon the evidence presented, is that this case should have been wound-up and I returned to work in less than 8-weeks.
That explains my great disappointment with Jackie Baillie just now.
They really need to grasp the concept of whistle-blowing, don't they. When I say 'they', what I mean is the Scottish legal profession and the Scottish Government. Both appear to be so closely aligned nowadays that there is really no excuse for this.
Use it properly and whistleblowing works for everyone. Fail to engage and it risks ending up in the Press and it's going to be very difficult to come up with an plausible explanation. You can hardly call this a misunderstanding can you......after 1,000 warnings were issued?
George - I'm not for or against any political party, but one of the folk that write in these pages is a lapsed Labour Party man and he now dislikes them pretty strongly by the sounds of him and accuses then of looking after themselves and no-one else. I hope he's keeping an eye on this case because this is the best example he will ever find.
ReplyDeleteTHE DIFFERENCE:
ReplyDeleteHead of Protect: "This is what we will do to sort this out now; this is what I will do and this is what I want you to do...."
Jackie Baillie's secretary: "Jackie hasn't sent the letter, she hasn't explained why, so you keep saying...."
So, as I said some time ago, this is Protect's third longest running case in the thirty-years they have been in existence, for a reason. Never underestimate the determination of those at Holyrood to cover things up.
I remember mentioning a few weeks ago that my Email had been disconnected and all historical Email records, including those relating to this school, have gone.
ReplyDeleteSince then, I have been using my wife's Email. She's a school teacher and has nothing to do with this at-all.
Never underestimate the determination of those at Holyrood to cover things up.
I meant to say above - my wife's Email has just been disconnected.
ReplyDelete"Previous stories were written on the basis that it was my opinion versus the opinions of an increasing number of Visual Inspection Reports and I was never going to win that argument.
ReplyDeleteAny future story can be writtenon the basis that it is my opinion, which is supported by more than 40No expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Aand I will win that argument.
So, it's an entirely different story this time and it cannot5 be left to me to prove that they are wrong, they will have to prove that I am wrong and they will come under pressure to do that quickly. (I wish them the best of luck with that)"
I'm neither here nor there about the SNP, Labour Party or anyone else at Holyrood to be honest. What has fascinated me over the years is, although Nicola Sturgeon set-herself us as some kind of Holywood celebrity, how does she manage to carry that off when an increasing proportion of her party don't even like her that much? The answer to that question is probably that it was coming to an end quicker than anyone thought. Could you foresee Nicola Sturgeon appearing in front of large numbers of the general public again, because I cannot? She would be comfortable enough at book festivals and all the rest of it when the audience is hand-picked, but the fascination the general public had for her was disappearing fast, really precipitously, in fact faster than it ever disappeared for the Labour Party where it tended to be the Party rather than the leadership that everyone was unhappy about.
ReplyDeleteI was reading there that the SNP membership has dropped in the past 3-years from over 100,000 to 78,000, but only 54,000 are expected to vote in the leadership election. That means to you and me, the actual membership is now 54,000. That's the number that pay every year to be members - the rest - the other 24,000 are spoof members; members who have died and who's demise has not been properly recorded. Therefore, Nicola Sturgeon has almost halved the membership in 3-years. Not the kind of performance that could be hidden for much longer and there must be many in the SNP that are angry that their it has happened so quickly and has been surrounded in so much secrecy. When they took over from the Labour Party after the Westminster Expenses Scandal, this is not what the voters were expecting from the SNP.
Ironically enough, no-one votes Tory in Scotland and so people will tend to desert the SNP and move back to the Labour Party which only means the malfeasance will continue. All we will be doing is replacing SNP grifters with Labour Party grifters. So, if you don't like being governed by grifters, Scotland is increasingly not the country for you.
Incidentally, I take a look in at Wings over Scotland from time to time. I admire the work he puts into his articles and the way he presents them. Otherwise, I don't have a lot in common with him. I do know that the leadership of the SNP loathe the guy and warn all not to follow him, but that's never been the way I look at it.
ReplyDeleteI notice that Ash Regan has sent him an article and he has published it for her. The thought that any SNP leader or leadership candidate would seek the support of Wings over Scotland's followers would seem impossible to believe a few months ago, but it happened the other day.
Frankly, it wasn't a very well written article and contained a few assumptions regarding voting intentions that a 5-year old wouldn't be allowed to make. Also, some of it was hard to follow, as if it was put together by someone who didn't really have much experience at working at that level.
I suspect that she's not really ready for the job. The problem is, that could be said for the other two candidates as well. So, we might be looking at a collapsing SNP. The collapse starts in another 2-weeks when the new leader is named and it all hits the floor a year from now, or perhaps sooner than that.
I'll give you what I hope to be one of the final updates on the sinking school, George.
ReplyDeleteAs I have explained in the past, your assistance and that of Protect has been crucial over the years and without that, there is no doubt that there would have been no resolution to this. Jackie Baillie would have kept-on ignoring it and there are no other routes open to a whistle-blower and so the stasis would have continued and would inevitably have resulted in a partial collapse of the building.
She can ignore me and to a certain extent she can ignore Protect as well but sooner or later it will reach a level within Protect that Jackie cannot ignore. When that happens, Protect will treat Jackie as just another roadblock and will work around her. They have experience of this type of situation and problems don't go away just because parliamentarians ignore them. In fact, that is why Protect were set-up in the first place and they are treated with respect, UK-wide, because of that.
It looks then as if it will be going back to the Press. This will be for the third time. On the first two occasions, the Press story said that a whistle-blower has claimed that this building will subside because a mistake was made during construction. Aberdeen City Council came back on both occasions and said: 'We have had this building visually checked by engineers and they all say that it looks fine'.
Now, the Press can say: 'A whistle-blower, who has been supported by more than 40No of the world's foremost experts, has said that this building will subside'. Aberdeen City Council will then say: 'Engineer H designed this building and he says that if a collapse occurs it will not be down to him; it will be because the Contractor must have made a mistake'.
Fundamentally different, isn't it.
Fundamentally different, isn't it.
ReplyDeleteEngineer H's engineering firm are one of the largest in the world and so it would be worth examining how different world jurisdictions would handle the situation we are in now. I am assuming here that I will proven correct as that seems almost inevitable now: Five years ago I was in Riyadh and a similar situation arose; public safety wasn't at risk but financial impropriety was the problem. Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman collected 200No bent parliamentarians, civil-servants, lawyers and contractors in the middle of the night and took them to the Ritz Carlton for interrogation.
Believe me, it was a costly experience for all of them and several were moved from the Ritz Carlton, to Malaz Jail in Riyadh and are still there.
That's a very Arab way of approaching a problem and the public were all for it. Newspaper headlines heaped praise on MbS for doing it and I was working with some senior civil-servants at the time and they all supported it. The obvious problem that this example highlights for us is that if the Saudis can administer public interest justice, why can't we do it here in Scotland with all of the lawyers that are involved? Engineer H has an office in Riyadh and would he behave the way he is now behaving, in Riyadh? I suspect the answer to that is obvious.
Systems are in place in Scotland. You alert your MSP and he/she is your voice at Holyrood. That's the way it is supposed to work and used to work, but it clearly doesn't work that way now. If Holyrood doesn't work, and if MSP's don't work, what do constituents do about that?
All that you can do is go to the Press.
One question that I hope the Press ask each of them is: 'How long have you known about this and what have you done to investigate'. So, the Press story is making a very simple point.
Essentially, the building was 'recklessly certified' by engineer H in 2015 and that, as I understand it, would be a criminal offence. He has been given the opinions and advice from the 40No world experts and he is refusing to accept them and so he is very much on his own and isolated. The problem is of course, 450No school kids and their parents and teachers are waiting for him to make up his mind. Presumably, we now have enough Scottish lawyers involved that they know what to do next?
I want to be removed from this putrid example of political, legal and engineering impropriety by the end of this week and I have made that clear.
Finally, I expect that much attention will be focussed on the opinions of the experts over the coming week. I have said that there are 40No of them, but I have just checked and there are in fact 47No of them.
ReplyDeleteThe following is the shortest and the most concise. This chap has his own engineering consultancy in Canada. He reviewed the photographs, the design data, the proposed design solution and the explanation of the problem and this was his opinion:
Bruce Grayson - "You need to protect yourself from future litigation. Drainage can exacerbate settlement. Fill will settle regardless. This is just a botched building job. Someone provided a specific foundation solution, but it was ignored. If you don't want to use expert advice, don't ask for it." - 3rd October 2017.
So, there are another 46No other opinions just like this one. They were all compiled into a single document and sent to Jackie Baillie, John Swinney and all of the other parties that are involved in November 2017.
Are all of these experts wrong? What do you think?
If the experts are correct and if I am correct too, then I will leave you to work out the corollary of that for yourself.
If those who use this school every day want to read all of these comments and opinions, and I would recommend they do that, they are currently held by Aberdeen City Council. These are the most respected engineers in the world and, frankly, their opinions comfortably outweigh anything that has been issued to teachers and parents over the past 7-years.
THE DIFFERENCE:
ReplyDelete1. The opinion of an English lawyer: "There exists a prima-facie case of significant risk to public safety at this school".
2. The opinion of a Scottish lawyer: Is it different and has John Swinney and Jackie Baillie asked?
If I were in engineer H's shoes, this is the letter that I would have issued to Jackie Baillie. It's a very short letter, but it is all that is required:
ReplyDelete"Dear Ms Baillie,
Thank you for your letter attaching: "Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments" which was produced by your constituent with contributions from many expert geotechnical engineers at the American Society of Civil Engineers.
From our understanding of this information, it appears that our design has been fundamentally changed, by the Contractor, and that change was never referred back to us for analysis. Accordingly, we cannot immediately confirm whether, or not, that design change may result in latent defect.
We are aware of our legal responsibilities and take them seriously. We are also aware that under Design Standard EC7, we have a duty to carry-out a timely site inspection and design check of the amended design. We are bound under Contract to our client and so we will seek instruction from our client as to how they wish us to proceed.
Thank-you again for bringing this to our attention."
The fact that a letter like this has never been issued by engineer H will raise questions amongst all of the parties that are involved. Once these questions are answered, we will know where responsibility lies.
It sounds like "Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments", produced by Jackie Baillie's constituent and the ASCE has been the silver-bullet all along.
ReplyDelete"Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments (14)".
ReplyDeleteIt appears to be the real thing, George. It has been checked and is genuine. The opinions of the best experts in the world.
My opinion has always been that the longer it was ignored, the more of a national embarrassment this story would become.
In the Shirley McKie case, similar but much weaker information was handed-over to Jack McConnell by Mike Russell MSP straight away and, because he did that, the case was solved. This is what Holyrood is supposed to be for and the McKie case proved that it can work.
I presume that Jackie Baillie handed "Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments (14)" over to Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government straight away, in November 2017?
If the answer to that question is 'Yes', then the the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council will be asked: "What did you do to investigate this".
Just as well we persevered with this isn't it. Otherwise, this would have remained covered-up indefinitely.
Keep going, the last part of the race is always the hardest
DeleteI sent "Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments (14)" to you a couple of years ago. I don't know if you remember. Because you cannot upload documents, I cut and pasted it in sections. It went-on for about 20-pages. The consensus view was that it was a perfect balls-up and that the design was never going to work. That's what I think too.
DeleteInterestingly, the Contractor has enlisted the help of an American engineer. He isn't a member of the ASCE, let alone an expert member, but he's American, a New Yorker from New York and, as they see it anyway, that's good enough. God knows what he has told them but whatever it is, I would get it thoroughly checked by engineer H.
The only sensible solution is to get engineer H back and pay him to get it fixed. It started off as an accident. Don't let years of political and legal stasis turn it into an actual collapse.
I'll explain the way this works: To date, Jackie Baillie's response to this has been: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you". It's one of those amorphous statements which doesn't really mean anything, but Jackie saw it as an answer that I should be prepared to accept.
ReplyDeleteI haven't accepted it and I consulted with the ASCE and received many opinions from their recognized experts. These opinions confirmed that I was right and ergo that the Scottish Government/Aberdeen City Council were wrong. That was back in 2017.
What should I do with this information? I sent it to Jackie Baillie and she replied again: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you". However, it's not only me, it's me plus 47No others.
I cannot present this information personally and it has to be done by an MSP, in the same way that Mike Russell presented Shirley McKie's evidence. Hence, I have been completely dependent over the years on Jackie Baillie, just as Shirley McKie was completely dependent on Mike Russell.
As I said earlier, we now know that the ASCE opinions are genuine. So, let's assume that, at the time, Jackie had three opinions from "those that need to know" within the Scottish Government/Aberdeen City Council - the balance of opinion in my favour would be 16:1. If Jackie had six opinions from the Scottish Government/Aberdeen City Council - the balance in my favour would be 8:1 and if she had nine opinions from the Scottish Government/Aberdeen City Council - the balance in my favour would be 5:1.
Get the picture? Like everything else about this case, it is not complex and that's the way engineering works.
In order to balance the strength of my evidence, the Scottish Government would need to provide opinions from 47No named, independent engineering experts. They would find it difficult, maybe impossible, to find that number of independent engineering experts in the entire UK and, so far, they haven't provided any.
Why haven't they provided any? Protect asked Jackie on two occasions to request engineer H's proof that this design was safe and she has refused. Once that crucial data is provided, this investigation can be concluded - that's how important it is. They drafted the letter for her, advising her of exactly what to ask for, but the letter hasn't been sent. Hence, Jackie has turned herself into the roadblock that stymies all progress towards finding a solution.
The point that I have explained to Jackie is that when others can name you as being the cause of a delay in an engineering investigation, then you become responsible for that delay. It's as if she is lifting all the weight of responsibility off engineer H's shoulders and placing that weight on her own shoulders.
This is what happens when you start covering-up engineering failures. Had the Scottish Government/Aberdeen City Council investigated when they were first warned about it, they could have blamed the Contractor. Because they have covered this up, they cannot blame the Contractor and public hostility is now likely to be directed towards them instead.
2023, a packet of fags £14, only one pub left in my village, and you are banned from smoking. There used to be seven pubs here just a few years ago. They are robbing the poorest of a pleasure they formerly enjoyed, a fag and a pint. What a horrible country we live in now.
ReplyDeleteThank God I don't smoke, never did and never will.
DeleteTHE SOLUTION:
ReplyDeleteIf we go back to Alastair Campbell's, "The four stages of dealing with a Whistle-blower". For this to work, it is essential that all of the public bodies can say at this point: "It was a misunderstanding". So, for what it's worth, this is my suggested solution:
Determine that the Contractor and the Law Firm COLLUDED with each other to ensure that the whistle-blowers claims were not properly investigated and that work could continue, unchecked.
There is a lot more to it that this of course, but this was the crucial moment. It was in September/October 2014 and once that period was allowed to pass, it was too late to do anything.
This will allow engineer H to get-on and design a solution. He may elect to adopt the solution reviewed by the ASCE experts in 2017, or he may have another solution in mind; that is for him.
What's the problem with making the SNP leadership vote open to all of the contestants so that they know who it is that has voted and they know who they voted for, 1, 2 and 3. That's democracy, isn't it.
ReplyDeleteNicola Sturgeon is rattled
Deletehttps://twitter.com/Political_AlanS/status/1636359514470400001
Remember the 1970's or 80's film the Life of Brian? It was about a chap called 'Stan' who wanted to be called 'Loretta' and have babies. Is that not what we're seeing just now with the GRR. Folk back then had the intelligence to see it as funny. All at Holyrood think it is very, very serious.
Delete78,000 ballot papers have been sent-out and there are only 72,000 members. Have I got that right? How can that have happened?
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much of an effect Rishi Sunak has had on the hollowing-out of the SNP? He appears to me to be a guy who identifies a problem and works on a solution, in the same way that Phillip Hammond used to do. These politicians tend to be quiet, but effective. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove took the opposite approach. What I find surprising is that it is not the Tories or anyone else that is complaining about this process, it is the SNP members themselves. The days of them winning election after election are firmly over and everyone knows that. I imagine the Vietnam Group (or whatever they were called) will be having nightmares just now.
ReplyDeleteNothing upsets them more than losing their meal ticket
DeleteTHE SOLUTION:
ReplyDelete"Swinney does the right thing not because it’s the right thing to do but only because it’ll save his neck. Devious unscrupulous manipulative little man". Adam Tomkins MSP, March 2021.
The moment you suggest that the legal profession are complicit in this balls-up, their defences go-up to "impenetrable". Hence, everything is being blamed on the Contractor who doesn't have any expert engineering support for what he has done.
Engineer H is waiting for a call to action.
I don't know anything about this chap but he will need to be good.
The best country for this to be aired in the Press may not be here, it may be the USA.
ReplyDeleteIt means that I have a lot of work to do over the next few days. Protect cannot give me any assistance and I need to do it all myself.
"This is what happens when a whistle-blower is ignored".
Engineer H's firm have a presence in the US, the Contractor is taking advice from an American engineer at the moment and all of my advice has been from American engineers and so this may be best dealt with over there. I'll let you know how it goes, but they answer you straight away and so the stasis will end the moment they get involved.
I think Scotland needs a reminder of how democracy works.
Let me run this past you, George:
ReplyDeleteIf this story appears in the Scottish Press again, it will end with a statement from Jackie Baillie assuring everyone that she has demanded this and demanded that from Aberdeen City Council. The Council will then provide a certain amount of information, they never refuse, but the information they provide is nonsense. Jackie then disappears for another year or two: job-done as far as she's concerned and she's busy anyway. This is no use, is it? It is never going to lead us to an outcome.
So, ideally, this will end up in an engineering journal. They don't have any interest in what Aberdeen City Council thinks, or what Jackie thinks and they will carry-out an engineering analysis. Not only that, but they are conscious of the role that whistle-blowers play in engineering and so I would expect strong support from them.
It was the American Society of Civil Engineers who provided all of the opinions that I have relied-on to date. They have something like 150,000 members in 150 or 160 countries and they are one of the biggest and most respected professional bodies in the world.
In view of the fact that 40No of their members have already agreed with me, it is likely that they will agree with me too.
They will then move quickly on to the role of the whistle-blower in Scotland. Why has a whistle-blower been kept almost perpetually unemployed in Scotland for the past 9-years, when he has been 100% correct all along?
This is a more effective strategy, isn't it. That's what I have been pursuing today.
I heard two things earlier - Liz Lloyd has resigned and Humza is doing very badly. Is the house of cards collapsing, at last? It was always going to happen quickly.
ReplyDeleteHumza is stupid and lazy, which means if you take him beyond his soundbytes, he is doomed in an interview.
DeleteI remember Liz Lloyd from my time in the SNP, she has a lot to answer for.
Deletehttps://thesignalsnetwork.org/for-whistleblowers/
ReplyDeleteThis is the organization I was talking about, George. They will be expecting the same help from lawyers and parliamentarians in Scotland that they get from lawyers and parliamentarians in the USA, France, Germany and the UK.
Use anyone and everything, because you can be sure the SNP govt will.
DeleteThis problem has persisted because Jackie Baillie has failed to engage with the SNP and with Protect and so Protect advised me to contact the world body, which is The Signals Network.
DeleteBoth 'Protect' and 'The Signals Network' are bona-fide worldwide whistle-blowing organizations which have both been in existence for decades.
ReplyDeleteSo, they are respected and trusted by the world's major governments and Press organizations, for example The Washington Post and Le Monde, and if you are referred to them, they take your case seriously.
Since late last year, the situation has been: "There is a prima-facie case of significant risk to public safety at this school". This was Protect's contention after having studied all of the evidence and their Head of Advocacy and Advice passed it over to Jackie Baillie for her action. Jackie Baillie didn't respond and, I presume, has done nothing.
The case was then taken up by Protect's Head of Legal Affairs in January and she asked Jackie to insist that engineer H check the as-built design. Jackie Baillie didn't respond and so Protect's Head of Legal Affairs asked her again, and again Jackie Baillie didn't respond.
This is whistle-blowing and what I have been saying for many years now is that this school may partially collapse with 450No pupils and teachers inside. As you can imagine, I have made that point and Protect have made that point several times to Jackie Baillie and she hasn't responded. In short, Jackie Baillie doesn't respond; she doesn't engage.
No-one else can do what she is being asked to do. Lawyers cannot do it and whistle-blowers cannot do it. I am responsible for providing the evidence, and I have done that, but that evidence must be presented by a Parliamentarian. So far, I have been waiting for more than 5-years for Jackie Baillie to do that. She doesn't tell me if she has presented it, or she hasn't. All that she says is: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you".
.
Has the building been Risk Assessed during that time, to assess the risk of collapse? Yes it has. Has it been Risk Assessed by an adequately trained and qualified engineer? No it hasn't.
I mentioned some time ago that this was Protect's third longest running whistle-blowing case in their thirty year history. The reason that is the case is because Jackie Baillie refuses to engage and refuses to communicate.
How many cases have Protect referred to The Signals Network in their thirty year history? I haven't asked that question, but I presume that it is a last resort which they have to use very, very infrequently.
So, in answer to your point regarding the SNP, George: I have no preference politically one way or the other but Jackie Baillie is from the Labour Party and her attention to this case has been equally as putrid as the SNP's. I would therefore prefer not to blame all of this on the SNP.
If it shows a failure in anything, it is not a failure of the SNP's Independence project, it is more a failure of Holyrood's Devolution project.
If those inside Holyrood cannot communicate to seek common ground when it means the safety, or otherwise, of school kids in their classrooms, then Holyrood is worthless isn't it?
I have worked directly with Governments in Africa and the Middle-East and, believe me, what we have at Holyrood is the most delinquent administration I have encountered anywhere in the world.